The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Jared Taylor

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Deogolwulf has solved the mystery of why superstar Marxist academic Slavoj Žižek’s famously opaque prose suddenly became so much more lucid when Žižek summarized psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s controversial theories about Jewish influence.

Žižek simply lifted, with only minimal rewording, sizable parts of Stanley Hornbeck’s review in the June 1999 issue of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance of MacDonald’s 1998 book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

Deogolwulf observes:

The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand.

Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased.

At his With Endemanndom blog, Deogolwulf compares side by side passages from Žižek’s 2006 essay in Critical Inquiry with Hornbeck’s 1999 review in American Renaissance.

To take one example out of eight, Žižek wrote in 2006:

One of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity—but only for others. Ever since the nineteenth century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.

Hornbeck wrote in 1999:

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.

In some of the other examples, Žižek changes a few more of Hornbeck’s words, but Žižek never even bothers to recast Hornbeck’s clear prose into his own style.

I don’t see any citations by Žižek of Hornbeck, although I don’t have access to all versions of Žižek’s essay A plea for a return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua). Using Google, I don’t see any citation of Hornbeck by Žižek, or, for that matter, that anybody online before Deogolwulf this week has noted Žižek’s debt to Hornbeck and American Renaissance. (But perhaps Žižek attempted to give full credit to the true author of this text, but the citation was lost due to editorial fumbling?)

Deogolwulf offers seven additional side-by-side comparisons of passages. Read them at his blog and you can judge for yourself whether you agree with Deogolwulf’s claim that this rises to the level of “plagiarism.”

🔊 Listen RSS

[See also Jared Taylor On White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century]

In 1991, Jared Taylor published Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, a sober book that sold well by the standards of serious nonfiction. Since then, he has built American Renaissance into a successful magazine and a brand name. You might think that commercial publishers would be interested in hisimportant, just-published, follow-up White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. You would be naïve.

In the Acknowledgments to his sequel, Taylor writes:

“Finally, I would like to thank Theron Raines and Paul Zack, literary agents who tried very hard to find a publisher for this book butfailed. Mr. Raines gave up after two years, and Mr. Zack after a year and a half. I have lost count of the number of rejection letters they gathered from well-re­garded publishing houses, but can only conclude from their lack of success that this book is unfit for commercial publication in the United States.”

Taylor can take this consolation: the same happened to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose last book couldn’t find a New York City publisher either.

The picture on the cover of White Identity is that classic of German Romanticism, Caspar David Friedrich’s 1818 painting Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, in which a slender hiker looks down pensively upon a clouded landscape in a mood of Kantian introspection.

And Taylor is certainly adept at shining a spotlight throughtoday’s pervasive mental fog. As he explains in his lucidprose:

“This book is about racial identity, something most people who are not white take for granted. They come to it early, feel it strongly,and make no apologies for it.”

Taylor, who lived in Japan until he was 16, has the perspective afforded by deep immersion into a sophisticated non-Western culture,something rare among American intellectuals. In White Identity, Taylor notes,

“… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person.”( note: links added to quotes throughout).

Of course, to well-indoctrinated Politically Correct white Americans,Japan’s lack of racial problems must seem like a bug, not a feature. How do they demonstrate their moral superiority over each otherwithout minorities to use as props?

Taylor goes on:

“Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand w hat race means for others. They should also ponder theconsequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group.”

Taylor summarizes the current PC orthodoxy on how white people should think about race as follows:

“Race is an insignificant matter and not a valid criterion for any purpose—except perhaps for re­dressing wrongs done to non-whites. The races are equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable.”

The grip of this PC orthodoxy is remarkable. Before 1992, I had assumed, from having watched a lot of sports on TV and having noticed how people in Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles actually live their lives, that nobody consciously believed it—that they were just being hypocritical. But, after discovering Internet discussion groups way back in 1992, I can attest to the remarkable number of people who believe these talking points strongly enough to type them into acomputer … anonymously.

The true White Man’s Burden turns out to be his intellectual distaste for reality, his need to believe in universal principles, even (or especially) when they are conspicuously counterfactual. The more disastrous your ideals, the more pure your heart must be and the more evil your doubters.

As Taylor has seen, it’s hard for an East Asian to be similarly deluded. In China In World History, Historian S.A.M. Adshead explained that the Chinese were long ahead of the West because the practical Chinese concentrated upon technology and magic while the idealistic Europeans believed in theology and science. Over the last half millennium, the Western obsession with general principles has proven more useful than the Chinese taste for miscellaneous knowledge.

But you can have too much of a good thing. Our latest political theology is now at war with science and sense. The next half millennium is likely to go worse for whites relative to the Chinese unless we modernize our mindsets on race.

Taylor continues summarizing the current orthodoxy:

“It thus makes no difference if a neigh­borhood or nation becomes non-white or if white children marry outside their race. Whites have no valid group interests, so it isillegitimate for them to attempt to organize as whites. Given the past crimes of whites, any ex­pression of racial pride is wrong. The displacement of whites by non-whites through immigration will strengthen the United States.”

As you can see, today’s PC party line is a farrago of empirical and normative assertions, with moral panic governing what your lying eyes are allowed to notice:

“These are matters on which there is little ground for disagreement; anyone who holds differ­ing views is not merely mistaken but morally suspect.”

The reigning upper middle class white view is that everyone should always act on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

But what if others don’t obey this categorical imperative? Well, you should move somewhere “more appropriate” (i.e., more expensive). If you can’t afford to get away from large numbers of non-Asian Minorities, well, then, you’re obviously a loser.

For Jared Taylor, a man of distinguished bearing, is unusual among American intellectuals in his empathy for people at the bottom. Protesting a 2005 Supreme Court decision mandating racial integration in prison cellmate assignments even when prison officials expect diversity might cause murder or rape, Taylor asked:

“Some would say that racial violence in prisons says nothing about di­versity as a national goal because the prejudices of thedregs of society have no relevance for the rest of us. We should not be so hasty to condemn peo­ple who face challenges we can hardly imagine. Prisoners must suffer the company of strangers in acutely invasive ways … Federaljudges should search their souls before putting men’s lives at risk in the name of principles they, themselves, probably do not practice in their own lives.”[AmericanRenaissance, April 2009]

Taylor’s explanation for the existence of some degree of racial identity is particularly straightforward:

Racial identity comes naturally to all non-white groups. It comes natu­rally because it is good, normal, and healthy to feel kinship for people like oneself. … All people of the samerace are more closely re­lated genetically than they are to anyone of a different race, and this helps explain racial solidarity.”

Now, that’s a little broad. There are odd cases that crop up where self-identification is at war with genetics. For example, the President of the United States recently declared on his Census form that, in effect, he did not share any racial ties with his own half-sister Maya. Of course, as Obama’s late mother once lamented, Obama had long agomade a professional choiceto identify himself as only black. The payoff to being considered nonwhite in modern America is too good to pass up, even you have to insult many of your blood relatives in the process

Taylor continues:

“Families are close for the same reason. Parents love their children, not because they are the smartest, best-looking, most talentedchildren on earth. They love them because they are genetically close to them. They love them because they are a family. … Most people have similar feelings about race. . …Non-whites understand this. Blacks call each other ‘brother’ and ‘sis­ter.’ … Whites used to understand this. In fact, at some level they still do—their actions betray them.”

“These mystic preferences need not imply hostility towards others. Par­ents may have great affection for the children of others, but their own chil­dren come first. “

An excellent point, similar to John Quincy Adams’ 1821evocation of America’s now long-lost attitude toward foreign policy: She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Taylor argues:

“Their race is the largest extended family to which they feel an instinctive kinship.”

This deserves a little more unpacking than Taylor gives it. It’s perfectly natural to feel an instinctive kinship with any and all humans under certain circumstances. Ronald Reagan used to worry his less imaginative National Security Advisor, Colin Powell, by musing about how the Cold War would be over instantly if Earth were ever attacked by space aliens. Human kinship would far outweigh ideology if we ever needed to fight bug-eyed space monsters. Most people would feel a surge of kinship toward any human on a life raft menaced by sharks.

However, the flip side of this undermines Taylor’s political project: namely, that for many whites, group identities smaller than the Big Four races that Taylor focuses upon (white, black, Hispanic, and Asian) are more attractive outlets for identity politics.

For instance, Taylor notes:

“Columnist Maggie Gallagher has written that she thinks of herself as an American, a Catholic, and sometimes an Irish-American but adds:

‘I hate the idea of being white. . . . I never think of myself as belonging to the ‘white race.’ … I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white.’

Whereas a St. Patrick’s Day parade is exalting?

But the point is that, yes, Irish ethnocentrism is vastly more acceptable in the modern Main Stream Media climate than white ethnocentrism. Senator Ted Kennedy’s absurd but still ongoing diversity visa lottery was referred to by Congressmen as The Irish Program because Kennedy had been so frank that his main intention was to import Irishmen to vote for future Kennedys.

Of course, many whites don’t have a socially acceptable subracial identity like Irish. The huge numbers of German-Americans are discouraged from engaging in identity politics. Italian-Americans are allowed to take pride in Italian culture (cuisine, opera, Mafia movies, tanning, steroids) but they tend to be too family-oriented to politicallyorganize on a mass scale like the Irish. Founding-stock Americans, and the large number of people of mixed-nationality Catholic backgrounds in northern metropolises who vote and act like them, can’t really claima single acceptable ethnicity. Interestingly, events like NASCAR racing seem to serve as a covert ethnic pride rally—what Kevin MacDonald has called an “implicit white community”—for people who aren’t allowed to hold ethnic pride rallies.

On the other hand, lots of whites, especially the most influential and wealthy, do have politically useful ethnicities.

In his pointillist style, Taylor offers a vast array of data, both quantitative and anecdotal, to support his contention that race plays a large and inevitable role in daily life.Chapters are devoted to racial consciousness among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

Since many of his examples are drawn from my native Los Angeles, I am able to confirm their validity. For example, Taylor writes:

“In March 2005, there was a riot involving 200 to 400 Armenian and Hispanic students at Grant High School in Los Angeles. … The school’s dean, Daniel Gruenberg, explained that there had been similar eth­nic battles at least once a year for more than a decade.”

Grant H.S. is in a fairly nice part of the San Fernando Valley, just north of tony Sherman Oaks, home to numerous character actors and screenwriters. You’ve seen dozens of TV shows filmed on Grant’s campus. I’ve shot hoops at the high school’s gym on and off since the 1970s.

Is Taylor overstating how long this history of mass violence between Armenians and Mexicans has gone on at Grant?

No—he’s understating it. A 2000 article in the L.A. Times reported:

“John Salapa’s ninth-graders have been at Grant High for only two months, but they have already learned a few things. … And they know what October means: fights between Armenian Americans and Latinos …’It’s a tradition,’ one said. ‘That’s why they call it the October riots. They probably schedule it.’”[Program Seeks to Reduce Latino-Armenian Tensions at School, By Hilary E. MacGregor, October 22, 2000]

Why? The LA Times’ MacGregor continued:

“For as long as most people there can remember, tensions between Armenians andLatinos at Grant have flared in late October. The 3,300-member student body, representing 32 cultures, is one of the most diverse in the San Fernando Valley. … Onedistrict official speculated that tension between the Latino and Armenian students may have originated from disputes over relief efforts in the mid-1980s after earthquakes in Mexico and Armenia. At the time, students from each ethnic group claimed that the other received more empathy and relief …”

But that mid-1980s dispute had to have been an effect rather than a cause of racial hatred between Armenians and Mexicans, because I can recall the two groups already rioting at Grant in the mid-1970s, when I was attending Notre Dame H.S. two miles away.

This obscure history validates Taylor’s view of human nature. He points out that in the optimistic 1950s,

“Discussions about how blacks and whites were to be brought together came to be known as ‘contact theory’ … Schools werethe best setting for contact. White children, whose prejudices had not yet hardened, would mix with black children under conditions of equality and strict institutionalsupervision.”

Well, Grant H.S. offers an interesting test of contact theory, since it doesn’t involve blacks and whites, but Armenians and Mexicans. It’s hard to blame friction between Armenians and Mexicans on slavery or Jim Crow or outmoded stereotypes or white racism. Indeed, they are a lot less distinctive in looks than are blacks and whites. But they fight anyway.

The 2010 Census results show that a number of tracts north of Grant H.S. are getting whiter. The Armenians, and other ex-Soviet immigrants who follow their lead, are winning, pushing out Latinos.

A few years ago, I was walking around the Valley Glen neighborhood near Grant, amazed by the extraordinarily expensive 8-foot security fences topped with lethal finials that homeowners were erecting along the sidewalks.“How can Mexicans afford these crazy fences?” I wondered to myself. It was only on a second visit that I realized the people turning their yards into fortified bunkers were Armenians.

As far as I can tell, the maximum front-yard fence allowed in Los Angeles is 3’6″ tall, so these maximum security prison fences areillegal. But government officials don’t like to mess with Armenians because they exhibit so much racial solidarity.

This bit of history raises several questions relevant to White Identity.

For example: are Armenians white?

As a middle-aged Californian, I’d say, “Of course.” Traditionally in California, Armenians were automatically assumed to be white. When Republican George Deukmejian beat Democrat Tom Bradley in the 1982 and 1986 gubernatorial elections, the story was always summed up as: White Guy Beats Black Guy.

Lately, however, I’ve noticed Armenians referring to non-Armenians as “whites.”

Taylor leaves strategically vague the issue of who exactly would be in the white tent. If Armenians are in, what about Turks, Persians, Arabs, and Indians? What about Latin Americans who are primarily European in ancestry?

Personally, I want the biggest political tent possible forpeople like myself who don’t get special legal or culturalprivileges based on their race. I’d certainly rather haveArmenians on my side than on the other side.

Yet there are advantages to a small tent, too. Many Armenians like having an Armenia-sized tent. The main goal of Armenian-American political activism is to persuade the U.S. government to stick it to their hereditary enemies back in Asia. Thus, they really wouldn’t want to get lumped in with, say, their neighbors from the Old Country, the Turks and Azeris, even though they look much alike.

But, the more relevant question in 2011 is: why would Armenians want to be white? What’s in it for them to identify primarily as white rather than as Armenian?

It’s a lot more socially acceptable to identify as Armenian. The Armenian Caucus in Congress, for example, has 158 members, including Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson Jr., Barney Frank, and LuisGutierrez. In contrast, how many members of the House are in the White Caucus?

Hint: there is no White Caucus. As Taylor points out,

“No politician would dare examine legislation by asking what was in it for whites. No city in America has … a white caucus on the citycouncil. Across the political spectrum, Ameri­cans assert that any form of white racial consciousness or solidarity is de­spicable. … They have dismantled and condemned their own racial identity in the expectation that others will do the same.”

Imagine if the three decades of fighting at Grant H.S. if the Armenian rioters had been fighting in the name of the white race instead of the Armenian race.

Remember the Jena Six brouhaha in an obscure town in Louisiana where six black football players beat a white kid unconscious? Remember how the media went nuts over white racism?

Well, Grant H.S. isn’t on the road from Natchez to Natchitoches, like Jena, it’s in the heart of the entertainment industry. There’s a film crew there every month.

If white kids at Grant had been attacking Mexicans for three decades, and if their white parents were putting up vicious fences to impale Mexicans and send the message that Mexicans aren’t wanted in the neighborhood, it would be a national scandal.

The New York Times would editorialize about how this was all the fault of Arizona’s SB1070. Oprah would fly in to help the healing begin. Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and Hendrik Hertzberg would each suffer aneurysms while competing to see who can most furiously castigate hate. President Obama would give a thoughtful, nuanced speech about this national trauma. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would get into a shoving match trying to elbow themselves to the front of the protestmarch. The Southern Poverty Law Center would feature Grant H.S. inits next dozen fund-raising letters.

But two generations of whites at Grant haven’t been rioting in the name of whiteness, they’ve been rioting in the name of Armenianness. So it’s more or less okay. It’s not considered good, but it’s not something the MSM much worries about. It doesn’t fit The Narrative.

The Narrative? As Pulitzer Prize-winner Stephen Hunter explained in a recent novel:

“The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It’s sopowerful because it’s unconscious. It’s not like they get together every morning and decide ‘These are the lies we tell today.’ No, that would be too crude and honest. Rather,it’s a set of casual, nonrigorous assumptions about a reality they’ve never really experienced that’s arranged in such a way as to reinforce their best and most idealpresumptions about themselves and their importance to the system and the way they have chosen to live their lives.”[I, Sniper: A Bob Lee Swagger Novel, 2009 Page 183]

Main Stream Media attempts to fit Armenians into The Narrative go something like this:

They’re an immigrant group, they’re from the Middle East, and they are socially troubled (as demonstrated by their elevated crime rate). That’s good!

But—they’re white, Christian, do well in school, make lots of money, don’t cause many other local problems besides shooting each other, their immigrants’ internationalorganized crime ties are not something we want to dwell on, they’re often Republicans, and it’s hard to remember whetherArmenians’ foreign policy obsessions match up with Israel’s latest needs (which side is Turkey on these days?), which could get us in big trouble. That’s bad…

So, Armenians are complicated. They don’t fit well into The Narrative. Therefore, let’s not think about Armenians!

We’re good at not thinking about stuff! That’s our strong suit!

What are the prospects for white identity politics emerging as a self-conscious, public force in America?

I’d guess: not good.

This is not to say that white identity politics won’t continue to manifest itself de facto. We saw that, for example, with the Tea Parties and the emergence of an overwhelmingly white movement to protect Medicare in 2009.

But, white people aren’t supposed to say: we’re doing this “topromote the general welfare” of ourselves and our posterity(to quote the Constitution’s Preamble). Whites aren’t supposed to say that—and they don’t like to, either. They like to come up with some principled reason, such as: the philosophy of Ayn Rand says so.

Thus, the GOP’s bright young man, Paul Ryan, managing to totally miss the point, announced a plan privatizing Medicare. (Older heads in the House GOP are slowly walking that one back.)

Nevertheless, an explicit white identity movement is unlikely to be tolerated. It’s not so much that blacks, Asians, and Hispanics don’t want this to happen. None of these groups are really all that powerful. Blacks tend to be colorful but not too competent; East Asians competent but colorless; Latinos culturally lethargic and unenterprising.

No, the much more serious roadblock to the emergence of white identity politics: more Jews don’t want it to happen than do want it to happen.

Many Jews have strong reasons for their aversion to white identity politics, either irrational (the Cossacks are coming!) or rational (what’s in it for me?).

Perhaps Taylor can persuade enough Jews to get onboard to make white identity respectable in the MSM and thus with the media’s consumers, the public. He’s striven manfully and graciously over the years to make Jews feel welcome in his movement and many Jews have written for American Renaissance.

Recall that neoconservatism emerged in the late 1960s, largely due to Jewish shopkeepers’ fear of black crime and Jewish civil servants‘ fear of being fired by black politicians. Brilliant Jewish intellectuals like Nathan Glazer and Norman Podhoretz took their relatives’ complaintsseriously.

Still, over time, Jews mostly figured out it was simply easier to move away from blacks and get better jobs where they didn’t have to deal with many blacks. Let other whites deal with them.

Thus Commentary lost interest in complaining about quotas, andneoconservatism morphed into mostly being an Israel Fan Club.

The fundamental question for 21st Century white identitypolitics is the same as for Armenians, just two or threeorders of magnitude greater in media influence: What’s in it for Jews?

Taylor has worked out strong justifications for why a whiteidentity movement would be good for average, andparticularly good for below-average, whites. But not manyJews are below the white average.

Jews are generally praised in the press for engaging in Jewish identity politics. So why would they instead want to engage in disreputable white identity politics? What’s in it for them?

My alternative philosophy of “citizenism” proposed attacking identity politics at its most vulnerable points: Affirmative Action quota preferences for Hispanics and Asians. (See the debate between me and Jared Taylor on

Nobody can come up with a good justification for these privileges for immigrant groups. They just free-ride off the anti-white glamour of the 1960s black civil rights movement.

Indeed, there’s no good reason for the “Hispanic” category even toexist in government data. It’s not a race, it’s not an ethnicity, it’s not a linguistic group, it’s just a rent-seeking special privilege. Abolish the category! Once the data isn’t collected anymore, nobody can usegovernment it in lawsuits alleging “disparate impact”.

I did propose conceding permanent quotas for the descendants of American slaves. That’s a high cost, but one we’re likely to pay anyway.

Is my philosophy extolling solidarity among American citizens rather than among whites likely to prove more acceptable to the media gatekeepers that Taylor’s white advocacy?

Sure—in the sense that a two percent probability is twice a one percent probability. You’ll note that, after all these years, I’m still using quotes around “citizenism” because nobody knows what the word is. It hasn’t exactly swept the intellectual world.

This is a pretty depressing way to wrap up. But I do think it’s safe to say that the conventional wisdom will change when it has to change. Itprobably won’t change until it has to, but it will have to when it has to.

In other words, what historian Hugh Davis Graham called attention to in the title of his 2002 book, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America,can’t go on forever. The mounting racial ratio of nonwhite beneficiaries to white benefactors means the system will inevitably break down under the weight of numbers. At that point, whiteconsciousness could be forced into existence.

In the meantime, we can all be thankful that Jared Taylor has been thinking ahead.


[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Jared Taylor 
🔊 Listen RSS

I first came to admire Jared Taylor’s talents over 20 years ago, during the dawn of the personal computer age, when he ranked with Jerry Pournelle as the most brilliant PC journalist.

That was the last time there was anything PC about Taylor. He’s now the editor of American Renaissance, a newsletter that applies Bell Curve-type concepts to current social problems in a way that the Mainstream Media should be doing but doesn’t, because it’s been frightened off.

He’s also emerged as a sort of white nationalist, explicitly defending the interests of whites (who, of course, would have been described as Americans before the federal government began electing a new people with the 1965 Immigration Act.)

Taylor is a man of commanding voice and mien, Central Casting’s dream of a U.S. Senator. But, needless to say, he will never become a Senator—because he long ago chose to sacrifice popularity for his principles.

Taylor has responded to my critique of his position that I offered in the course of reviewing his organization’s new survey of un-PC facts about race and criminality, The Color Of Crime. He has objected to my calling myself a “citizenist”, arguing:

“’Citizenism’ assumes that race can be made not to matter, and that citizens will set aside parochial ethnic interests for the good of all…. What course of action would he propose for white people?

“Continue to preach ‘citizenism’ when no one else practices it?

“Continue to fill the country with people who do not hesitate to advance their interests—material, cultural, and biological—at the expense of whites?”

Yet, as the swordsman Inigo Montoya tells the villain Vizzini in the movie The Princess Bride, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

I sense (or perhaps merely hope) that millions of Americans feel as I do, in an unarticulated fashion.

But at the moment, Google suggests that I am just about the only person in the country calling himself a “citizenist.” So I think I have a certain right to suggest what the word means.

By “citizenism,” I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.

Let me describe citizenism using a business analogy. When I was getting an MBA many years ago, I was the favorite of an acerbic old Corporate Finance professor because I could be counted on to blurt out in class all the stupid misconceptions to which students are prone.

One day he asked: “If you were running a publicly traded company, would it be acceptable for you to create new stock and sell it for less than it was worth?”

“Sure,” I confidently announced. “Our duty is to maximize our stockholders’ wealth, and while selling the stock for less than its worth would harm our current shareholders, it would benefit our new shareholders who buy the underpriced stock, so it all comes out in the wash. Right?”

“Wrong!” He thundered. “Your obligation is to your currentstockholders, not to somebody who might buy the stock in the future.”

That same logic applies to the valuable right of being an American citizen and living in America.

Just as the managers of a public company have a fiduciary duty to the current stockholders not to diminish the value of their shares by selling new ones too cheaply to outsiders, our leaders have a duty to the current citizens and their descendents.

That implies the opposite of what Taylor claims. In reality, citizenism entails focusing on the central issue for the future of our country:limiting immigration.

While citizenism is compatible with a realistic appreciation of racial differences, it opposes wasting political capital and energy on expressions of hostility toward our fellow citizens who are African-Americans—energy that could far more profitably be devoted to rallying broad support for preserving the value of our citizenship.

Blacks should be ashamed of the level of crime found in their community, but anti-black sentiment is self-defeating.

Indeed, much of current white conservative support for illegal immigration is a covert way of sticking it to African-Americans and their liberal supporters by importing harder-working Hispanics to drive blacks out of the workforce.

Of course, no matter how satisfying this may seem psychologically to many whites, it’s self-defeating. Depriving African-Americans of the discipline of work just worsens their behavior. Admitting vast numbers of Latinos, many of whom will end up in the underclass, just exacerbates America’s social problems.

A huge number of Americans grasp that we are lucky to be American citizens and they want to pass on their good fortune to their posterity undiluted. But the political class has no conceptual vocabulary as of yet for expressing these normal human feelings. So I’m not enormously optimistic that these commonsensical principles will become popular enough among the Establishment to stave off the troubles headed our way.

But like Enoch Powell, I believe that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.” America has been, on the whole, much less plagued by evils than most countries. Our leadership’s first duty (although generally last priority) is to keep it that way.

But the odds seem a whole lot better that “citizenism” will prove more effective at defending America from harm than that the White Nationalism advocated by Jared Taylor will do so.

I don’t doubt that immigration will work to make white nationalism more popular in decades to come.

Yet the only scenario likely to make white nationalism effective as an electoral force within, say, three decades would be the utter failure of our current attempts to limit immigration.

Moreover, making immigration restriction into a white nationalist crusade would wreck the chances of immigration reform passing.

As Talleyrand might have said, “White Nationalism is worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.”

Besides such obvious difficulties as that the growing number of interracial marriages means that an increasing number of whites have a nephew or sister-in-law who is part or all nonwhite, there are two surprising, but fundamental, practical problems with Taylor’s movement as a movement.

Paradoxically, Taylor is 1) both insufficiently idealistic about white Americans and 2) insufficiently cynical about them, too.

1) Taylor isn’t pro-white enough. American whites are too idealistic, too self-sacrificing for explicit white ethnocentrism to appeal to them broadly enough to succeed.

Taylor, in fact, is a striking example of this: a man who could have made a fortune in the computer business or been a success in mainstream politics, but chose to sacrifice everything to pursue his unfashionable ideals.

In his recent suppressed law review article, Professor Andrew Fraser outlined some of the possible roots of this white tendency toward idealism—stemming from the individualism and nuclear family-orientation that replaced clannishness in northwestern Europe.

This heritage makes white Americans among the world’s best at working together in corporations with strangers who aren’t their relatives.

But it also means that American whites tend to see tribalism as beneath them.

The GOP, for example, has run a successful political strategy in the South by advocating the colorblind policies that whites approve of: law and order, private enterprise, low taxes, and the like.

One striking side effect is that outside of Democratic-run New Orleans and a few other sore spots in the South, this strategy has been good for blacks, too. That’s why Republican-dominated Georgia consistently attracts the biggest influx of middle class blacks of any state, most of them fleeing liberal states in the Northeast and West.

Of course, it doesn’t mean blacks will vote for GOP candidates in the South. But the Republicans attract such a high fraction of the white vote, that doesn’t matter.

The point is that in the South, a white nationalist appeal would be an election loser.

Any political philosophy aimed at whites today has to be phrased in high-minded terms because mud-wrestling with Al Sharpton over the racial spoils system simply strikes many whites as too demeaning to bother with.

And at least African-Americans generate large personalities, like Sharpton. When you get to Hispanics, most whites can barely remember the names of more than a few Latinos. There’s that singer with the dresses that almost fall off and that home run hitter on steroids and that Democratic governor down in Arizona or somewhere with the ultra-white name, Biff Robertson or something like that.

As a film critic, I hang around a little on the far, far fringes of notoriously liberal Hollywood. Yet, even though there are many millions of Hispanics in Southern California, Latinos simply do not register at all on the awareness of the entertainment industry, except as servants. They don’t get invited to screenings and they are only seen at industry parties parking cars.

They are absolutely no threat to take away the job of anybody who is anybody in Hollywood, so nobody notices them.

And that brings me to the second problem Taylor faces.

2) As the recent hatefest over Bill Bennett’s abortion-crime remarks pointed out, much (although not all) of this white moralism over race merely consists of white Americans jockeying to claim status as morally superior to their rivals—who are, overwhelmingly, other white Americans.

Lots of prominent white people dishonestly smeared Bennett with the charge of racism because they want to be seen as more virtuous than the author of The Book of Virtues.

For example,’s national correspondent William Saletan, who is not generally a fool or charlatan, wrote a demagogic screed implying that Bennett got the idea that the popular abortion-cuts-crime theory had a racial aspect (blacks have three times more abortions and commit seven times more murders than whites) from me rather than from its author, Steven D. Levitt.

Yet in his personal life, Saletan has notably failed to put his money where his mouth is and invest in the possibility that, as he claims, “the next generation of blacks might differ” in having a lower relative crime rate.

The Washington D.C. area where Saletan works has no shortage of predominantly black neighborhoods—such as Prince George’s County, where the late Dr. Sam Francis lived happily, despite his white nationalism. Yet in 2000 Saletan chose to move to a D.C. suburb that is only 2.7% black!

In fact, Saletan’s suburb has 18 times more residents who possess graduate or professional degrees than are black.

The American 200,000,000 whites are too numerous, too wealthy, too talented, and too self-absorbed to feel much solidarity with each other.

White Americans would rather strive against each other for prestige than against nonwhites because (although they will denounce anyone who suggests this), they generally don’t see many nonwhites as credible rivals.

It would be like NBA stars Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant deciding to patch up their feud so they can fight off the threat to the NBA’s domination of American basketball from the ladies of the WNBA.

Let me point out an analogy from international relations. Americans spend a lot of time hating the French. Objectively, the French are not our enemies. As the mordant scientist Gregory Cochran has pointed out, if the French were out to get us, they would have told us to occupy Iraq.

Lots of Americans hate Arabs, but only a limited number spend much time thinking up more reasons to hate Arabs, because, well, Arabs are mostly backward and boring, and thus not terribly interesting to hate.

No, Americans like to hate the French because, deep down, we see them as worthy rivals.

  • We make more money! But they seem less likely to spend their money on junk…
  • We’re right and they’re wrong! But they seem to argue their wrong ideas at least as cleverly as we argue our right ideas…

Now, just because most “minority spokesmen” like Sharpton are tedious and/or tawdry doesn’t mean they aren’t important. But their deleterious impact is felt mostly by the working class, not the chattering class.

As white America has gotten more meritocratic, the working class has been stripped of its articulate voices by upward mobility. So the Establishment pays no attention to its travails. For instance, it has become a journalistic cliché that keeping down working class wages through illegal immigration is “good for the economy”—as if the American economy exists for its own sake as opposed to existing for the good of American citizens.

Yet, while the travails of working class men and women are no longer of any interest to elites, they remain our fellow American citizens. They deserve our support.

I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able to persuade the elites to strive honestly for the welfare of their fellow American citizens.

But White Nationalism won’t get the job done at all.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Jared Taylor 
🔊 Listen RSS

And so it begins again

“President Bush, who had just returned from his fourth visit to the Gulf Coast, told an audience at the National Cathedral today that he would use the rebuilding process to correct the poverty born of racial discrimination that had left so many of Hurricane Katrina’s victims vulnerable. ‘The greatest hardship fell upon citizens already facing lives of struggle: the elderly, the vulnerable and the poor,’ he said. ‘And this poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity. As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality.’”[Bush says Reconstruction Must Address Poverty, Inequality, By Emma Vaughan and Johanna Neuman Los Angeles Times September 16, 2005]

Of course, what we all saw on TV from New Orleans was less the “legacy of inequality” with “roots in generations of segregation and discrimination” than the full display, in the absence of the Police Power, of the modern black underclass tendencies toward violent criminality and feckless dependency.

Indeed, the great majority of the thugs who terrorized the flood victims and rescue workers were born long after LBJ’s War on Poverty began in 1965. Most, probably after the last white mayor of New Orleans left office 27 years ago.

Yet, already our visual memories are being overwritten by the professional word-slingers because—as John Derbyshire recently pointed out in a column that got spiked by National Review for thetautological reason cited in its title—”You Can’t Talk About That.”

So, now, 41 years after LBJ’s, we have GWB’s War on Poverty. The first one turned out to be a moral disaster for African-Americans, helping their crime and illegitimacy rates shoot upwards. But, judging by the President’s recent speeches, he is gearing up, like a French general in 1939, to refight the last War on Poverty.

Will the new one turn out any better? Only if America’s policy elite freely discusses what actually are the problems of poor African Americans—the ones that cause too many of them to behave as we saw in New Orleans.

And what are the odds of that?

Instead, the social engineering programs will be designed to battle those ills that we are allowed to write about: segregation,””discrimination,” and inequality,” to quote the President, who, I seem to recall, was once a Republican.

Of course, one step the Bush Administration could take to help poor blacks would be enforce the laws against the illegal immigration that drives down the wages African-Americans could earn by honest labor.

But don’t expect any mention of that!

Here’s one simple test of whether the New, Improved War on Poverty will be based on reality rather than tired clichés: Will Jared Taylor‘s fact-filled new report on racial difference in crime rates, an updating of his 1999 survey “The Color of Crime,” [PDF] be discussed openly in the press or will it be as hushed up as the original?

I’m not optimistic.

The self-serving reasons that journalists don’t write in public what everybody talks about in private are thoroughly entrenched.

Taylor notes:

“In total, blacks had the highest incarceration rate at 7.2 times the [nonHispanic] white rate, followed by Hispanics, at 2.9 times the white rate. [American] Indians and PacificIslanders were imprisoned at about twice the white rate,and Asians at only 22 percent of the white rate.”

The black imprisonment rate is a striking 33 times higher than the Asian imprisonment rate—a figure I’ve never seen quantified before (although I don’t think anybody could be too surprised by it).

These incarceration statistics, the report shows, are very much in line with the racial patterns also seen in both arrest rates and in the FBI’s Annual Survey Of Crime Victims.

So unfairness in the justice system plays little or no role in these disparities.

High crime rates in black neighborhoods are a terrible burden on localentrepreneurs, thus holding back the economic advancement of the race. But it is largely taboo to discuss racial disparities in criminality in the mainstream media, even though most of the data Taylorassembles is currently available on scattered government websites. For example, the federal Department of Justice’s page on homicide statistics by race states, “Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.”

I’m sure the statistics Taylor reports will be dismissed simply because it will be easy to criticize Taylor’s principles.

He and his journal, American Renaissance, espouse a white nationalist viewpoint. Of course, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Armenian, Jewish, Arab and all those other cheerleaders-with-a-chip-on-their-shoulder activistspush for the interests of their ethnic groups too—but that is different, apparently.

I disagree with Taylor’s principles. As I wrote in last year:

“Personally, I am a citizenist… My starting point in analyzing policies is: ‘What is in the best overall interests of the current citizens of the United States?’

“In contrast, so many others think in terms of: ‘What is in the best interest of my: identity group / race / ethnicity / religion / bank account / class / ideology / clique / gender / sexual orientation / party / and/or personal feelings of moral superiority?’

“Precisely because basing loyalties upon a legal category defined by our elected representatives is so unnatural, it’s the least destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance humanly possible on an effective scale.”

Yet disputes over values are irrelevant to whether the facts in Taylor’s report are correct or not. (They are.)

Of course, that won’t keep Taylor’s report from being denounced ad hominem.

In 1942, George Orwell famously observed:

“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science.’ There is only ‘German Science,’ ‘JewishScience,’ etc… This prospect frightens me much more than bombs

And yet, this manner of thinking, this dismissal of objective reality in favor of assessing whose side the speaker is on, is probably as popular today in America as it was in Berlin and Moscow in Orwell’s day.

In recent weeks, I’ve written extensively about the racial IQ gap, a subject the press typically ignores—or disseminates disinformation about. Still, we shouldn’t blame them too much: IQ is a moderatelycomplex topic, one that many members of the press simply aren’t smart enough and intellectually curious enough to master.

In contrast, censoring the news about crime rates can’t be blamed on journalists’ stupidity. Instead, it demonstrates an appalling degree of moral corruption in our media because virtually every adult in Americaknows there are racial differences in crime rates.

Everybody talks about real estate, and the racial makeup of neighborhood is the largest single factor driving crime rates and thus differences in house prices and apartment rents within a metropolis.

The media elite’s assumption appears to be that if the public someday became aware of the truth about race, then the American people would instantly dig up Hitler’s ashes, clone his DNA, and elect Hitler 2.0 as Fuhrer-for-Life.

Or something like that…

But, as I’ve been pointing out for a decade, most Americans do in fact know the basic facts about race. They talk privately about them all thetime. And the world continues spinning on its axis.

Instead, what we’re really not supposed to do is write about the facts for the elites interested in public policy.

This 21st Century attitude toward thinking about race contrasts strikingly with the Victorian attitude toward thinking about sex. This was that the masses should not be allowed to read erotic materials, but that the policy-making elites did need the facts.

Consequently, the raffish adventurer Sir Richard Burton (not the actor, but the Victorian explorer, writer, and diplomat who was a model for Evelyn Waugh’s Basil Seal) was knighted by Queen Victoria threeyears after he published his translation of the Kama Sutra.

Burton was Victorian Britain’s most prominent advocate of polygamy, harem-keeping, and Eastern erotica. But he was also employed by theForeign Office for decades. Her Majesty’s Government didn’t approve of Burton’s enthusiasm for non-Western sexual mores and practices. But if they were going to run the Empire, they knew they needed to understand them.

In contrast, the American elite’s attitude is that the worst sin is to try to understand race honestly.

So what exactly would happen if the press told the truth? Would white neighborhoods have higher housing prices than black neighborhoods?

Oh, wait, that already happens…

No, the main difference would be that if we could honestly discuss how the world works, we could use that understanding to craft policies more likely to achieve the goals of the American people.

So why do the pundits and reporters lie? In my experience, the liberal whites who run the media don’t actually care much about blacks or other minorities. Nor are they consumed by White Guilt.

They’re not blaming themselves, you’ll notice, just other white people, ones they already despise. What they truly care about isclaiming social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their exquisite racial sensitivity.

The typical white intellectual considers himself superior to ordinary white people for two contradictory reasons:

  • b] He has a high IQ, but they don’t.

For this reason, Taylor’s strategy of wanting whites to imitate the ethnocentrism of minorities, while it will inevitably gain adherents as the white majority is reduced to a white minority by immigration, is highly unlikely to succeed any time soon. There is simply too much rivalry among whites.

To many elite whites, minorities are just useful pawns in the great game of clawing their way to the top of the white status heap.

Which is, more or less, the only game in town. Taylor’s dream of white solidarity has no appeal to white intellectuals and writers simply because they believe, condescendingly but also fairly accurately, that they don’t face significant nonwhite competition. The vast majority of their rivals are other whites.

For media people, white solidarity makes no more sense than for Professional Golf Association stars like Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson to agree to stop competing against each other so they can band together to do battle with the Ladies Professional Golf Association.

Thus, America’s verbal elite favors illegal immigration—nobody from Chiapas is going to take their jobs.

For American citizens on the whole, however, especially for poor African-Americans who desperately need the dignity and the discipline provided by having a decent-paying job, illegal immigration is amassive problem.

Still, the American elite is going to pay at least some of the taxes for the GWB War On Poverty. And Jared Taylor’s data suggests that dumping dollars on the problem won’t cure it this time either.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Jared Taylor, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ward Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative is distinctive for the quality of argumentation it has inspired on both sides of the issue. Jared Taylor’s VDARE.COM response to my endorsement of RPI is a notable contribution to the anti-RPI case.

Mr. Taylor hopes that if the government keeps on publishing statisticsdocumenting racial inequality, politicians will eventually publicly conclude that the cause of inequality is not discrimination, but is instead morefundamental differences among the races.

Perhaps. But this hasn’t happened yet, and I’m not terribly sure it willever happen.

Mr. Taylor and I aren’t far apart on some things. He writes, “Thesolution is to abolish all anti-discrimination laws. Retain them, if at all, in the monopoly public sector.” In 1996 I wrote a major article, “How Jackie Robinson Desegregated America,” making the similar argument that we’d be better off letting the competitive marketplace punish discrimination, but that quotas might be justified inanti-competitive government and union sectors. (A year or two earlier,Richard Epstein and Dinesh D’Souza had both published books reaching this conclusion.)

I sat back and waited for the groundswell of enlightened public opinionthat would inevitably follow my elucidation of the subject.

I’m still waiting.

I think it’s safe to say now that even though the main cause of racial quotas is anti-discrimination laws, we aren’t going to repeal thesainted 1964 Civil Rights Act in this decade or the next. In contrast, the Racial Privacy Initiative has a chance to pass next spring in California. It’s currently leading 48-33 in the latest Field Poll. That’s only a fair-to-middling level of support for an initiative this early in the campaign,before all those who make money off quotas start their ad campaigns. But I have to believe it’s still a lot better than you’d find for repealing the Civil Rights Act.

The RPI isn’t a panacea. But there aren’t any silver bullets for solvingthe problems caused by racial inequality. The RPI is one way to throw a wrench into the gears of government racial preferences, so it’s worth trying out in the state government of California. (It would not affect the much larger data collection operations of the federal government, so the direct impact of the RPI would be as more of a test case thanas a major revolution in government affairs.)

I’m a California statistics addict, so the RPI would inconvenience me.Still, I’m impressed with the analogy that Ward Connerly draws to the ban on the Census Bureau collecting religious statistics.

The Bureau was planning to add checkboxes for religious affiliation tothe 1960 Census, but Jewish organizations protested. Congress eventually wrote this ban into law, and most state governments follow it too.

Consider the impact. We have official statistics documenting to thedecimal place the racial makeup of the freshman class at the University of Michigan. Fueled by this data, a great controversy has erupted over it, with scores of organizations filing friend of the court briefsdemanding that the number of non-Asian minorities be maintained.

In contrast, there are no official statistics on the religious makeup of the University of Michigan freshman class. Data exist – Arthur Hu has collected a lot of it here – and it shows about what you’d expect. Just as average SAT scores differ by race, so there are also big differences by religion. Unitarians, Quakers, Jews, and Hindus, for example, score higher on average than Baptists or Muslims. Not surprisingly, therefore,the members of some religions, such as Judaism, are much more likely than others to be admitted to the University of Michigan.

But guess what? Without government data on the subject, nobody cares.

The college is free to admit individuals who have demonstrated the greatest potential for academic achievement … without regard for their religion.

As a supporter of individualism, meritocracy, and not wasting thetaxpayer’s money, I think this is a good thing.

[Steve Sailer [email him], is founder of the Human BiodiversityInstitute. His website features site-exclusive commentaries.]

Jared Taylor comments:

Steve Sailer and I agree in opposing the present regimen of racial preferences. Therefore, the first question to ask about the Racial Privacy Initiative is: Will it make it easier or harder for California institutions to practice racial preferences?

I believe it will make it easier. Any employer or university that wants toachieve what is now fashionably known as a “critical mass” of non-Asian minorities will not be the least bit inconvenienced if California suddenly stops providing precise racial statistics for every institution and jurisdiction in the state. On the contrary, institutions that wish to discriminate will be able to do so more blatantly than before because the evidence of their discrimination will be easier to hide.

If the state stops counting noses, we may never know how manyunderqualified non-Asian minorities have been admitted to California universities.

That is why Mr. Sailer’s analogy to religion supports my view and nothis. He argues that gentiles do not raise a stink about the large Jewish presence at elite universities because there are no statistics on their overrepresentation. (In fact, gentiles would be greatly inhibited about raising a stink about Jews no matter how much information wasavailable.) [VDARE .COM NOTE: just look what happened to PatBuchanan when he merely cited Ron Unz's November 16 1998 Wall Street Journal article reporting that "between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population"!] But is that not the very outcome the RPI would bring about – an overrepresentation of underqualified minorities, but one that was difficult to attack because it could not easily be quantified?

It is precisely the kind of information the RPI would deny us that flushes discrimination and overrepresentation out into the open.

The RPI would therefore make it easier to do the very thing it isdesigned to prevent.

Entirely aside from its effect on racial preferences, the other question we must ask about the RPI is whether there are other uses for the data that would no longer be collected. The answer is a resounding “yes.” More information is almost always better than less information.

Racial differences in crime rates, for example, are extremely valuable,not only for people considering a move or choosing a school, but also for anyone who really wants to understand the controversy over “racial profiling.”

A society less hysterical than ours would take group differences incrime rates into consideration in setting such policies as immigration and integration. By denying ourselves basic information, we wrap vital social questions in a deliberate and unnecessary fog.

Mr. Sailer himself will miss those very interesting and useful statistics.

Whether its sponsors see it this way or not, the RPI is part of aninsidious campaign to promote a myth that is even more preposterous than the myth of racial equality in ability: the myth that race does not even exist.

Mr. Sailer shares my alarm at current attempts to deny biology. But the RPI will make it easier to deny biology.

By concealing the real, quantifiable social effects of race and ethnicity, the passage of RPI would merely make it easier for obscurantists topretend that race and ethnicity are “social constructs.”

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Jared Taylor 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?