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 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.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Harvard scholar Samuel P. Huntington’s Who Are We?, undoubtedly the most important criticism of mass immigration by a major academic figure in the last 50 years, has now been published, and if the onslaught against it has not been quite the gang rape some predicted, the establishment embrace of the book has not exactly been a love match.

Reactions to Mr. Huntington’s book range from the pedantically skeptical to the predictably ranting, but most of the responses merely reflect the ideological fixations of the reviewers rather than any substantive criticism.

What they reveal is that the ruling class or at least its cultural commissars simply can’t handle serious discussion of mass immigration and the multicultural and multiracial messes it is creating.

Who Are We? is notable for three claims.

  • First, it argues that the real and enduring American national identity comes from and remains dependent on what Mr. Huntington calls the “Anglo-Protestant core” culture created by the early settlers who established the first European societies in North America.

Alternative views are that our identity, if we have one at all, is universal, the product of a “creed” or proposition that includes all peoples and all cultures, or that if we used to be an Anglo-Protestant society, we are no longer and good riddance.

  • The book then argues that the mass immigration of non-Western, Third World—specifically, Hispanic—peoples into the United States over the last 40 years or so is undermining our Anglo-Protestant identity.

This part of the book is probably the best and most sustained critique of mass immigration on cultural grounds ever written. It has not been well received at the hands of the culture cops.

  • Finally, Mr. Huntington argues that immigration represents a cultural threat not just because of the pressures from immigration itself but also because of the absolute refusal of our elites—not only in culture but big business and politics also—to resist cultural deracination, slow or halt immigration itself, or even enforce assimilation of newcomers into traditional American civilization.

These claims are not mere assertions. Mr. Huntington, like the major scholar he is, documents all of them with a vast amount of information and no small amount of ingenuity. Even if you love immigration, his book is the one you have to read if you want to know what its critics think and say.

But the book is far from perfect, and in fact it contains a major conceptual flaw.

The flaw is that even though Mr. Huntington argues that America is not “based on a creed,” he believes there is a creed that in effect defines the nation. It’s just that the creed grows out of and remains dependent on the Anglo-Protestant culture.

The “creed” he describes is one that endorses the “political principles of liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property”—in short, liberalism. Mr. Huntington is right that many Americans do believe in one version or another of such a creed, but there’s no reason to think it’s the defining trait of American beliefs.

It never seems to occur to Mr. Huntington that the creed he describes is self-evidently false in at least one important respect: It claims to be universal. But if, as he argues, it’s really the product of a specific culture and history (the “Anglo-Protestant core”), then it’s not really universal. It’s just what we or some of us happen to believe.

And if the creed is really only a culturally unique set of beliefs, there’s no reason to worship it or elevate it to the level of divinely revealed dogma, which is what the very term “creed” suggests.

In fact, America has no creed. There are many different documents in our history, but nowhere is there one that is known as the “American Creed.” It’s interesting that most of the writers Mr. Huntington cites on the creed are in fact foreigners themselves.

What defines America is indeed the very kind of cultural identity Mr. Huntington started out talking about, an identity that produces many different beliefs and belief systems. Americans decide which “creed” to swallow based on their merits—whether they’re true or false, logical or illogical—and not because they’re supposed to believe one or another.

But Mr. Huntington is entirely right that mass immigration by peoples who don’t share the same cultural roots and often hate or reject them won’t be assimilating to it any time soon.

He’s also right that if no one in charge demands that they assimilate, the culture won’t last long.

You can quibble or rant about a good many of the claims Mr. Huntington makes in his important book, but if you learn only that much, you will have gotten your money’s worth.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

For most of this month, while the rest of the country worried about what was happening in Iraq, the state of Maryland had other concerns—namely, whether its governor, Robert L. Ehrlich, is too insensitive to the Tower of Babel into which mass immigration has helped convert his state and the nation.

Mr. Ehrlich, a Republican whose major effort so far has been to push for legalizing slot machines, spouted off on a recent radio talk show in Baltimore about the theory and practice of what is known as “multiculturalism”—the idea that immigrants from non-Western cultures" href="">should not assimilate to Western and American cultural norms. The state—or at least the self-appointed and often taxpayer-funded multiculturalist mafia—has been jabbering about what he said ever since.

“I reject the idea of multiculturalism,” the governor said. “Once you get into this multicultural crap, this bunk, you run into a problem. With respect to this culture, English is the language. Should we encourage young folks here to be assimilated, to learn the culture and values? Of course.” The governor was defending a remark made by former governor and current Comptroller, the curmudgeonly 82-year old William Donald Schaeffer, who was grousing about not being able to be understood at a local McDonald’s . “I don’t want to adjust to another language. This is the United States. I think they ought to adjust to us,” the Comptroller said. .”[Transcript, Listen]

Well, now, a tip of the sombrero to Gov. Ehrlich and Mr. Schaeffer, though not everyone is tipping. The Montgomery County Council immediately passed a resolution [PDF] expressing “deep concern”over Mr. Ehrlich’s remarks (Mr. Schaeffer, a Democrat, was not mentioned), and professional Hispanics around the state soon chimed in as well with various recommendations as to how he should be punished.

The Washington Post reports that state Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, herself a Salvadoran immigrant, believes the governor needs “diversity training.” Miss Gutierrez says “I think what the governor said absolutely is offensive and “It’s also a dangerous comment.” Montgomery County Councilman Thomas Perez, son of Dominican immigrants, prefers a different fate for Mr. Schaeffer . “He said Schaefer should return to that McDonald’s to sit down and have lunch with the employee who served him. ‘He’d learn that person is no different than anyone else in this country.’” How Mr. Schaeffer could learn that when the employee doesn’t speak English is not entirely clear. [Ehrlich Calls Multiculture Idea 'Bunk' | Radio Show Remarks Offend Latino Leaders By Matthew Mosk Washington Post, May 8, 2004]

The very idea of these two gringos going around claiming that immigrants should adapt to the country they’ve chosen to come to and even learn its language. Whose country do they think it is, after all? Someone should explain to them the real meaning of mass immigration, which new Americanoes like Miss Guttierez and Mr. Perez understand perfectly well.

That meaning is this: Mass immigration means revolution, the displacement of one people and its culture by others, and anyone who still thinks immigrants should assimilate to the old culture has missed the whole point of the last 30 years. Sadly, among those who have missed the point is Mr. Ehrlich himself.

In the inevitable clarification the governor had to issue, he did not back away or apologize for what he said—to his immense credit. He did, however, try to clamber onto safer grounds by invoking the traditional idea of immigration and the duty of assimilation.

“In America we have a singular culture, common values and a common language,” the governor explained. “It’s a common history, it’s a common culture…. We should not separate ourselves. This is a melting pot society. … I think we need to get back to our roots, which is to celebrate the melting pot.”

Unfortunately, that’s not quite good enough. The “melting pot” metaphor may have been appropriate when immigration came largely from Europe, with similar languages, religious beliefs, political cultures, and moral and social values. Today it doesn’t.

Today not only do the fragments in the pot not melt into the common history and common culture, they openly and deliberately reject them —as “racist” and exclusive. Immigrants, in particular Hispanics, who make up the largest component, now have the numbers to thumb their noses at the common history and common culture and the very suggestion that they should assimilate to it. Soon they will have the numbers to kick the common culture into the gutters.

To old Americans nothing either Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Schaeffer said is offensive or wrong, but what their remarks and the governor’s later explanation tell us is that neither understands the inexorable logic of mass immigration: When you let an alien people invade your country, sooner or later your country will lose its culture and its identity. Those who continue to defend them will find themselves consigned to diversity training—if they’re lucky.

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

Thanksgiving is over, but the country is probably lucky it took place at all. Various reports disclose that the war against Thanksgiving is almost as ferocious as those against such other evil institutions as Christmas and the Confederate Flag.

A story in the Washington Times last week discussed the war and who’s behind it. As you might expect, it’s pretty much the same people who want virtually every other white, Christian and national holiday abolished or, even better, subverted to suit their own political purposes.

Two years ago the Board of Selectmen of Plymouth, Mass., where the Pilgrims landed in 1620, put up a plaque denouncing them for coming at all.

“Native Americans do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and other European settlers,” smirk the officials. “To them, Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their lands, and the relentless assault on their culture.”

That doesn’t stop the officials from continuing to live on the land their ancestors stole, which today is worth a good deal more than when the Pilgrims swiped it. [Pilgrims' progress? November 25, 2003, by Robert Stacy MCCain]

The Selectmen are not the only warriors in the jihad against Thanksgiving. The Times also notes that in 1996, an instructional guide published by the U.S. Department of Education warned school teachers, “At Thanksgiving, shift the focus away from re-enacting the first Thanksgiving.”

The guide, written by a teacher who’s a Pueblo Indian, might be suspected of containing hidden racial agendas, if it were permitted to suspect anyone but white people of such wickedness:

“The conception of Native Americans [she meant Indians, not citizens born in the United States] gained from such early exposure is both inaccurate and potentially damaging to others.”

Just to confirm her point, this year a school principal in Skokie, Ill.,banned cardboard Indian headdresses in the school’s Thanksgiving pageant because it might offend Indians.

Yet another Native American (I mean Indian) named Moonanum James, who led a protest against Thanksgiving in Plymouth back in the dark ages when there was no plaque denouncing the white settlers, has even more damaging lessons to impart: “The Pilgrims did not come here seeking religious freedom. They already had that in Holland. They came here as part of a commercial venture.”

There are two problems with that thought: (a) it’s not entirely true, and (b) so what if it were true?

The real problem with the Pilgrims’ commercial venture, says Mr. James, was that it

“introduced sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and gay bigotry, jails and the class system to these shores. About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful European strangers would not have survived their first several years in ‘New England’ were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people.”

The Wampanoags, as you may have guessed, were also Native Americans (even though there was no America at the time).

“What native people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands and never-ending repression.”

There are those lands again.

It would be pointless to refute all this kind of stuff, since those who believe it or worry about it probably aren’t terribly open to persuasion (nor are those who don’t believe it or worry about it).

The point of the war against Thanksgiving is not to teach history but to destroy the national myth—and therefore the nation itself—that the holiday and its traditional representation help symbolize.

Some years ago, when the war against the Confederate flag and similar Southern symbols cranked up, a good many Americans thought it made sense to denounce them because of the blatant “racism”they represented.

What they didn’t get was that they and their own local myths and symbols were next on the hit list.

Now what is happening ought to be obvious, even to them.

What is being fought in the jihad against the Confederate Flag, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day and Christmas is not the “sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and gay bigotry” and other pastimes of Western man but the West itself and its local manifestation in American civilization.

The isms being denounced are icing on the cake. The real target is the cake itself, and those taking aim at it know the only way they can get to it is by scraping off the symbols and icons that represent it in the minds of most Americans.

Americans who still care what the real meanings of their holidays, as opposed to the three-day orgies of stuffing, guzzling and spending the national ruling class wants them to mean, need to know that the war against holidays is a war against their country and against them.

If they don’t hang together in defending each other’s myths and icons, sooner or later their enemies will hang all of them separately.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Multiculturalism, War on Christmas 
🔊 Listen RSS

On the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court unbosomed its wisdom on why whites should allow special privileges to less qualified non-whites in admissions to elite law schools, the Washington Postpublished a huge front-page story on the merits of college courses designed to instigate racial guilt into whatever white students are still permitted to enroll.

If this little double whammy doesn’t tell whites that something important is going on that they might want to find out about, it’s not clear what will send that message. ["Hue and Cry on 'Whiteness Studies'; An Academic Field's Take on Race Stirs Interest and Anger,"By Darryl Fears, [] Washington Post, June 20, 2003]

The courses, which the Post says are now taught at “at least 30 institutions—from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles,” are known as “whiteness studies,” and there’s very little pretense as to their true purpose—“to change how white people think about race,” as the Post describes it.

The purpose, you understand, is not to instruct with knowledge about race, but to change what people think about race; not to change how whites and non-whites think about race but to change how white people think about race; and (most importantly) to make certain that the white people whose thoughts are laundered come out of the wash thinking what they were told to think about race.

The purported assumption is that whites in general harbor all sorts of stereotypes, prejudices, hatreds and other dark mental cargo about other races and that they fail sufficiently to think of themselves as the “privileged” oppressive oligarchy they really are.

One little classroom activity should suffice to show how the courses work.

The instructor lines up all the students and reads out a statement. If the statement applies to you, you step forward.

The only example the story offers is the statement that “you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted it.” As one pathetic young white girl remarked when she heard it , “Oh my God, here we go again.” Forward she stepped.

The assumption of course is that only whites can get bank loans and non-whites can’t. As a white man who was once turned down for a bank loan, I know that’s untrue, but what’s interesting is that the young white woman, already brainwashed into accepting the assumption, immediately felt guilty about it.

Even if it were true, why should whites feel guilty? Why shouldn’t banks prefer to extend loans to people who statistically are more likely to repay them? What is wrong with being unequal at all?

My bet is the courses never explore such questions. More likely, they proceed with their brainwashing on the basis of the unquestioned assumptions of liberalism that have already been drilled into the white students’ minds in high school, at church, on television and in popular culture generally—the assumptions that inequality is evil and unnatural, that race doesn’t exist anyway, and that the history of whites is one long dark night of repression and terror against their non-white victims.

And if they don’t think that by the time the “whiteness studies” catch them, you can be sure they’re made to think so by the end of the course.

When one white student said she and a friend visited “a hall reserved for black student affairs” but “didn’t feel comfortable,” they got a little lecture from one of the black students in the course.

“‘So what?’ said the black student, who “rolled her eyes.” ‘I never feel comfortable here. I’m a student at a school where most people are white. The only time I feel comfortable is when I’m at home.’”

The difference of course is this: When the white student didn’t feel comfortable among blacks, she left. When the black student doesn’t feel comfortable among whites, whites have to change how they feel.

And that’s what “whiteness studies” are really about: Who is and who is not in charge, who adapts to whom.

The biggest error of the curricula is their assumption that whites themselves remain in charge—of the universities, the curricula, the legal system, the banks, the country. If they were, these courses wouldn’t even exist.

The people who peddle whiteness studies make no pretense about their real purpose: to change how whites think about race so as to make whites feel guilt about who they are and what they or their ancestors have achieved and thereby to destroy whites’ capacity to resist being shoved aside by non-whites.

Once that purpose is achieved, non-whites will find the actual seizure of social and political power much easier than simply trying to grab it at the point of a gun.

This used to be called “subversion.” Whatever you call it, it is still revolution.

As with any other revolution, however accomplished, it will eventually wind up with the losers facing the guns of the winners.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Multiculturalism, Whiteness Studies 
🔊 Listen RSS

If you’re like most Americans, you probably have not yet recovered from the surfeit of self-indulgence you enjoyed on Cinco de Mayo, the fifth of May, which seems to be the nation’s newest holiday and one almost intentionally designed to remind us that we are not really a nation anymore at all.

Of course in reality the vast majority of Americans totally ignore Cinco de Mayo and don’t even known it took place, contrary to what a Washington Post headline claimed last week: “Cinco de Mayo Isn’t Just For Mexicans Anymore.”

What the Post meant was that business has discovered the holiday, which celebrates a fairly obscure Mexican military victory over a French army on May 5, 1862. Mexican food, Mexican beer, Mexican costumes and Mexican music are now big enchiladas in this country, as are Mexican voters, which is why President Bush every year gushes over Cinco de Mayo far more than he does over such fading fiestas as Washington’s Birthday.

Whatever else the new holiday commemorates, Cinco de Mayo reminds us of things that ought to be important for the real Americans whose nation is slowly vanishing along with the public celebration of their own heroes and achievements.

One item it should remind us of is that it gives the lie to the claim that we are really a universal nation or a “proposition country,” as certain misinformed neo-conservatives erroneously claim.

Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of a particular heritage of a particular people—Mexicans—which is why it shouldn’t be celebrated publicly in this country. Like all national holidays, it glories in the particular—in this battle, on this date, our army defeated their army. Just as “The Star-Spangled Banner” commemorates a particular and real, though fairly obscure, event—the defense of Fort McHenry against the British in the War of 1812—so every nation and people celebrates its own identity in its own way.

Yet that rather obvious lesson seems to be lost on Mr. Bush, who not only spouted off about Cinco de Mayo in a statement praising the “vibrant culture” of the Mexicans who have invited themselves here and “enriched our society and contributed to the diversity that makes our nation strong” but also, a few days earlier, proclaimed May 1 to be “Loyalty Day.”

“Loyalty Day” is not new and has been proclaimed for at least the last two years as well, but I confess I’d never heard of it until now. For me as with most other Americans, every day is Loyalty Day, but then, given mass immigration and political leaders who see nothing wrong in dragging this country into war on behalf of other countries, maybe there’s a need for it.

In any case, Mr. Bush appears to have quite missed the point of what he proclaimed.

“To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth,” the First Citizen gushed. “Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind.¦ On Loyalty Day, we reaffirm our allegiance to our country and resolve to uphold the vision of our Forefathers.” Well, not quite.

“Our Forefathers,” meaning the white guys who actually fought the War for Independence and wrote the defining political documents of the nation, did not believe they were, should be or could be a “universal nation.” John Jay in Federalist No. 2 wrote of the “one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,” without whom a common, let alone a free, government could not have existed.

No one then thought that Asians, Arabs, Africans or even most Europeans were capable of stable and free republican government.

There was no evidence for it then, and there’s none now.

What they were creating in the 1780s and ’90s in this country was anything but universal.

As for being an American, of course it’s a matter of blood and birth. If it were merely the watery abstractions the president invokes, the nation itself would be meaningless. In so far as those ideals do inform our nationhood, they are meaningless apart from the particularities of place, race and culture that give them meaning.

That’s why in places like North Korea and Iraq they remain meaningless.

There is no reason why real Americans should pay any attention to Cinco de Mayo or indeed to the silly “Loyalty Day” Mr. Bush is peddling.

Remembering who we as a people and a nation really are and how we really came to be ought to give us enough reasons to celebrate and remain loyal without adopting somebody else’s holidays – and making up others that no one even knows exist.

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

If the war with Iraq has accomplished nothing else, it has offered a bottomless bonanza for media celebrations of the New World America that the military side of the war is pounding into reality.

The New World America is what the United States will be after it is transformed by mass immigration and racial and sexual liberation into a multicultural, multiracial, unisex order managed by the global state.

The national media have missed no chance to preach about the role that immigrants, non-whites, and women are playing in the war. “A New War Brings New Role for Women,” chirped a headline in the New York Times soon after the incident that led to the capture of Pfc. Jessica Lynch and the death of her sister-in-arms, Pfc. Lori Piestewa.

With the latter, a Hopi Indian, the New World media got a double-header of a sort, with the Washington Post carrying at least two large stories on her and the reaction to her death within her tribe: They believe her spirit returned home in an unseasonable snow storm soon after she died.

The New York Times featured a story headlined “Latinos Gave Their Lives To New Land,” while the Post also informed us in a headline that “For Immigrants, [the war is] a Special Sacrifice.”

What happened to the dozens of native Americans who gave their lives to their old land and why the war is any more of a sacrifice for immigrants than for non-immigrants was never very clear.

But some of the real loyalties of the immigrant members of the armed forces killed or missing in action in Iraq were.

Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon from Colombia “flew a Colombian flag”from his civilian car. Marine Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar returned to Mexico just before signing up and “bought a figurine of the Aztec warrior he considered himself to be.” After living in the United States for six years and serving in the Marines for two, Cpl. Del Solar still refused to become an American citizen. “He was a proud Mexican,” his father told the Post.

Of the 71 Americans killed in the war by the beginning of this week, eight (11 percent) were immigrants, while two immigrants were missing and two others had been captured. Of the 12, only four were American citizens. According to the Defense Department, nearly 3 percent of the active-duty military is composed of immigrants.

The desire to be an Aztec warrior is by no means the common motivation of most of them. The armed services appeal to the theme of upward mobility in recruiting messages, and (thanks to an executive order signed by President Bush last year) you can apply for U.S. citizenship after three years of service – two years earlier than civilian immigrants.

None of this should be taken to diminish whatever heroism or commitment the immigrant casualties may have displayed, but it should be clear that whatever their sacrifices, they were not necessarily for this country and were not necessarily intentional. And they were certainly no greater than those of the real Americans who died.

A member of the U.S. Army commented on the role of immigrants in the armed forces on VDARE.COM :

“Their loyalty is to the service, not the country,” he wrote. “They would have no qualms about turning their weapons on U.S. citizens. A hundred years ago this meant some strikers might get fired on. Today what you see being unleashed on Iraq could be used on some place in the U.S. if the will of the central government was being thwarted.”

Just so. As the Roman Empire neared its end, its armies also were filled with aliens who felt no loyalty to Rome and its institutions and in fact may have harbored age-old hatreds for them. Any soldier with the skills and money could win the legions over and become emperor himself — which is why so few rulers of the empire in its latter days died in their beds.

Much the same pattern is beginning to appear in the American army, which is already 3 percent non-American and will become even less American as mass immigration continues.

Today, even Americans join the army for the benefits offered, from high pay to learning job skills to enjoying a few years as a publicly-paid tourist.

Mass immigration is one of the costs of empire, as Rome discovered and as Great Britain and Western Europe are discovering today.

For the emerging American empire, the multicultural and multiracial mixture of peoples is not out of line with the historical pattern.

The difference, perhaps, is that earlier empires and their rulers were unable to see what was happening to their own peoples and cultures even as it happened.

Our rulers don’t have that excuse.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Black history month may be over, but a poster prominently displayed in a McDonald’s near my neighborhood tells us we should be observing it every day of the year.

One way of doing so might be to recall that blacks used to make up most of the workers at the fast-food palace. Today, most are Hispanic immigrants.

Nevertheless, there are other ways of observing black history, and one may be arriving at your children’s school as soon as next year.

With help from the taxpayers by way of the National Endowment for the Humanities, some 24 “scholars” have concocted a curriculum for American schools that will focus on what is now called in some quarters the “Black Holocaust” and, according to a Cybercast News Service report last month, “on issues like slavery reparations that are typically not addressed by kids’ textbooks.” The program “may be incorporated into the curriculum of public schools across the nation as early as September 2003.”

Of course, there are several good reasons why most textbooks don’t deal with “issues like slavery reparations.” Among them are

  1. the issue of reparations is blatant nonsense and, if that’s not enough,
  1. it’s a subject of intense controversy that’s inappropriate for the elementary history they’re supposed to teach in schools.

But for some, who think racial propaganda is just the ticket for public school curricula, reparations, white guilt and the supposed “genocide” of blacks by whites are just what most children, black and white, need to have their brains washed in.

The designers of the curriculum are two black teachers from Milwaukee, Dennis Smith and Yolanda Farmer, and their project, as CNS reports, relies “on federal grant money from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to support their educational efforts.”

Ostensibly, the curriculum is supposed to teach black kids all about their roots in Africa, including from which tribe they are descended. Mr. Smith has already figured out his own “roots” and learned that they go “back to a ‘great empire’ in Africa that existed more than 400 years ago.”

One rather suspects that Mr. Smith will soon discover that his ancestors were the emperors of the “great empire,” but in any case, the “roots” stuff is largely a cover for another, hidden agenda.

“Smith said there is a greater lesson for kids, both black and white, in performing such genealogical research,” and that purpose is as follows, as Mr. Smith explains it:

“Civilization itself started in Africa and it worked its way to this part of the world, but most African-Americans as well as white Americans don’t know that. No matter how much we try to disprove that reality, it always comes back to the fact that civilization did start in Africa and then spread out throughout the rest of the planet.”

Mr. Smith acknowledges that “his curriculum would rely on African-American historical resources and artifacts provided by the Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee.”

The Black Holocaust Museum, he explains,

“is our history, just like slavery is our history, just like hip-hop, just like the Temptations or Elvis Presley. All of that is part of African-American history. African kids have to know and take ownership of that history, as well as white American kids must know African-American history.”

The Black Holocaust Museum itself, according to its own website,

“was founded to educate the general public of the injustices suffered by people of African Heritage in America, and to provide visitors with an opportunity to rethink their assumptions about race and racism.”

What Mr. Smith wants to teach, of course, is nothing more than racial brainwashing, complete with bad grammar and intended to drill into the noggins of innocent white children how their own ancestors were genocidal killers, how and why they should spend their lives wallowing in guilt about it, and how and why blacks—the heirs of “great empires” no one else has ever heard of—should reclaim their imperial heritage by manipulating the government, the schools and anyone foolish enough to let them get away with it.

Mr. Smith also appears eager to swipe a bit from white history. Pathetically, Elvis Presley seems to be about the best he can think of to steal.

Courses like the one that Mr. Smith and his colleagues have come up with are hardly new. But now, with the help of the federal government through the NEH and probably the Education Department, they can reasonably expect to impose their phony history and racial power trip throughout the nation’s school system.

It ought to tell us something that hardly anyone seems to have known about this gigantic anti-white binge and even fewer—in the Republican House, the Republican Senate or the Republican White House—seem to have raised any objection to it.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Multiculturalism, Public Schools 
🔊 Listen RSS

Once again, as so often since Sept. 11, the arrest of American-born terrorist Abdullah al-Muhajir, or Jose Padilla, or whatever his name this week may be, shows what’s wrong with the multiracialist mythology on which contemporary America purports to be founded. For all the fashionable goop and hoop-la about the glories of “diversity,” the truth is that having many different races in the same country and the different and conflicting cultural beliefs and values that go with them is a sure formula for anarchy.

Mr. Padilla, of Puerto Rican extraction, was a member of a Latino gang, was involved in a murder as a teenager and involved again in threatening someone with a pistol in a car incident. Somewhere in the course of this profound spiritual odyssey, he decided that Islam was the path for him, and somewhere further down the same road he apparently signed up with the Al Qaeda boys, to help them scout out suitable targets for nuclear terrorism in his native country.

Inevitably, his case is being compared with that of John Walker Lindh, currently on trial for fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban. But Mr. Lindh is at most an unstable religious nut who claims he never fought against Americans or America. Mr. al Muhajir, on the other hand, never fought at all. He just helped plan mass murder. If it’s authentic treason you’re looking for, forget Mr. Lindh. It’s al Muhajir who fits the wanted poster.

But Mr. al-Muhajir isn’t exactly alone. Only the week before his arrest was announced, U.S. News and World Report unveiled profiles (forgive the word) of what it called “more than three dozen American jihadists, many of them previously unknown.” What the magazine says about these chaps ought to tell us something about the kind of society we’ve allowed to evolve in this country.

“Unlike the 9/11 hijackers, who spent only months here, many are U.S. citizens, native born or naturalized. Most put down roots here, attended schools, ran businesses, and raised families. A majority appear to be Arab-American—Egyptian, Saudi, and Palestinian immigrants—or fellow Muslims from lands as far afield as Sudan and Pakistan. But a fair number are African-Americans, who make up nearly one-third of the nation’s Muslims.” [U.S. News and World Report, July 10,2002, "Made In The U.S.A."]

Readers of this passage are probably expected to gasp in dismay: How is it that Americans, native born or naturalized, could so blatantly hate and betray their own country? Maybe a Benedict Arnold or an Alger Hiss every now and then, or maybe a few spies who commit treason for money or other gain, but what we are talking about here is different: an entire subculture that is not only profoundly alien to America and the West but hates them to their core.

Americans really shouldn’t be too amazed that Arabs and Muslims are so ready to sign up for the jihad against their adopted country. Their religion, their ethnicity and their culture all separate them from the United States, as do the same forces among other immigrant subcultures.

Nor should the presence of American blacks among the “jihadists” be any more surprising. What else would you expect of a subculture convinced it has been the eternal victim of white America, that denounces George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as a slave owner and a racist, that believes that O.J. Simpson was framed by whites and the CIA invented AIDS to commit genocide against blacks? It is entirely probable that such a subculture will produce people who would like nothing more than to exterminate America and every white person in it. Indeed, it’s hard to see how it could produce anything else.

Nevertheless, most Americans, and certainly most of our political and cultural elites, will be amazed and surprised. The myth that America is “based on a creed” and is therefore open to everyone who can be persuaded to accept the creed (or at least repeat its platitudes) implies that such hatred and disloyalty can’t exist. The companion myth that a “credal nation” or a “proposition country” can enjoy unlimited diversity of race, culture and religion implies the same thing.

Nine months after Sept. 11, most Americans still can’t imagine that mass immigration and its unexamined dogma of multiracialism made possible the communities of aliens who have lived, worked, been educated and raised families here and in many cases were actually born here and who at the same time hated everything and everyone with any connection to the white, Christian, Western America that welcomed them. You can create all the bureaucracies and drop all the bombs you want, but until Americans learn that the multiculturalist myths they have been taught are not only wrong but suicidal, we will not be safe from the terror these enemies within want to inflict on us.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Does anyone today still seriously maintain that the mass immigration of the last 30 years is not transforming America?

The classic argument in support of immigration, especially among conservatives and neo-conservatives, has always been that the immigrants would assimilate to the culture of their new homeland. Indeed, most conservatives believed that assimilation was the prerequisite for accepting immigrants and that if immigrants didn’t assimilate, they shouldn’t come.

Today, that argument is virtually impossible to make.

The most obvious test of assimilation is language, which in turn is one of the strongest and most obvious bonds of a unified nation and culture. It’s hard to see how a nation can remain unified unless its citizens share a common language. In the United States, it’s now clear, we don’t.

NBC News reported last week that the 2000 census shows that “in 13 states … more U.S. residents are speaking Spanish at home.” The report calls that trend “inevitable,” given “the surge in the nation’s Hispanic population over the 1990s,” which is exactly what opponents of immigration were saying back in the days when the open borders lobby was chirping that immigrants would simply learn English. So much for the assimilation argument.

Along the same theme, the Washington Times reports that in the Washington, D.C, area, automatic teller machines now routinely carry instructions in both English and Spanish. Since the Hispanic population in the area is about 8 percent, the Times tells us that’s “not surprising.” Maybe what is surprising is that the majority of the nation’s ATMs are also multilingual. “About 90 percent offer Spanish and English,” an executive for a financial services consulting firm told the Times. “But in the future, they will be offering other languages as well.” [Spanish language joins U.S. culture, May 20, 2002]

So will other institutions. In California, 12.4 million residents told the Census Bureau they spoke a language other than English at home, and perhaps the alarming part (if alarm is still possible) is that only 65 percent said their home language was Spanish.

In other words, Hispanics aren’t the only immigrants not to assimilate linguistically; no one else does either.

The current fashion is to regard multilingualism as a cute addition to the national mosaic, but there are obvious problems in schools, governments, businesses and just about every other institutional relationship in the country. The larger point, however, is not so much the administrative difficulties that a polyglot nation creates but rather the nation it destroys.

Immigrants are not assimilating to America; America is assimilating to the immigrants. Not only with respect to language but also with dress and other cultural customs, immigrants are retaining what they brought with them, not adopting what Americans do.

This week the Washington Post carried a beaming story about Muslim women in the United States preferring to wear their traditional headscarves. “It’s gotten to the point where I felt this is my culture and my heritage,” Lisa Hashem, a college graduate with a degree in engineering, told the Post.

That’s terrific. Why doesn’t she go back home where she can enjoy her culture and her heritage all the time?

This week also the Washington Times reported on the growing presence in American theaters of Indian films—one of the most popular is something called “Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham“—due to “the increasing number of Indian immigrants in the United States.” There’s nothing wrong with the films—except their themes, plots, music, language, and stars aren’t ours. If Lisa Hashem can have her culture and her heritage and Indian immigrants theirs, why can’t we have ours?

In the absence of assimilation, immigrants—dare we say “inevitably”?—impose their own culture on their new country, and they will do so more quickly and firmly if the country’s old culture puts up no resistance. Today cultural resistance to alien folkways is almost impossible, if not actually illegal.

NBC News was right: Given mass immigration, alien languages, alien dress, alien forms of entertainment are “inevitable,” and so is the extinction of the traditional culture and heritage of the nation that welcomes the immigrants.

The counter-argument is that all this is “diversity” and will “enrich” us by exposing us to alternative cultures and ways of thinking and expressing. But we can get that out of National Geographic; the real danger of “diversity” is that eventually it makes the nation itself incoherent.

Language, dress, and movies are one thing, but if the millions of immigrants from non-Western cultures who have arrived here in the last 30 years don’t assimilate in these comparatively trivial ways, how have they not assimilated in more important ways—in folkways that govern political conduct, family life, ethics, work, and national identity?

Sooner or later we may discover that many simply never assimilated in any way—and as a result that we no longer have a nation at all.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Multiculturalism 
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.”