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

In one of its rare adventures into the no man’s land beyond the Beltway, the Washington Post last week served up a series on What America Is Really Like, concluding with an extended scrutiny of what is now called “Blue America” (actually, red or pink America), namely, that part of the country that voted for Al Gore, loves Bill Clinton and remains proud of it. [A Liberal Life in the City by the Bay By David Finkel, Washington Post, Apr 27, 2004]

Not surprisingly, the Post focused on California’s 8th Congressional District in San Francisco, home of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, whom the Almanac of American Politics describes as having a “perfectly liberal voting record.”

The country remains almost evenly divided between the Blues and the Reds (the latter being, in the curious codewords the media have recently crafted, more or less the conservative” side), and while Mr. Gore in 2000 received more popular votes than George W. Bush, he won only 42 percent of the white vote.

This is of some relevance because it was a white family in San Francisco that the Post profiled for the purpose of finding out What White Liberal America Is Really Like.

What they’re like, in case you can’t guess, is frightening. The Harrison family, the Post reports, “describe Bill Clinton as ‘intelligent,’ ‘charismatic’ and ‘a good representation of America.‘” The sort of issues Blue Americans think about include such questions as ” ‘Is the United States to be guided by the rigid morality of the Ten Commandments, or by something more elastic?’”

The answers they come up with are odd. Tom Harrison, the head (sort of) of the family,

“thinks that ‘politicians tend to be good people’ and that government isn’t too big, and even though a third of his paycheck goes to taxes, he pays them gladly and would willingly pay more because of what he sees around him every day.”

Tom, you see, tells the Post that “life has taught him that you can’t have one hard-and-fast rule for everybody. There are grays.”

Actually, most people seem to learn that sometime around the age of 15 or so, but if it took Tom his whole life, that’s OK. Compared to wife Maryanne, Tom is Nobel Prize material.

Maryanne, she explains to the Post, grew up in “a small, safe, shy, insulated, very Catholic, stay-in-the-neighborhood life,” but the liberating excitement of marrying Tom taught her too all about the importance of not having the same rules for everybody and being elastic—especially about “diversity.”

“Her world got wider and wider,” gurgles the Post, “until she became the person she says she is now: someone who thrives on, rather than insulates herself from, diversity. She has been to a Chinese wedding. She has been to a Buddhist wedding and a Buddhist funeral. She has Passover Seder every year with the neighbors next door. ‘See, I love that,’ she says. ‘I love that. People interest me. They fascinate me.’”

Well, you have to admit, people like Maryanne and Tom and the whole vast intellectual La Brea tar pit where Blue Americans like them live are fascinating too. They think living by rules that forbid murder, theft, lying and adultery is “rigid” and favor a more “elastic” code under which sometimes murder, theft, lying, and adultery are OK.

You can’t have one hard-and-fast rule for everybody, you know.

And then there’s Heather, the Harrison’s daughter, who does not have two mommies like the other, more famous Heather but does have the misfortune of having two bubbleheads as parents.

You have to feel sorry for Heather because her dad is perfectly happy to fork up a third of his income to the government every year when it could have gone to supporting Heather or somebody else to whom he actually has some obligations.

But Heather seems happy enough, except when faced with lack of diversity.

“When she and her fiancé went house-hunting over the bridge in 83.9 percent white Walnut Creek,” the Post reports , “she couldn’t wait to get back to San Francisco.’ I don’t like just white people,‘ she says.”

No sir, back to those good ole Buddhist weddings and the annual Seder in the 8th District (which happens to be about 49 percent white, incidentally, perhaps not quite as “fascinating” as the Harrisons would prefer).

The diversity at which Heather and her two bubbleheads love to play so much is just as much of a fraud and a fake as all the rest of the gooey liberalism they believe and pretend to embrace.

They can drag diversity out of its toy box anytime they please or stuff it back in if it starts boring or threatening them.

For millions of other Americans who have to live with the consequences of the guilt, sanctimony and sheer shallowness that Blue Americans like the Harrisons help impose, it’s not so much fun.

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

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a self-appointed “watchdog” organization in Montgomery, Alabama that purports to keep a sharp eye out for “racism” and “hate.”

Despite its name, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with either the South or the law, let alone poverty, other than avoiding the latter for its own officers, most of whom reportedly pull down six-figure salaries for themselves.

But this week its well-paid but merciless eye fell upon a target not usually associated with “hate”—the immensely popular and widely praised epic film series “Lord of the Rings,” the last installment of which is now showing at your local Bijou and has been nominated for no fewer than 11 Academy Awards.

The SPLC’s website,, last week reprinted an op-ed from Pacific News Service by Andrea Lewis, a San Francisco based writer who has discovered that at least the current film in Peter Jackson’s stunning cinematic version of the three-volume novel by J.R.R. Tolkien should really have been named “The Return of the Patriarchy.”

There just aren’t enough fighting females in the movie for Miss Lewis, but she also doesn’t like it because “Almost all of the heroes of the series are manly men who are whiter than white and “exude a heavenly aura of all that is Eurocentric and good. Who but these courageous Anglo-Saxon souls can save Middle Earth from the dark and evil forces of the world?”

Perhaps you begin to catch her drift. ['Lord of the Rings' vs. 'Matrix': Patriarchy vs. the Rainbow Coalition, Jan 05, 2004]

Miss Lewis thinks “Lord of the Rings” is bad because it reflects white racial and patriarchal stereotypes, and as a matter of fact, it probably does.

That’s because those “stereotypes” are integral to the complex tale of civilizational struggle that Tolkien was telling, a tale that thoroughly modern multiculturalists would prefer had never seen cold print because it also happens to be the tale of our real civilization.

It’s the tale of our real civilization because the kings, warriors and heroes who led us have always been manly men who really were whiter than white, and that just might have had something to do with why they won the struggle against their civilization’s enemies, medieval and modern, at all.

That, of course, is what Miss Lewis and her pals at the SPLC don’t like.

What they do like is The Matrix,” the endless, tedious and incomprehensible special effects film series for teeny boppers that features the non-white and mixed race heroes Miss Lewis and her multiculturalist friends demand. As she writes in comparing the two films:

“Neo, the [Matrix] trilogy’s central figure, is played by mixed-race actor Keanu Reeves. His savior and mentor is Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), a powerful leader who also happens to be a black man. The wisest figure in ‘The Matrix‘ is the Oracle, a warm and witty African American woman.

“The films also are infused with a strong sense of Asian style and culture, exemplified by the character Seraph (Collin Chou) who is both a martial arts expert and Buddhist meditation practitioner.”

Perhaps here too you catch her drift.

The drift is that what Miss Lewis and the SPLC boys who chose to reprint her article like is not “tolerance” and what they oppose is not “hate.”

What they oppose is any positive portrayal of white people.

What they like is any production that writes whites out of the picture.

Well, not entirely. Another reason Miss Lewis likes “The Matrix” is that it depicts whites as villains.

“Most of the really bad guys in ‘The Matrix’,” she gloats, “are Euro,” including a Frenchman, two British albino twins [Peter and John Brimelow write: hey!] and “a rather stuffy and pompous white guy with white beard and white suit who reeks of imperialism.”

What she really approves of is any production that not only demotes whites from heroic roles but serves to demonize them in new anti-white stereotypes. Nothing more clearly exposes the SPLC’s real anti-white agenda than Miss Lewis’ silly article. The “multiculturalism” that obsesses her and the SPLC is just as steeped in hate—of whites—as any of the goof balls they “investigate” (and maybe a good deal more). It’s just hate of a different hue.

The fact is that Lord of the Ringsis an important, beautiful and entirely healthy movie, more or less faithfully based on an important, beautiful and entirely healthy book, which itself draws from some of the deepest springs of Western culture—the myths and folklore of Northern Europe—and tells an important, beautiful and entirely healthy story that white Western men need to hear.

That story is about how the enemies of their civilization were crushed by manly men (and hobbits) who had the strength and courage to fight back.

I understand why people like Miss Lewis and the SPLC don’t much care for it.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Diversity, SPLC 
🔊 Listen RSS

Science marches on, and some of it marches right into a happy country that unites Alice’s Wonderland to Orwell’s 1984. The latest scientific finding from Dartmouth discloses a test that claims to be able to detect hidden “racism.”

The test’s uses are obvious enough, and one has already been proposed—to screen police recruits to see if they’re “biased.”

I can think of others. Put the Racism Detector Cap on people like Howard Dean or Bill Clinton to find out what they really think.

You could change the course of history with this gadget.

The problem is that the test is probably voodoo pure and simple—more simple than pure, as a matter of fact.

The Boston Globe recently reported on an article in the scientific journal Nature Neuroscience that describes the racism test:

“According to the findings, the more biased people are, the more their brain power is taxed by contact with someone of another race, as they struggle not to say or do anything offensive. The effect is so strong, the team found, that even a five-minute conversation with a black person left some of the white subjects unable to perform well on a test of cognitive ability.”

“Just having a prejudice makes you stupider,” beams John Gabrieli, a psychology professor at Stanford who was not involved in the research. “It is really interesting.”

[Bias taxes brain, research finds, By Gareth Cook, Boston Globe, November 17, 2003]

It is indeed really interesting, not least because what it probably proves is that just being a psychologist makes you stupider.

Here’s how the “racism test” works.

First, students are given what’s known as an “Implicit Association Test” that’s supposed to show how unconsciously biased you are. The students (always white apparently) are asked to push a button for words with “positive” associations like “beauty” and a different button for “a common first name” for a white person like “Nancy.”

In the second session, they’re given names “more common for a black person, such as ‘Tyrone’. The greater the difference between the reaction times in the two sessions, the more the person has trouble associating black names with positive concepts.”

Therefore, he must harbor “racist” attitudes.

Give me a break already.

Aside from the test’s obvious flaws (who says which names are “white” or “black” and which words are “positive”; how do you know how different students associate such names, etc.), the test seems to be given only to white students.

Of course it’s unthinkable that blacks or non-whites might harbor “racial biases” toward whites. But of course again that’s not the real purpose of the test, is it?

Then there’s the real breakthrough, the magnetic resonance imaging test that detects “racism.” [An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function, Richeson et al, Nature Neuroscience, December 2003 Volume 6 Number 12]

“Each student was then shown a series of photographs, some of white males and some of black males. The more biased a student was, the more the team saw a certain area of their brain activate, an area associated with ‘executive control,’ conscious efforts to direct thinking.”

This, said one of the Einsteins behind the research, Dartmouth’s Jennifer Richeson, [email her] “is a sign the brain is struggling not to think inappropriate thoughts.”

So let’s say the test is valid and the MRI really shows something about “attitudes.” What does it show?

What Professor Richeson thinks it shows is “a dispiriting portrait of the state of the nation’s race relations … even among the well-educated, well-meaning Dartmouth undergraduates whom the scientists studied.” Indeed.

“I think people are getting caught in this trap where they are trying not to do the wrong thing, rather than trying to act natural,” she told the Globe.

But what the test shows (maybe) is that “well-educated, well-meaning Dartmouth undergraduates” have problems “as they struggle not to say or do anything offensive” when dealing with blacks.

Maybe this is “racism.” My own bet is that it’s fear and guilt.

It might be fear because most Dartmouth undergraduates know that if you say something “offensive” to a black person, you can be ruined and be branded as a “racist” for life.

It might also be guilt because many “well-educated, well-meaning”undergraduates these days have internalized the cattle droppings their teachers inject into their callow minds.

In any case, it’s also interesting that the students’ brain power is taxed by trying not to offend blacks—and that’s considered proof of racial bias.

Personally, I hope the “Racism Detector” turns out to be reliable.

Instead of Bill Clinton and Howard Dean and the well-educated, well-meaning young chickens at Dartmouth who will soon turn into people like them, I want to use the gadget on such apostles of equality as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to find out how much their “brain power is taxed by contact with someone of another race.”

I’ll bet the results would be fascinating.

For some reason, nobody at Dartmouth seems to have thought of that.

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

“I do not like the Confederate flag,” black pundit Shelby Steele informed the readers of the Wall Street Journal last week in a long commentary on Vermont ex-governor Howard Dean’s recent remark that he wanted to be “the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

“It excludes me, profoundly,” Mr. Steele asserts. [Yo, Howard! Why did Dean have to embrace the Confederate flag? November 13, 2003]

It seems to follow that whatever excludes him—hotels and restaurants he can’t afford, your private home, most nations on the face of the earth—he dislikes.

But what was important about Mr. Steele’s pontification is not what it said about him or the flag but what it says about white people.

Misinterpreting Mr. Dean’s remark as an effort to use “identity to seek political power in precisely the same way that Rev. Al Sharpton does,” Mr. Steele went on to ruminate about why there is no white identity in American politics, even though, as he freely acknowledged, there are certainly non-white identities”

“It is quite acceptable for either party to explicitly go after the black, Hispanic, or even the Jewish vote,”

Mr. Steele wrote,

“In fact both parties gain an indispensable moral authority by doing so. But it is absolutely verboten for either party, or any white candidate, to appeal to whites as a racial identity group. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say ‘I’m white and I’m proud’ and you are a Nazi.”

Those who have said it know Mr. Steele is quite right, and so does Mr. Dean, even though that’s not what he said.

There is therefore a “double standard on race” in this country—it’s OK for non-whites to have a racial identity, but not OK for whites, let alone to base a political movement on white identity.

Moreover, Mr. Steele sees nothing wrong with the double standard, though he does understand it needs a little justification.

His justification is predictable—whites are just too evil to be trusted with racial identity:

“No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time—through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny. This is why today’s whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity.”

But in the first place, it is simply a lie—not just a lie but a whopper of titanic dimensions—that whites have the kind of monopoly on evil Mr. Steele attributes to them.

Colonialism, slavery and “racism” have been at least as common among non-whites as whites, and indeed until the superior technologies created by whites began yielding global power, whites were mainly on the receiving end of racial aggression—from Asians,Moslems, Mongols and others.

As for “Nazism,” OK, it was a white phenomenon, but the Nazis were pikers compared to what the Japanese, Chinese communists and Cambodians cooked up in the same era or a bit later.

Nor would such African apostles of liberty as Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, among several others, have been far behind if they had the means to do it.

On its merits, Mr. Steel’s nakedly anti-white claim that whites illustrate for all time an “extraordinary evil” is not only flapdoodle but in fact illustrates his point—white racial identity, let alone pride, is forbidden.

Otherwise, a white controlled newspaper like the Wall Street Journalwould never have published his little gob of racial spit at all.

But the larger truth is that no one does forbid whites to have a racial identity—except whites themselves.

All the witch hunters in the world could not stop whites from resisting their coming dispossession and the not unlikely racial tyranny they face from the emerging non-white and anti-white majority if they wanted to do so.

What does it tell us that every other race and ethnic group can and does develop a group consciousness and pursues political power based on it, but whites don’t?

And what does the additional fact that whites are becoming a numerical minority in this country suggest is going to happen once they become a minority?

If you think—as Mr. Steele seems to—that whites are evil and other races aren’t, then not to worry.

If you know that non-whites are at least as capable of “extraordinary human evil” as whites, then the lack of racial identity among whites as a means of protecting themselves against their racial aggressors just might be a problem—at least for whites.

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

If you want a vision of the future of the country (or, if you will, the country of the future), check out a story in last week’s Washington Post Metro section by Linda Perlstein about the wonderful world of “diversity” in the D.C. area’s Montgomery County and more especially its schools.

If this is the future, most Americans will want to buy a one-way ticket to the 1950s.

But to Miss Perlstein, what’s happening to Montgomery (the upscale and mainly liberal part of suburban Maryland, as opposed to the downscale and mainly liberal Prince George’s County next door) is the promise of utopia.

What’s happening is that white people are being driven out and non-whites coming in.

“Thirty-five years ago, the school system was 94 percent white; two decades ago, white students made up about 75 percent of the enrollment. Since then, racial diversity has bloomed in the county,” Miss Perlstein cheerfully purrs.

There are, of course, problems, since for some reason never made quite plain, the new people who make the county so wonderfully diverse happen also to be—well—low-income.

Half the county’s schools are “mostly white and relatively affluent,” but the other half “educate the vast majority of Montgomery’s poor and immigrant children. ‘It is a racially, economically and language-identifiable geographic area,’” says school superintendent Jerry Weast, “similar in size and makeup to some of the nation’s larger urban school districts.” “If it was a stand-alone system,” Mr. Weast confesses, “it would be called a failing system.” [Montgomery Schools Hit Diversity Landmark, Oct 13, 2003]

It’s not called a failing system, of course, because

(a) in this country, we don’t call non-white failure what it is, and

(b) there are still some whites in the school system to mask the failure that’s going on, but don’t imagine that will last forever.

The conflict between the two halves is already visible. “You run the risk of creating a clash between haves and have-nots,” one County Councilman told Miss Perlstein. “That is Montgomery County for the next 20 years.”

Really. But the Open Borders Lobby told us this wouldn’t happen. They said all the immigrants from Third World countries would assimilate,learn English, become computer geniuses, start software companies and work harder and be more moral than decadent old white Americans, and there wouldn’t be any racial, ethnic or social conflict because mass immigration started bumping into the native population.

Like so much the Open Borders lobby told us, it was all flapdoodle, but leave that aside for the nonce.

The reason Montgomery has become so “mixed” and that this year’s senior class in the school system, as Miss Perlstein gloats in her opening sentence, is “the last group of graduating seniors in Montgomery County public schools to be majority white,” is that, instead of bumping into the immigrants, the white people have simply packed up and left:

“As the affluent and middle class embark on a white flight to outer suburbia and minorities and new immigrants settle in their place, the demographic changes reflect a pattern seen across the region and in other parts of the country. In Fairfax County, for example, nearly half the students enrolled in public schools are racial or ethnic minorities, and soon they are expected to outnumber non-Hispanic white students.”

And of course this creates yet another “problem” for the problem-solvers to fix, just as they fixed the old problem of too little diversity by importing a new population.

Harvard Professor Gary Orfield [Send him email.] knows how the “problem” can be solved.

Professor Orfield, who specializes in studying patterns of segregation and how to change them, told the Post that “policymakers should look at ways beyond the schools to maintain true diversity, in which populations—and therefore political power and family resources—are more evenly balanced.”

Yes, the problem, you see, is not that mass immigration has dismally and obviously failed to live up to the lies with which it was sold but that too many white people still have too much power and “resources”(i.e., money).

That’s what has to be changed.

Meanwhile, the pathetic whites who have left and are leaving Montgomery and Fairfax and who have long since left the District of Columbia are heading for still newer areas—Warrenton, Manassas, Harper’s Ferry, Frederick—where “diversity” is not so common.

After being pushed out of the cities their ancestors built, they build new cities, and after being kicked out of them, still newer ones next door.

Maybe, sooner or later, in about fifty years, the white fugitives from the D.C. area will meet up with the white fugitives from California somewhere around Kansas.

Maybe then they’ll start figuring out what happened to them and why they lost their country because of the mass immigration they welcomed and the lies about “diversity” they believed.

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

Well, if the good people of California can’t have an election, at least they can have freedom of association.

Well, then again, perhaps they can’t. At a place rather ironically called Freedom High School in Contra Costa a 15-year-old girl wants to start a student group called the Caucasian Club. That was enough to make national news.

Of course there are all-black clubs, all-Hispanic clubs, all-Asian clubs, and all-everything-else-but-whites clubs, but no one has ever heard of a club restricted to whites. In fact, Lisa McLelland, the freshman who wants to start it, says it won’t be all-white, but that still doesn’t mean it’s OK.

“It’s not racist because we’re not excluding anyone, and we’re just trying to solve the issues of racial disparity,” Lisa told the Contra Costa Times. Lisa is young, you see. She thinks “racism” really means excluding people because of their race and therefore her Caucasian Club will be OK (why it should be called the Caucasian Club is a bit of a mystery, but more of that anon). Fortunately for her, the NAACP is there to set her straight.

The vice president of the local NAACP chapter, Darnell Turner, says the Caucasian Club “will not allow us to heal that divide that we’ve tried to overcome in the past couple of years,” and that if Lisa’s “motivation is to bring harmony, as she alleges, this is not the way to go.” Mr. Turner has a point. [Caucasian Club meets resistance, By Danielle Samaniego, Contra Costa Times, September 17, 2003]

“Harmony,” you must understand (as Lisa doesn’t) means we do what the NAACP wants, not what Lisa or white students or white people want. If you don’t do that or want to, you’re working against harmony.

The same for “healing the divide,” which also means supporting the NAACP’s agenda. If you’re against that too, there is definitely a problem.

Lisa has circulated a petition to start the club, which is gaining signatures, including some from other very young people, some of whom are not white but who also don’t get what Mr. Turner is so patiently trying to teach them. “I think it’s fair for white people to have their own club because every other race has their own club,” one kid, part Hispanic, told the paper.

He has a lot to learn too.

In fact, as the paper rehearses, there have been some really serious problems of racial intolerance at Freedom. For instance, “Freedom High teacher Jesse Gossett, who is African-American, found a noose made out of a shoelace hanging on the doorknob of his classroom.”

That was in 2001—two years ago. Probably the secret gang of neo-Nazi psychopaths and homicidal Klansmen lurking in the school were planning to lynch Mr. Gossett with the shoelaces. And now they want to start the “Caucasian Club.”

Lisa says the club not only won’t exclude anyone but will “try to solve the issues of racial disparity” (whatever that means) and sponsor “activities such as fund-raisers and field trips to places that emphasize history, such as museums.”

Well, of course, it’s field trips and fund-raisers one day and nooses on door knobs the next. One lesson Lisa needs to learn is how one thing can lead to another before you can even tie your shoelaces.

Actually, Lisa’s idea probably is ill-advised. The Caucasian Club, if the NAACP and the rest of the ruling class ever allow it to see the light of day, will almost certainly never help whites do anything they really need to do—namely, understand how and why they are in the process of losing their country, their heritage and their freedom and how they can and should resist that. “Solving the issues of racial disparity”and “emphasizing history” sounds like the club will wind up regurgitating all the anti-white drivel, guilt, and lies the NAACP and its allies can invent and stuff down white throats.

White students should be learning about their history in the schools their parents pay taxes to support, but whatever they learn there today and probably whatever they would be permitted to learn in Lisa’s club bears even less resemblance to real history than a shoelace does to a rope.

It ought to tell us all we need to know about the club that Lisa insists it won’t “exclude anyone” and will “be open to everyone of all ethnic backgrounds.”

What Lisa ought to do instead is try to join the black student union or the Chicano Student Movement for Aztlan (MEChA) or some other anti-white group that the school authorities and the NAACP have no problem with.

That way she’d find out quick what being white today really means and what it will mean in the non-white future in which she will spend her life.

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

If you’d like a glimpse of the future of the Western world—not just Europe but the United States and most other currently white majority countries—forget the happy chatter about the great Republican victory last week and take a look at Theodore Dalrymple’s account in the Autumn issue of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal of what’s happening in Paris, France.

What’s happening in Paris is that Paris is rather quickly being annihilated, and the civilization of which it has long been a symbol along with it.

Mr. Dalrymple points out that while the population of Paris has risen by a mere 20 percent or less since 1959, reported crimes in the city have increased from 600,000 in that year to 4 million today. Reported cases of arson have increased by some 2,500 percent in the last seven years, and robbery with violence has increased by 44.5 percent since 1996.

Why is this? Mr. Dalrymple is somewhat coy in giving a frank and honest answer.

“Where does the increase in crime come from? The geographical answer: from the public housing projects that encircle and increasingly besiege every French city or town of any size, Paris especially. In these housing projects lives an immigrant population numbering several million, from North and West Africa mostly, along with their French-born descendants and a smattering of the least successful members of the French working class. From these projects, the excellence of the French public transport system ensures that the most fashionable arrondissements are within easy reach of the most inveterate thief and vandal.”

Yes, that’s the “geographical answer.” It must be that anyone who lives in those housing projects becomes a criminal. Maybe they’re haunted, or cursed, or maybe, as Mr. Dalrymple seems to suggest, it’s because the architecture of the housing projects is totalitarian and dehumanizing.

But it couldn’t possibly, ever, conceivably, be because of an alien race and culture.

While the millions of African and Muslim immigrants are torching Paris, their cousins in London are feasting. In that city, projected to have a non-white majority by 2010, police investigating a mysterious human torso recently found floating in the Thames suspect that human flesh is being sold in local markets, according to last week’s Observer. [Human flesh 'on sale in London' Antony Barnett, Paul Harris and Tony Thompson, Observer, Sunday November 3, 2002]

There’s no doubt that such rare delicacies as crocodiles’ heads, chimpanzee meat, and (my own personal favorite) West African bushrat are being—well—gobbled up at fancy prices in London by African immigrants whose descendants will inherit the city of Johnson and Dickens. The torso itself is believed to be that of a five-year-old African boy who was “the victim of a ritualistic killing linked to a West African form of voodoo-like religion.” The crocodiles’ heads are medicinal, since they’re believed to increase male sexual potency.

Bushrat, as far as I can tell, simply tastes good, but then the police also found rat feces, “which had been removed from rats’ intestines and prepared as a delicacy for possible use in a ritual.”

So far, police have found no direct evidence of human meat being sold, but they did confiscate packages of unidentifiable flesh and send it off for DNA analysis. The Observer quotes the director of Heathrow airport’s meat transport as being “convinced that human flesh is finding its way into the UK as part of the bushmeat.” He also thinks the trade is connected to the smuggling of drugs and humans. “We are dealing with very nasty people,” he told the paper.

As in Paris, of course, there is a “geographical answer” or something like it to explain why the future population of Great Britain is suddenly adopting cannibalism, witchcraft and human sacrifice. That’s the answer most newspapers, commentators, academics, and even police will give you.

And then there’s the real answer—that if you allow millions of savages to invade your country, the country will become a land of savagery.

In Paris, there are areas where even the president of France cannot go—when President Jacques Chirac and his interior minister recently tried to campaign in them, Mr. Dalrymple reports, “The two dignitaries had to beat a swift and ignominious retreat, like foreign overlords visiting a barely held and hostile suzerainty: they came, they saw, they scuttled off.”

If it’s not obvious that the appearance of the most savage customs and Stone Age superstitions in a 21st century European nation is a sign that European civilization is collapsing, then the inability of a head of state to campaign inside the capital city of his own country surely should tell us that one civilization and its governing authorities are being replaced by others.

But you can bet your bushrat that the Open Borders lobby that insisted on letting the savages enter and even invited them inside our gates will learn nothing from what is now collapsing around their own ears.

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

The state of Idaho seems an unlikely place for totalitarian government to pop up, but in recent months that’s exactly what has begun to emerge there. Under the state’s “hate crime” statute, a perfectly law-abiding citizen is being prosecuted for using a racial slur—and faces a ruinous five-year term in the state prison.

“Hate crimes” have always consisted of acts that are already criminal—acts of assault, murder, robbery, etc. — but are supposedly aggravated by the use of racial or other kinds of slurs or expressions held to indicate “bias” or “hate” as motivating the crime. Critics of the concept of “hate crimes”— most especially yours truly—have always argued that it was only a matter of time before authorities sought to separate the expression of thought from the criminal act and try to criminalize the expression and the thought themselves. That’s exactly what’s happening in Idaho.

The case concerns a man named Lonny Rae, whose wife, Kimberly, worked as a staff reporter and photographer for their local newspaper in Council, Idaho. Last October, after a particularly heated high school football game, Mrs. Rae took a few photographs of the referees as they left the field.

An official ordered her not to take the pictures, so she didn’t, and turned to leave with her husband. Then, Mrs. Rae found herself grabbed from behind and dragged backward by a black official who also grabbed for her camera. Mrs. Rae was pulled by the strap on the camera around her neck, and she screamed for her husband to help her.

Mr. Rae ran to her aid as her attacker, more than six feet in height and 250 pounds in weight, was still trying to grab the camera. Mr. Rae pushed him back and in a rage yelled to the other officials, “Tell that nigger to get out of here, ’cause I’m gonna kick his butt.”

Mrs. Rae had to be treated for her injuries in a local hospital, and two days later the couple went to the city prosecutor to bring charges against the man who had injured her. As it turned out, it wasn’t her assailant who had to face legal charges.

It’s Mr. Rae himself who now faces charges, because, by uttering the N-word, he supposedly violated a “hate crime” statute outlawing “malicious harassment.” Originally brought by the city prosecutor, the charge was turned over to the state and increased to a full felony offense carrying a sentence of five years in the state penitentiary. To date, no charges have been brought against his wife’s black assailant. After the usual crusade by the local media to expose the “bigot” and “hate criminal,” Mr. Rae and his wife were banned from the grounds of the high school where the attack took place, even though they had children who were students there. Mrs. Rae also lost her job with the local paper because, she was told, local advertisers threatened to pull their ads. When their money ran out, the couple was evicted from their trailer home, and they’ve lost the equity they’d built up in it. In short, even before Mr. Rae has even been tried, he and his family have been ruined.

Their one supporter is their lawyer, a man named Edgar Steele, who agreed to take their case for no payment. Nobody defends the slur that Mr. Rae yelled in anger when he saw his wife assaulted, but Mr. Steele sees there’s more involved in the case than that. His defense is precisely that the state “hate crimes” statute is slyly being converted into a law for the criminalization of speech itself.

Under “hate crime” laws, Mr. Steele says, “some actual criminal act in conjunction with the hate speech is required before one can be charged. We haven’t yet reached the point of criminalizing mere speech or thought.” However, the Adams County Thought Police have applied Idaho’s little-used Malicious Harassment statute in such a way as to achieve that very result in Lonny Rae’s case. Thus, while the statute may be constitutional, its usage today by the Adams County Thought Police is clearly unconstitutional and an affront to all who value the right to speak their mind without fear of government interference.”

Mr. Rae may win his case—if he and his lawyer are willing to fight it for the next several years—and Mr. Steele might even be technically right that in this country, “we haven’t yet reached the point of criminalizing mere speech or thought.” But the mere fact that local and state prosecutors even brought their case against Mr. Rae and that even before he went to trial the defendant had effectively been ruined should tell us something: The tyranny that hate crimes statutes have already planted in this country’s laws is blossoming.

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

The big news at Ford Motor Company these days is not so much those tires they’re going to put on their cars and trucks but rather which colors will make the decision. Last summer, Ford was named the 30th “best company for minorities” in the country by Fortunemagazine, and if the class action lawsuit filed against it in February has merit, that’s probably true.

But the corollary of being the best company for minorities seems to be that it’s one of the worst for aging white males — a minority group that lacks the privileges others usually get. The lawsuit, filed by older white male executives, claims the company fired them to make room for more fashionable faces. “Consideration of race and gender in employment decisions to benefit minorities and females and to disadvantage white males is standard operating procedure” at the company, according to the complaint.

As evidence, the complaint cites statements of several Ford executives. Some of the remarks are openly anti-white, such as the videotaped speech of Ford CEO Jacques Nasser to one of the sessions in corporate brainwashing known as a “diversity training seminar.” “I do not like the sea of white faces in the audience,” Mr. Nasser preached, “and FoMoCo [cute corporate jargon for the company] must ensure that in the future, the company reflects the broad spectrum of Ford’s customers.”

It would be fun to speculate on what would happen to a Fortune 500 CEO who said he disliked seeing so many black faces in the audience. Professional ruin would probably be the least of the consequences, but for bosses who dislike seeing too many whites, there’s no problem.

Mr. Nasser’s anti-white bigotry is not unique, however. Richard Parry-Jones, Ford’s vice-president for product development and quality,says, “We are trapped in a mono-cultural environment that is dominated by old white males.” “We need to change. We need more employees who are reflective of our consumer base.” The head of Ford Credit, Don Winkler, says, “We went to headhunters who didn’t find us 51-year-old white males.” In other words, some minorities get blacklisted.

The quotes, none of which seems to be denied by Ford or the gentlemen who uttered them, have several interesting implications. Not the least is that they pretty much blow the big lie of “color blindness” out of the water. The whole rationale for fighting “discrimination” ever since the sit-ins at Southern lunch counters has been to do away with racial prejudice as a basis of admissions to schools and hiring and promotion in business. Affirmative action, mandated by government policy, is one blatant violation of that concept. But what Ford has done has been to internalize the new bigotry all by itself, without government help.

If that’s becoming standard practice at large companies, then whites may not have much future in them, and abolishing affirmative action by legislation or court decision won’t help. What the “civil rights revolution” turns out to mean in reality as opposed to rhetoric and theory is not that no race dominates others, but that one race (namely whites) gets dominated by a new racial supremacy.

Yet another implication is that, judging from the remarks of Mr. Nasser and Mr. Parry-Jones, Ford’s push for diversity is driven not so much by ideology as by business itself — they think Ford needs to “reflect the broad spectrum” of its customers and to have employees “more reflective of its consumer base.” This may well be sheer moonshine, designed to make them sound like good businessmen rather than a couple of sap-headed do-gooders out to wreck their own company. Then again, it may well be what they teach in business schools these days. Whichever it is, it’s hard to believe that anyone considering buying a Ford car or truck much cares what race or gender the executives are.

But whatever the economic merits of giving the bounce to loyal and experienced white executives and hiring and promoting new ones just because of their color and sex, what the Ford practice may also reveal is the marriage of Economic Man with the totalitarianism politely called “political correctness.” What Ford may be saying is that racial and sexual discrimination against white males now pays.

That’s not true, of course, but if not only Ford but also enough other corpo-crats come to believe it — and organization men can make themselves believe just about anything — it’s one more indication that white males are going to face more than a few serious problems in the looming future. Not only will they lose their country to the flood of Third World immigrants their government refuses to control, but also they’ll lose their jobs as their own businessmen convince themselves their employees are no longer worth keeping.

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

The debate over immigration may have smothered in its cradle in Washington and national politics, but in more real places it’s still alive and kicking. One such place is Iowa, which for the last nine months has been pregnant with controversy over the issue.

Last September, the state’s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants—namely 350,000 of them—to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa “diversify.” For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of “diversity,” the real reason behind the governor’s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy. The governor’s plan had the support of what at the time were called “business and civic leaders”—that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.

But those who don’t so profit—the vast majority of Iowans – didn’t care much for the governor’s plan. Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal. A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn’t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city “has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences.”

As suggested above, the invocation of “diversity” has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much “diversity” is enough and how much is too little. For that matter, it would be nice to know why “diversity” is a good thing at all. How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more “diversity”? What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently “diverse”? Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don’t say.

What they do say is that those who oppose immigration and the “diversity” it brings are full of hate. Two days after the Des Moines Register imparted the dismal news that Iowans are pretty much satiated with “diversity,” the same reporter unleashed another story claiming that groups opposing immigration are all “hate groups.” At least one of the groups had run TV ads against Gov. Vilsack’s proposal a few months before. The meaning is clear. Iowans have been duped into thinking their state has too much diversity because “hate groups” have made them think so.

What’s interesting about the second Register story is that it never tells us what a “hate group” is exactly—just as no one who is for diversity ever tells us what good diversity does. Both “hate” and “diversity” as they are used today are codewords, deployed to invoke images in people’s minds without inciting actual thought about what they mean. Everybody’s against “hate,” of course, and everybody is for or should be for “diversity.” If you’re not for “diversity,” it must be because you’re full of “hate.”

The source of the Register’s smear is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing outfit that specializes in denouncing any group it deems too far to the right as a “hate group.” But it too doesn’t bother to define “hate group,” and at least some of the information it purveys about some of the groups in question is simply wrong.

Presumably, a “hate group” is a group that advocates hatred—and therefore violence—against certain racial, religious, or ethnic groups. The problem is that I happen to know most of the groups being denounced and know that they do no such thing. Nor does the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Des Moines Register provide any information that they do. In the amazingly non-diverse minds of the Center and the newspaper, anyone who opposes immigration and thinks Iowa is already diverse enough must be driven by hate—and that, as far as I can tell, is the only reason they have for claiming these are “hate groups.”

What is happening in the great Iowa debate about immigration may explain why there hasn’t been more of a debate about immigration in the nation as a whole—those who support mass immigration don’t really have much of an argument on their side, so all they can do is invoke codewords like “diversity” and smear anyone who disagrees with them as driven by “hate.” What ensues is not a debate but the forensic equivalent of mud wrestling, and what comes out of the “debate” is not truth but merely emotional gratification and the muzzling of real thought and real discussion. Iowans ought to demand something better for their state, because the nation as a whole has failed to demand it for itself.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Diversity 
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.”