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

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview

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

Like the fog in Carl Sandburg’s insipid poem, Martin Luther King Day this year seems to have crept up on the nation on little cat feet. We have heard few of the usual neo-conservative slobberings over how they wish they could have marched with King in Selma, nor even many of the usual lamentations of King’s now-decrepit comrades that nobody sufficiently appreciates their accomplishments.

Those noises may yet come, but the real reason we have not heard them so far may be that the festivities arrived a bit early this year, in the arrest of 79-year-old former Klansman Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The murders of course were notorious at the time and are immortalized by Hollywood in the 1988 anti-white film “Mississippi Burning,” which manages to smear every white man and woman in the state (and by implication everywhere else) by virtually stating that whites are by nature genocidal.

It’s therefore not too surprising that the media reaction to Mr. Killen’s arrest has been one of almost universal gloating. To bust a 79-year-old white Southerner for racial murders is almost as much fun as deporting 80-year-old concentration camp guards to communist countries to stand trial for war crimes, and that amusement has worn thin in recent years. Concentration camp guards have the habit of dying natural deaths eventually, but there’s an endless supply of white Southerners to put on trial closer to home.

But Mr. Killen wasn’t the only unusual suspect to win the interest of the national press last week. The New York Times, after a large story about his arrest and the murders and a long interview with the surviving relatives of the victims, also found space to tell us all about another killer of the same era—one who long ago was tried and convicted and today even acknowledges his guilt. For some reason, he doesn’t elicit quite the same reaction from the Times as Mr. Killen.

The case is that of Wilbert Rideau, who as a 19-year-old black man in 1961 robbed a bank in Lake Charles, Louisiana, kidnapped three white bank employees, and shot all of them near a bayou at the edge of town.

Two survived to tell the tale; the third, a woman, survived only briefly. Rideau polished her off by stabbing her in the heart and slitting her throat.

Like its report about Mr. Killen, the Times story about the Rideau case is full of woe—but not that of Rideau’s white victims. Its sympathies are all for the killer himself.

“All-white, all-male juries” convicted Rideau of murder and sentenced him to death, and they did so three times. Appeals courts threw out the verdicts on the grounds of “misconduct by the government.” We never hear too much about what that means, because the Times reporter, Adam Liptak, is too busy singing about Rideau’s achievements ever since. [With Little Evidence, 4th Trial Opens in '61 Killing, By Adam Liptak, January 11, 2005]

Prosecutors in Louisiana “are trying once again to obtain a conviction that will stick,” he writes, and that may be hard, in part because Rideau has been so “transformed.” (As it turned out it was too hard. A mixed race jury this week found him guilty of mere manslaughter, allowing him to go free after serving more than the maximum sentence for that crime.) “He has, from prison, become an acclaimed journalist and documentary filmmaker,” but, well, it’s Louisiana, you see, and we know what that means.

“The community’s rage lives on in this racially divided oil and gambling town near the Texas border,” and no doubt it’s all those white people, the kind Mississippi Burning warned us about, who keep nice fellows like Rideau in prison. “It’s ferocious, the way we hold on to this episode,” grumbled the Rev. J. L. Franklin, a black pastor who is monitoring the case.

Right, you’d think after 43 years, people would forget a white person being kidnapped, driven to the edge of town, shot and having her throat cut. But it’s those white folks, so full of hate and ignorance, just like over in Mississippi, where they’re probably mad about the prosecution of Mr. Killen after only 41 years.

“Little evidence endures” in the Rideau case, Mr. Liptak informs us, which only adds to the problems of yet another trial. It’s not very clear how much evidence endures in the Killen case either, but that wasn’t quite the point the Times wanted to make, was it?

The Times’ transparent double standard, its lip-smacking glee over the arrest of the white man in Mississippi and its weepy apologies for the black killer in Louisiana, tell us what the real point is.

What Mr. Killen is supposed to have done was not only murder but also an act of political and racial resistance, and that sort of thing has to be stomped on, regardless of how little evidence remains after 41 years.

As for a forgotten white woman in Louisiana who had her throat cut—who cares?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

“No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration,” gasps neoconservative David Frum in National Review’s Dec. 31 cover story. [Full article here].

Mr. Frum, the original “patriotic conservative” who tried to smear the entire anti-war right as “unpatriotic” back in 2003, has now defected from the ranks of the Open Border lobby, at least in a way.

Should those who were never part of that lobby welcome him?

Not especially. He still doesn’t quite get what the real problem with mass immigration is—in part because he’s not that much of a patriot himself.

Mr. Frum’s article pants that the Republican Party will actually be harmed by the mass immigration it has refused to control for the last two decades and that it’s high time the GOP did something about it.

Indeed, that seems to be the major thrust of his case against immigration—it’s bad for the Republicans.

That there are other reasons for being for tighter immigration control or even for a complete moratorium he only obliquely suggests.

There are some national security problems with letting millions of aliens ramble across your borders, and there are some economic problems with permitting “entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans.”

But nowhere does our Patriot mention the major problem immigration causes—the creation of a massive subculture of unassimilated Third World aliens inside the country.

For Mr. Frum, the immigration problem is mainly political, and partisan politics at that. “GOP You Are Warned,” the article’s title rumbles.

Of course Mr. Frum is right about that, but it’s interesting that this is hardly the first time National Review has issued such a warning. Back in 1997, Peter Brimelow, then an NR senior editor, and Ed Rubenstein wrote an article warning the Republicans of the same thing—but for rather different reasons.

The Brimelow-Rubenstein article argued that immigration would hurt Republicans because immigrants would vote for the Democrats (and they do). Mr. Frum is arguing that Republican failure to deal with the immigration crisis could alienate the party’s base (and it will).

“There’s no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party’s leaders,” he writes. “Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.”

But what he misses is just why the “party rank-and-file” is so upset about immigration.

It’s upset for precisely the cultural and national reasons I noted and which Mr. Frum rather manages to miss. National security and economics are significant parts of the case against immigration, but mainly Americans don’t like their nation being colonized by an alien, Third World mass that speaks a different language, imports different values and is often loyal to a different country.

The problem, as Mr., Frum sees it, is that sooner or later the Democrats will seize the immigration issue if Republicans don’t deal with it—as I argued also in a recent column, quoting none other than Hillary Clinton’s dim views of illegal immigration.

Mr. Frum quotes the same remarks, but if Hillary can’t walk off with the GOP base, he suggests, there may well be other Democrats who could use the immigration issue to do just that.

He thinks the way the party should deal with the issue is to “develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer,because employers hire illegals at the expense of Americans and legal immigrants.

Of course, the Open Borders people have an easy and perfectly logical answer to that: Legalize it all.

If the only problem with illegal immigration is that it’s illegal, if you’re not willing to say mass immigration by itself is a problem, then why should we have any laws against it at all?

The famous Wall Street Journal position—“there shall be open borders”—is the logical conclusion.

Mr. Frum’s only response to this, apparently, would be that there’s the security problem, but that’s flaccid enough.

His real problem is that he—like most of the rest of the neo-conservatives—will not affirm the reality and significance of the nation, the national identity.

Security, economy and party interests are all well and good, but the fundamental issue in the immigration debate is who we are and what sort of nation we want to be.

Mr. Frum, like a lot of his neo-con buddies, for all their ballyhoo about “patriotism,” doesn’t seem to offer a very clear answer.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Despite what the Republican leadership would like us to think, all is not harmony and light between the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.

Emerging unpleasantness on the issues of Social Security and looming Supreme Court appointments are part of the problem, but a split on immigration reform looms larger still.

Last week the Washington Post detailed how

“President Bush’s plan to liberalize the nation’s immigration laws to allow millions of undocumented workers [libspeak for "illegal aliens"] the opportunity for legal status appears to be on a collision course with newly aroused sentiment among House Republicans pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration.” [Bush Immigration Plan Meets GOP Opposition, By Michael A. Fletcher, January 2, 2005]

This is hardly news, since the collision actually already occurred last year, when congressional (including Republican) reception of the president’s amnesty plan for illegals was so tepid we heard nothing more about it until after the election.

What’s new now is that the ill-conceived plan is back and, as the Postnotes, the course is set for another collision.

Indeed, last year there was yet another collision over the issue when many House Republicans wanted immigration control measures in the intelligence reform bill the White House was badgering them to pass. Eventually, the bill did pass, but minus the immigration stuff, because the president swore he’d support separate legislation for it this year.

The reason for all these collisions of course is that the immigration issue, after decades of slumber, is now beginning to rouse itself, and even politicians have to notice that, sooner or later.

That makes many observers think Congress or the White House or both together will soon start “cracking down” on immigration.

Maybe, but don’t bet your green card on it.

Most of the specific measures the so-called “immigration control”members of Congress are talking about are in fact little more than eyewash—not bad in themselves but far from being enough to stop the massive invasion of the United States by aliens of profoundly different national and cultural identities.

They may, however, be enough to convince voters that their congressmen are doing something to stop it, and that’s what the congressmen will be interested in accomplishing.

Thus, the Post mentions several specific measures the immigration control guys want to pass—completion of a fence along the Mexican border to keep illegal aliens out; a law to set up tougher state standards for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens; and making it harder for immigrants to claim asylum. The plain truth is that most of this stuff is low-cal salad dressing.

There is every reason to have more effective border security, and in various places along the border, fences are fine—if they are watched by competent border guards, if they are maintained, and if those who try to cross them are sent back.

The point is that building fences won’t solve the immigration problem unless the nation—meaning in this context the Congress and the White House—has the will to solve it.

The same is true of driver’s licenses (illegal immigrants shouldn’t be getting licenses period, and no state should be granting them).

The very fact that we are now solemnly talking about “tougher standards” for licenses for illegals makes it clear we are not serious about the problem.

The danger is not only that congressmen will demand these and similar measures as their contributions to stopping the immigration invasion and will then exploit such measures to delude voters into thinking something serious has been done, but also that the same legislators will then support Mr. Bush’s amnesty package as the price of the “reforms” they’ve so valiantly hammered through Congress.

The net intended effect of such measures would be to put the immigration issue back to sleep. But that’s not the effect they may actually have.

The immigration issue is awakening for the simple reason that Americans in areas far removed from the Mexican border are now for the first time beginning to see their local communities transformed by the realities of mass immigration from the Third World—crime, disease,poverty, overcrowding, welfare, the wreckage of schools, and the obvious cultural disintegration that uncontrolled immigration brings.

Congress and the White House can collude to serve up whatever eyewash they can concoct to make voters now clearly alerted to and worried about immigration forget and ignore what’s happening.

But my bet is that the invasion has now gone too far and the awareness of it is now too deep for that tactic to work.

Sooner or later those in Congress and the White House are going to have to confront the immigration crisis seriously—which means a moratorium and probably troops on the border—or else find themselves facing political opponents in future elections who will be serious.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

In Europe, if not in the United States, some people are beginning to grasp that just maybe they made a mistake when they decided to welcome millions of immigrants over the last several decades.

The most recent European to get it is former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who has been making noises about the damage he and his colleagues have inflicted on their own societies.

Interviewed in a Hamburg newspaper last month, Mr. Schmidt confessed, “The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society” and that importing thousands of Turkish gastarbeiter, or foreign guest workers, into Germany over the last several decades was a bit of a boo-boo.

As the London Daily Telegraph reported the story, Mr. Schmidt, Social Democratic chancellor of West Germany from 1974 to 1982,

“…said that the problems resulting from the influx of mostly Turkish Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, had been neglected in Germany and the rest of Europe. They could be overcome only by authoritarian governments, he added, naming Singapore as an example.” [Turkish workers a mistake, claims Schmidt, by Hannah Cleaver, November 25, 2004]

He’s hardly the first to see this, although admittedly, at the age of 85, he’s just a wee bit behind the curve.

As long ago as 1990, I wrote, in an article in Chronicles magazine,

“The late Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the dominions of the Habsburgs and the Romanoffs, among others, all presided over a kind of rainbow coalition of nations and peoples, who for the most part managed to live happily because their secret compulsions to spill each other’s blood was restrained by the overwhelming power of the despots and dynasties who ruled them.

“Political freedom relies on a shared political culture as much as on the oppositions and balances that social differentiation creates, and when the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together.” [July, 1990, PDF]

That’s a bit of a mouthful, but I gather it’s what Mr. Schmidt was driving at. To have freedom on a stable political basis, you have to have a homogeneous culture and society, composed of people who share the same values and beliefs.

If they don’t share them, you can hold them together only by force.

That lesson is becoming clear in Europe, where the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh last month by an Islamic fanatic shows what happens when you destroy homogeneity by importing fragments of alien and hostile cultures.

Much the same lesson ought to be clear in this country, not only from the 9/11 atrocities themselves but from the recent slaughter of six white deer hunters in Wisconsin by a disgruntled Asian immigrant.

“Society cannot exist,” wrote the great eighteenth century conservative Edmund Burke, “unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more of it there must be without.”

Restraints come from within when a population shares cultural and moral values; when they don’t, external force has to provide the restraints.

Only a week or so after the murder of Mr. Van Gogh in Holland, the neighboring country of Belgium outlawed its main opposition party, the Vlaamsblok, for being a “racist organization.”

The Vlaamsblok, which two opinion polls found was the most popular political party in Flanders the month before, was notable mainly for its strong opposition to immigration. That’s what made it “racist” and that’s why it had to go.

This month Great Britain simply arrested two of its leading opponents of immigration, Nick Griffin of the British National Party and the party’s founder John Tyndall, on charges of “inciting racial hatred.” Each, it seems, had made (in private meetings secretly taped by undercover informants) derogatory (or perhaps merely critical) remarks about Islam.

The arrests are transparent efforts by the British overclass to muzzle rising political challengers, but they’re also part of the drift toward authoritarianism that mass immigration provokes.

We see the drift in this country, with the Patriot Act and its spawn at airports and in random searches of law-abiding citizens—all because our own overclass will not enforce standing laws against illegal immigration and does nothing to halt the transformation of American society by millions of aliens.

Unwilling to control immigration and the cultural disintegration it causes, the authorities instead control the law-abiding.

This is precisely the bizarre system of misrule I have elsewhere described as “anarcho-tyranny”—we refuse to control real criminals(that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).

What is now becoming obvious in Europe, even to decrepit socialists like Helmut Schmidt, ought to be no less obvious to our own decrepit rulers here.

It’s already obvious to those they rule.

All they need is a leader with the guts and brains to say it out loud.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s beginning to dawn, even on American politicians, that you cannot have something like 34 million immigrants in the country and not expect immigration to become a major political issue.

The latest politician in whose brain this insight has blossomed is the junior senator from New York and very possibly the next president of the United States: Mrs. William J. Clinton, popularly known as Hillary.”

The Washington Times reports that “Hillary goes conservative on immigration,” [by Charles Hurt, December 13, 2004] which means, in case you’re the kind of “conservative” who thinks mass immigration is a good thing, that she is opposed to immigration.

Or at least that is what the noises she is making about the issue would suggest.

Mrs. Clinton, widely suspected of being the next Democratic presidential nominee in a year when the incumbent Republican leaves office, has a pretty good chance of being the next president, and it’s interesting she’s making the noises on immigration she is.

In 2002, Mrs. Clinton won the New York Senate race with some 85 percent of the state’s Hispanic vote.

That by itself would suggest that Hispanics are a major constituency for her, at least in the state and probably nationally, and that she really doesn’t want to alienate them by being against more immigration.

Then again, maybe Mrs. Clinton is just a little smarter than a good many of the Republicans who adhere to the Open Borders lobby propaganda lines that

(a) all Hispanics are necessarily for immigration and

(b) being against immigration or some of it will lose you the Hispanic vote.

In short, Mrs. Clinton, unlike some Republicans, might actually have looked at this year’s election returns.

Maybe so, but even if she’s thinking about making immigration control a major part of her future political strategy, she seems to have a ways to go before she figures out how to do it. Consider, for example, some of what she’s been saying, as the Times reports it.

Almost everything Mrs. Clinton has said about the issue centers on illegal immigration. That’s fine as far as it goes, but most experts and political leaders who are serious about the issue understand that illegal immigration is only part of the problem. The even more massive legal immigration causes the same problems as the illegal kind.

In a recent interview on WABC radio, the Times reports Mrs. Clinton as saying, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Yes, but you see, no knowledgeable person who’s really against illegal immigration would say he’s “against illegal immigrants.” It’s immigration, not the immigrants, that’s objectionable. Being “anti-immigrant” is in fact a canard the Open Borders lobby uses to claim that supporters of immigration control just dislike the immigrants themselves.

In the same interview, she also said,

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them.”

Yes, well, that’s more or less what President Bush claims he’s proposing in his “guest worker” program that is really an amnesty for illegals. The problem with the kind of guest worker or “entry and exit” programs they’re proposing is that they’re all entry and no exit. Once the immigrants come in, no one will be able to make them go back.

Mrs. Clinton may or may not be serious about her new noises against immigration. Personally I hope she is and that she learns more about it and thinks it through a bit more than she seems to have done.

But what’s really significant about her immigration control posturing is that it’s happening at all.

“She’s not a dumb woman,” a spokesman for immigration control champion Tom Tancredo told the Times. “She’s got a great liberal base, and she realizes there’s no better way to draw in more conservative voters. She has really come out to the forefront on that.”

After years of trying to explain to the leadership of the Republican Party that mass immigration is not only a danger to our national security and identity, conservatives may now be on the eve of finding that the person who has really paid attention is someone whom most conservatives loathe.

In fact, that outcome was probably inevitable.

As libertarians and neo-cons badgered the Republicans into ignoring the immigration issue totally, it was probably only a matter of time before someone not at all a conservative perceived what the immigration issue could gain him (or her).

If Mrs. Clinton lights her path toward the White House with the issue of immigration control in a serious way, the Open Borders Republicans may find they merely dug their own political graves.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hillary Clinton, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Who is such a sap as to take the word of such a person?” asked journalist Christopher Hitchens about David Brock, another journalist (sort of) who confessed to having penned what he later admitted was a mendacious account of Anita Hill on behalf of the “Republican sleaze machine” (for which he was well paid with royalties and fame). [The Real David Brock, The Nation, May 9, 2002]

Well, lots of people, to judge from the reactions to Brock’s latest wallow in self-righteousness, this time directed at me.

Having defected from the right because of his pangs of conscience over his earlier fakeries, Brock has now set himself up as a “media watchdog” who pronounces, to anyone willing to pay attention, on the misdeeds of real journalists (mainly those on the political right, where Brock and his fans like to purport all evil is located).

Last week, he published an open letter to the president of my syndicate demanding an explanation as to why it distributes my column, with a transparent invitation to stop. The particular column he didn’t like was the one of Nov. 26 about the now-infamous ABC Monday Night Football ad starring black football star Terrell Owens and white sexpot Nicolette Sheridan.

What bothered Brock was that I denounced the ad as subverting not only “morals and good taste” but also “white racial and cultural identity” through its deliberate glorification of interracial sex.

“We strongly condemn the clear bigotry of this column,” Brock pontificated, the “bigotry” presumably being my dim view of interracial marriage. Well, I’m sorry, but I do take a dim view of it, for the simple reason that I would like my culture to continue. I see nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I’d like to know why Brock thinks there is something wrong with it. Nor am I the only one to think so.

In recent years, any number of prominent Jewish spokesmen have expressed their own concerns about Jewish intermarriage with non-Jews. One in particular is Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of Great Britain, who writes:

“The Jewish people, having survived for thousands of years in the most adverse circumstances, including the Holocaust, is today threatened by intermarriage and assimilation. Jewish communities throughout the diaspora are experiencing demographic decline. Why has this happened, and can anything be done to reverse the trend?” [The only argument against intermarriage]

Nor is the chief rabbi alone. A few years ago, neo-conservative Elliott Abrams, then president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and now on the National Security Council staff, wrote a book, Faith or Fear, in which he described rising rates of Jewish intermarriage to non-Jews as a “demographic disaster.”

I’m not Jewish, but these gentlemen are right, and they have every reason to worry about what Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz calls “the vanishing American Jew”—a result of intermarriage with non-Jews.

Gentiles today are not mainly threatened by intermarriage with non-whites, but by their small families—but any group facing demographic decline (as whites worldwide do) and wants to endure as a group could argue against intermarriage, and some well-respected commentators are making precisely that point.

Why can’t I?

As I noted in the column, “Blacks are permitted to notice race,”and so are most other minority groups. But “whites aren’t.” If they do notice race, they get denounced for “bigotry” and the people who publish them are invited not to do so, with subtle little hints that if they don’t stop publishing them, they will be punished themselves.

But my views are not really in question—I’m pretty plain about them. Nor is my right to express those views, at least among normal people. My syndicate happens to be just a little more professional in its view of journalism and a good deal more committed to free expression than Brock.

What does worry me is that anyone takes frauds like David Brock seriously at all, but to judge from the hate mail I’ve received and similar demands for me to be muzzled, apparently many do.

We now know the answer to Hitchens’ question about who is such a sap as to take him seriously. There are enough of them creeping around out there to cause normal people to worry.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: American Media 
🔊 Listen RSS

Only a few days after the national election, President Bush appointed his campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, the new head of the Republican National Committee.

Shortly afterwards, Mr. Mehlman offered the world his own analysis of the voting patterns in the 2004 election and what they tell us as to why his boss won.

As the Washington Post reported, Mr. Mehlman argued that Mr. Bush won largely by “broadening his appeal among key swing constituencies, including Roman Catholics, Latinos and suburban women.” Predictably, he maintained that “the single most important number that has come out of the election” is the 44 percent Hispanic support the president supposedly won this year . [GOP Governors Celebrate Party Wins |Tutorial on Bush Campaign Strategies Shows What Went Right, By Dan Balz, November 19, 2004]

“Future Republican majorities will depend in part on the party’s ability to expand its support among Hispanic voters, and 2004 may have been a significant step in that direction if GOP candidates can build on it,” the Post reported him as telling the national meeting of Republican governors in New Orleans last month.

What Mr. Mehlman told them has already hardened in the party’s mental arteries as the gospel about the election and how to win in the future: Pander to Hispanic and other “minorities and take the white mainstream core of the Republican Party base for granted.

And to judge from the president’s immediate resurrection of his congressional amnesty plan for illegal aliens and his new Hispanic cabinet appointments, that seems to be the strategy his policies will reflect as well.

It is crucial to the future of the Republican Party to flush these misconceptions about why and how he won out of the party arteries as soon as possible, because we now know they are wrong and if they become the basis for political strategy and even policies, they will lead to Republican ruin.

The 44 percent Hispanic support for Mr. Bush has been dubious from the first day it was reported, but we now know it’s not correct. The figure came originally from exit polls reported by the Associated Press and other news services and was a national average based on similar exit polls in each state. The state in which Mr. Bush supposedly won Hispanic support most heavily was his own, Texas, where the AP reported he won a whopping and unprecedented 59 percent of Hispanics.

That, if nothing else, is what’s wrong. The Associated Press last week issued a press release acknowledging it isn’t so. Mr. Bush won only 49 percent of the Hispanic vote in Texas.

In its Nov. 3 exit polls reports, the AP release states,

“The Associated Press overstated President Bush’s support among Texas Hispanics. Under a post-election adjustment by exit poll providers Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, 49 percent of Hispanics in the state voted for Bush, not a majority. The revised result does not differ to a statistically significant degree from Bush’s 43 percent support among Texas Hispanics in a 2000 exit poll.”

The revised poll shows that Texas Hispanic voters “voted 50 percent for Kerry and 49 percent for Bush, not 41-59 Kerry-Bush.”

And if you factor in the new 49 percent Hispanic support in Texas in place of the old 59 percent in Mr. Bush’s national Hispanic exit polls, the 44 percent national figure vanishes. What you get is closer to 40 percent of the Hispanic vote on a national level—an improvement over his 35 percent support back in 2000, but hardly the sort of seismic shift the pandermaniacs over at the RNC have been crowing over.

Moreover, if the Texas exit poll was wrong, then why should we be inclined to accept similar polls that show heavily inflated Hispanic support for Mr. Bush in this election?

In Florida, for example, Mr. Bush is said to have won 56 percent of the Hispanic vote, a result almost as incredible as the Texas claim.

Finally, an independent outfit, the Velasquez Institute, specializes in analyzing Hispanic voting patterns and concluded on election day that Mr. Bush won only 34 percent of the Hispanic bloc nationally—a result a little smaller than but more consistent with his 2000 showing. There’s no reason to think their analysis is flawed.

How many Hispanic votes Mr. Bush won this year is important, because as Mr. Mehlman acknowledges, it tells the party at which demographic groups it should direct its appeals and “outreach,” and what issues (and policies) the party should support (or avoid) that are likely to attract (or alienate) those groups.

With Hispanics, the main issue will be immigration, and unless the blood of political reality can start flowing through the party’s mental arteries again, the errors now blocking those arteries will keep Mr. Bush and his party on the wrong side of the coming immigration battle.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: 2004 Election, Hispanics 
🔊 Listen RSS

On a recent Thanksgiving trip to Washington, relatives of mine had their car stopped near the Capitol and subjected to a bomb searchby—somebody or another, the local cops, the federal cops, the Homeland Security cops, the UN cops, who knows and who can tell anymore?

There was no bomb of course (not even my relatives carry them in their cars) and there is no “horror story,” except for the horror to which we have all become so habituated that nobody even notices it—that perfectly innocent, law-abiding Americans are stopped, their time consumed, and their property pawed over by government parasites who have no better way to justify their presence at the public trough.

For the real horror of the week you have to go to Long Island.

There, the New York Times reports, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, after listening to a rising level of anger from voters about the impact of immigration on their community,

“floated a proposal to deputize some Suffolk County police officers, giving them the power to detain people found to be in the United States illegally after being taken into custody on other charges. Right now, Suffolk police and corrections officers say, they are prohibited from asking immigrants whether they are in the country legally.” [L.I. Clash on Immigrants Is Gaining Political Force, By PATRICK HEALY, November 29, 2004]

The plan went nowhere, mainly because local police unions objected to it (no reasons given), and of course the professional aliens lobby didn’t much care for it either.

“But advocacy groups and residents of Suffolk and Nassau Counties say the proposal is a sign of the times. They say the issue of illegal immigration is rapidly gathering political force in Long Island’s patchwork of historically white suburban hamlets, and as the complaints grow, politicians are responding with get-tough rhetoric, crackdowns and new laws.”

The issue of illegal immigration is rapidly gathering political force in places like Suffolk because such places have not enjoyed all the glories of mass immigration the Open Borders Lobby has promised them for so long. The issue will come to many, many more such places as those glories fail to arrive there either.

What has come to Suffolk, the Times reports, is “a commensurate strain on public services like schools, garbage collection and sewer systems in an area where residents pay some of the highest taxes in the country” and citizens’ complaints that “the influx of immigrants has brought noise violations, littering, people drinking and urinating in public and driveways crammed with cars.”

Suffolk is not alone. “Communities across the nation—from Mesa, Ariz., to Hoover, Ala., to Freehold, N.J.—have faced similar struggles. Day laborers have been shut out and demonstrated against, and have become the targets of political campaigns.”

But the emerging political issue is not what is really noteworthy in the story. What is noteworthy is the utter indifference of most of the governing authorities to the “day laborer problem” at all. Of course there is no “day laborer problem”—the people of whom President Bush smugly remarked a few days ago, “We’d much rather have security guards running down terrorists or drug runners or drug smugglers than people coming to work.”

The problem is immigration and the refusal of public authority at any level in the country—from the White House to the county cops—to deal with it.

As noted, local law enforcement is not permitted to ask if an immigrant is legally in the country, but the federals don’t ask at all. Ever since the Clinton administration, immigration authorities have abandoned “interior enforcement”—if you make it a few miles over the border, you need have no fear of being busted for violating federal immigration statutes because the authorities don’t even try to enforce them.

The horror is that despite the obvious harm of mass immigration on the daily life of American communities, authorities are not willing to take any even elementary steps to control or check it. Their reluctance obviously doesn’t extend to snooping around law-abiding Americans who have to put up with random “bomb searches.”

But the reason we have to have bomb searches at all is that the authorities for decades have refused to enforce existing immigration laws, so that we now have imported a massive potential fifth column able and willing to wage terrorism against us.

What President Bush doesn’t get (among much else) is that “coming to work” can be as much an act of warfare as setting bombs and is often a rather more effective weapon with which to destroy a nation.

The price of mass immigration is not only cultural disintegration but also the gradual construction of a police state that becomes the only force able to hold the country together once mass immigration has come to work.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just exactly how many murders will it take to convince the Open Borders lobby, whose leader now seems to be President Bush, that mass Third World immigration is not such a good idea?

Up in Wisconsin, a gentleman named Chai Soua Vang, a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant, just blew away six people, apparently because they threw him out of their privately-owned deer stand he had decided to take over for his own use.

Ten years ago immigration expert Roy Beck wrote a path-breaking article in the Atlantic Monthly about the Hmong immigrants in Wausau, Wisconsin, a discussion he repeated in his later book, The Case against Immigration.

“The number of Southeast Asians burgeoned, and the city’s ability to welcome, nurture, accommodate, and assimilate the larger numbers shrank. Most immigrants were unable to enter the mainstream of the economy. Residents resented the social costs of caring for many more newcomers than anybody had been led to believe would arrive. Inter-ethnic violence and other tensions proliferated in the schools and in the parks and streets of a town that formerly had been virtually free of social tensions and violence.”

That’s only a selection, but what Mr. Beck described is the predictable result of the mass immigration of a radically different people into a homogeneous community.

Obviously, not all or even most immigrants turn out to be spree killers, and obviously there are plenty of home-grown ones—Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al.

But in recent years immigrants, and especially those from non-Western and non-white parts of the world, have contributed more than their fair share to the annals of atrocity crimes.

The most obvious is the World Trade Center in 2001, but well before that Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson murdered six passengers on a commuter train on Long Island in 1993.

Pakistani immigrant Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two people outside CIA headquarters in the same year, which was the year after aliens first tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

In 1997 immigrant Ali Abu Kamal shot up the tourists at the Empire State Building, and later two more immigrants were arrested for trying to blow up the New York subway system.

There are a number of other cases that made national news at the time.

Are they all just coincidences? Not exactly.

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren’t their people, and their moral and social norms aren’t theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

For immigrants on the fringe, the resulting tensions can overflow, and it’s not easy even for those not so fringe.

Thus, the Washington Post, not exactly a hotbed of nativist bigotry, offers this editorializing in its news article about the Wisconsin killings.

“Rules and etiquette on American hunting passed from generation to generation have proved unfamiliar to many Hmong, who come from Laos, where hunting is a practiced skill. The Lao mountains are among the wildest and least populated areas of the world. There are no regulations about what, where or when to hunt. Conservation officers and property owners in several states have reported conflicts with the Hmong over their hunting practices, often because they did not understand American traditions. Four years ago, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources hired a Hmong officer to teach the community about local hunting and fishing rules.” [In Deer Country, a Puzzling Shooting Spree, By Peter Slevin and Kari Lydersen, November 23, 2004]

Well, I guess maybe the Department of Natural Resources didn’t do such a bang-up job, and who can blame it?

Why should we need government bureaucracies to explain our traditions and values to masses of aliens who have no business coming here at all?

The “conflicts with the Hmong” the Post mentions so demurely are not just about hunting, and the conflicts are not confined to the Hmong.

The exact same kinds of conflicts are obvious to anyone who deals with Third Worlders on any large scale.

Will the Wisconsin mass murders of which Mr. Vang is accused lead the dominant culture to start rethinking immigration and its social consequences?

Not a bit. Here’s what ABC News found to worry about in the incident:

“Vang’s arrest left some Hmong citizens in his hometown fearful of a backlash. About 24,000 Hmong live in St. Paul, the highest concentration of any U.S. city. And the shooting has already provoked racial tension in an area of Wisconsin where deer hunting is steeped in tradition.” [Hunting Death Suspect's Relatives Shocked, ABC News, (AP) November 24, 2004]

That’s the real problem, you see, not immigration but the racial backlash” that may or may not come about from the white people whose friends and neighbors Mr. Vang slaughtered.

Maybe the Department of Natural Resources can send in a team to teach them about racism.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

ABC Sports last week took careful aim at the “moral issues” that are said to have driven this month’s national election and delivered a good swift kick to their dentures on national television.

The main reaction from viewers and the professional “family values”lobby has been to denounce the nudity and clearly implied sex of the now-notorious ad that promoted last week’s Monday Night Football game. That’s all well and good, but there was more going on in the ad that no one will mention—race.

The ad shows blonde white sexpot Nicolette Sheridan of the steamy “Desperate Housewives” series smooching up to black football star Terrell Owens in the locker room of the Philadelphia Eagles. Then the young lady drops her bath towel and jumps into Mr. Owens’ not-exactly recalcitrant arms.

“Aw, hell,” he leers, “the team’s going to have to win without me.”

In the aftermath of the similar reaction to CBS’s showing of the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake flap during the Super Bowl last February, there can be little doubt the ABC ad was not just a blunder.

It was an intentional act of moral subversion.

It was filmed the Friday before, and in the aftermath of all the jabber about moral issuesin the election, it ought to be transparent that it was intended as an act of political-cultural subversion as well.

In the CBS incident, Miss Jackson exposed her breast on camera during a performance with Mr. Timberlake. The Federal Communications Commission fined CBS, which broadcast the Super Bowl, the piddling sum of $550,000—little more than lunch money, of course, for the big networks and hardly a deterrent to similar smacks at good taste in the future.

But taste and morality are by no means the ad’s only targets.

Like the Jackson-Timberlake performance, the Owens-Sheridan ad was interracial and brazenly so—if only morals and taste had been the targets, the producers could easily have found white actresses who are less obviously Nordic than the golden-locked Miss Sheridan, but Nordic is what the ad’s producers no doubt wanted.

For that matter, if you only wanted to take a swipe at morals and taste, you could find a black woman to rip her towel off or replace Mr. Owens with a famous white athlete (there are still a few).

But that wasn’t the point, was it? The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.

So far only one voice has mentioned the ad’s racial meaning and denounced its insensitivity (to blacks)—that of black Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy.

Blacks are permitted to notice race. Whites aren’t.

But the ad’s message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience.

Nevertheless, for decades, interracial couples of different sexes have been sneaked into advertising, movies and television series, and almost certainly not because of popular demand from either race. The Owens-Sheridan match is only the most notorious to date.

In the minds of those who produced the ad, race is at least as important as the moral and aesthetic norms their ad subverts.

To them, the race as well as the religion, the morality, and the culture of the host society are all equally hostile and oppressive forces that need to be discredited, debunked and destroyed.

If the destruction can’t happen at the polls or through the courts, they can always use the long march through the culture that control of the mass media allows.

Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself.

“We apologize,” smirked the spokesman for those who sponsored the ad, Mark Mandel, the Vice President of ABC Sports.

Mr. Mandel of course ultimately reports to his own boss, Michael Eisner, chief executive of the Walt Disney Company that owns ABC.

And Mr. Eisner’s Disney in recent years has become a battering ram against traditional American identity.

Re-electing President Bush and voting against homosexual marriage are well and good, but they won’t defeat the real enemy in the moral, cultural and racial war that the likes of Mr. Mandel and Mr. Eisner are waging.

If American voters really are driven by the “moral issue,” they need to drive a good bit further than Mr. Bush and his “family values” allies have suggested.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: American Media 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”