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
/
White Nationalists

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

Slowly but surely the Democratic Party and its pals on the left are figuring out how they have managed to lose most presidential elections for the last 30 years or so—by alienating white males.

Now they are working on what they might do to get the white guys back, but progress on that front seems sketchy.

Last month the New York Times carried an article titled “Yes, Democrats Can Win (Some) White Male Voters,” and more recently the feminist website “ifeminists.com“(for “individualist feminists”) ran an editorial on the importance of the white male as “the demographic group that holds the key to election success.”[White Males: Hot Demographic For The 2004 Elections, June 2, 2004 by Carey Roberts]

If feminists can figure it out, why not Republicans too?

Both articles note out that the last Democratic nominee to win the white male vote was Jimmy Carter (and he lost the white vote in general to Gerald Ford, 47 to 52 percent). Concentrating on the strategy of winning women, blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats adopted a plan that lost them the White House.

Even today, despite efforts by Al Gore in 2000 to win more white guys, the Democrats are still uncomfortable trying to do so. Last fall Howard Dean was raked by his rivals for even suggesting that “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks” ought to be an important target for Democratic efforts and that the party couldn’t defeat George Bush “unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

But, as the feminists also note, the tone of the New York Times article, as well as the occasional comments Democratic strategists make about appealing to white males , “betrays the fact that the Democratic establishment has no intention of taking the concerns of white men seriously.”

They cite the remark of Donna Brazile, the black female manager of Mr. Gore’s 2000 campaign, that “the only thing [Kerry] hasn’t done is sit down with a six-pack and chew tobacco with them.”

It’s rather like President Bush’s campaign manager saying he ought to appeal to blacks by eating some fried chicken and watermelon.

Indeed, the analogy is more exact than it may seem. Each party has built itself along racial and ethnic lines—the Democrats by appealing to minorities, as noted above, and the Republicans by capturing white males (and even whites pure and simple), and each harbors a more or less negative stereotype of the ethnic groups it can’t capture.

Neither is very interested in or even knows much about the missing ethnic groups, and the only real interest either party has is how to grab their votes.

Aside from the ethics of this situation, and despite the mass immigration that has brought more and more non-whites into the electorate, the pragmatic truth is that the ifeminists are right—white males are the demographic key to election success, far more so than low-income non-white voting blocs that may vote more solidly but don’t turn out as much.

Miss Brazile also noted that the Democrats remain largely clueless about how to win white males, and she’s no doubt right too—John Kerry currently enjoys the support of a whopping 36 percent of white males, the same miserable share Mr. Gore won in 2000, in contrast to Mr. Bush’s 60 percent.

But at least somebody in her party grasps that white guys even exist. If you listen to Republicans in recent years, you’d think the white male had gone the way of the smallpox virus. Appealing to blacks, Hispanics,homosexuals and women seems to be the main GOP plan to win elections and keep its majority.

That’s what you hear if you listen to Republicans. But what you see when you watch how they run their campaigns is that they depend on the white male vote. They just think they can take it for granted as long as the Democrats are so inept at cutting into it.

And they’re right too.

White males are far from being the beer-guzzlers and tobacco-chompers Miss Brazile imagines, but they do possess a unity that makes them vote together. During the last 30 years (since they started moving out of the Democratic Party actually), they’ve seen themselves stripped of their jobs, their cities, their sex roles, their values, their culture, their country, and their race.

If white makes still have any group identity left, they need to work toward building a movement that identifies their values, their interests and their needs as voters and citizens that both parties ignore.

It’s not clear they do share sufficient political interests to make them a solid bloc of votes for a single party, but they might start looking at creating an entirely new party.

They could call it the White Man’s Party, and if they let in women too, they might even start taking back their country.

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

Welcome to the American Police State, my friends, where a law-abiding citizen has his door broken down, is hauled off to jail by a small army of some 60 officers, and is held without bail for four months.

His crime: virtually nothing.

Of course this is science fiction, you say. Well, not exactly. It happened last summer to a man named Lovell A. Wheeler in Baltimore, who happens to be a “white supremacist” or a “white separatist” or something.

Whatever his exact beliefs, they are beside the point. Then again, it turns out they were the point.

Mr. Wheeler, whose case the Washington Post detailed this week, received a visit last June from Baltimore police after complaints he was storing gunpowder in his house. During the visit, Mr. Wheeler told the cops, ““The war is going to start in the city, and I am ready and need more troops to help in the fight.” [Supremacist Case Unites Improbable Contingent, By Tim Craig, Washington Post, October 26, 2003]

Two days after sharing his thoughts with Baltimore’s Finest, the cops came back—this time in the form of what the Post calls “a tactical team,” which means heavily armed troopers ready for combat—the kind that might be used against really dangerous criminals and terrorists like the women and children at Waco or the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

The “tactical team,” as Mr. Wheeler’s wife Elizabeth told the Post,“chopped down my front door with an ax, and 60 people came in.” Mrs. Wheeler is reported to be a member of the National Alliance, described by the Post as a “West Virginia-based neo-Nazi group.”Mr. Wheeler says he is not a member but sympathizes with its views.

As for the gunpowder, yes, indeed. The “tactical team” discovered “62 pounds of gunpowder, 16,000 rounds of ammunition, 22 guns, body armor and thousands of weapons parts,” according to court documents cited by the Post.

Mr. Wheeler, say his lawyers, is “a machinist, a gunsmith, and this is what he has done all his life.” He “makes and sells guns” and therefore has entirely legitimate reasons for the arsenal in his home.

His defenders say the real reason he was arrested was his beliefs. One Baltimore defense attorney, Warren A. Brown, quoted by the Post, remarks, “If he was an ordinary dope dealer with guns in his house, he would have bail, but because he is a white supremacist, they stick it to him.”

University of Maryland law professor Douglas Colbert says, “A general statement of ‘I expect there to be a race war, and I am prepared for it’ falls far short of direct and imminent violence that could result in bail being denied under similar circumstances.” He also says “he does not recall a case in which someone has been denied bail under similar circumstances.”

As it happens, Mr. Wheeler’s political views were precisely the reason for his arrest. The Post shows that after the first police visit, the Baltimore cops asked the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force about the National Alliance and were told it “poses a risk for domestic terrorism” (not, note well, that it is a terrorist group or has carried out terrorism, let alone that Mr. Wheeler is a terrorist, but that it “poses a risk” of terrorism—sort of like Iraq’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction posed a “gathering threat” rather than an “imminent threat”).

Only after hearing about the National Alliance did the cops decide to take out Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler’s front door. The couple, quite frankly, is lucky to be alive.

As of this week, the charge against Mr. Wheeler—that he “created a substantial risk of death or serious injury to the citizens of Baltimore” because of his arsenal and his “connection” to the National Alliance—has been dropped. What remained were three misdemeanor charges: reckless endangerment, possession of smokeless powder without a license, and improper storage of smokeless powder.

This week he pled guilty to these heinous crimes and got a five-year suspended sentence. He can go home but no more guns.

Mr. Wheeler’s case attracted the support of what the Post calls “an unlikely coalition of civil libertarians, gun enthusiasts and African American lawyers” that saw it as part of an emerging trend toward the erosion of civil liberties under the mask of “counter-terrorism.”

But not everyone agrees.

The Post also cites David Friedman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith that people like Mr. Wheeler “need to be watched closely.”

“The combination of extremist ideology and weapons is something that law enforcement has an obligation to make sure that the person is just not wandering the streets,” Mr. Friedman told the Post.

Mr. Friedman might want to work on his syntax. His grasp of freedom is well beyond repair.

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

Forget such trivial distractions as how Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction could vanish into thin air; the really challenging problem for the American ruling class these days is how to explain and justify why it’s OK for blacks, Asians, Hispanics and every other ethnic group in the country to have its own separate organization and identity, but not OK for whites.

Usually this little dilemma is hushed up and simply ignored, but recently Fox News had the guts to bring it up for discussion. (“Critics Slam Singe-Race School Events,” by Liza Porteus, June 4, 2003)

The answers were not particularly encouraging or enlightening.

A recent controversy over white high school students in Georgia who held their own, whites-only prom did not sit well with various commentators who labeled it “racism,” “segregation,” a “return to Jim Crow,” and various other species of wickedness.

The same commentators were mostly silent about the myriad blacks-only graduation ceremonies and celebrations held around the same time at a number of elite universities.

Moreover, the same schools often sport what the Fox story called “race-based living quarters” – that is, racially exclusive dormitories – on their own campuses.

Needless to say, such dormitories for whites aren’t allowed, and if any white kids even peeped about setting one up, the government would send in the Marines.

But it has occurred to some to point out the “double standard” involved in these matters. Carol M. Swain, the black author of a recent book on what she claims is The New White Nationalism In America,says there is a double standard and that allowing blacks to exclude whites only encourages – and tends to justify – whites excluding blacks.

“As long as universities and colleges and high schools support black activities,” Miss Swain says, “there will be increasing pressure for them to allow white students the same latitude, because it’s a double standard and I think more and more people can see that.”

Criticizing only one side of the double standard, she told Fox, carries “identity politics too far.”

But not everyone agrees. Gary Orfield, a Harvard sociologist, [email him] says racially exclusionary events are “good sometimes, it depends on whether it’s done in any exclusionary way or an enriching way.”

Well, how do you tell whether an exclusionary event is “exclusionary”or just “enriching”?

It basically comes down to whether it’s whites who get excluded (in which case it’s “enriching”) or non-whites (in which it’s “exclusionary”).

How simple.

One gentleman described as a “civil rights attorney,” Leo James Terrell, goes a bit further. “Someone is trying to assume that Asians and blacks are on the same level, historically, in this country, as whites,” he mutters.

“But what if a group of white students wanted to form their own campus group?” Fox asked Mr. Terrell.

“That’s ‘racist’” he responded. “If a college that has an integrated campus has an all-white college activity, that is insulting. For what? To promote what? White pride?”

Well, among other things, maybe so.

What Mr. Terrell says is about as plain and simple as you can get. Blacks and other non-whites have a perfect right to exclude whites from their organizations and events, but whites have no such right to exclude blacks.

The reason, apparently, is that whites in the past have oppressed non-whites, and now it’s their turn to get oppressed themselves.

A tip of the hat [by email] to Mr. Terrell for his brutal frankness.

What the “civil rights attorney” discloses is that the “civil rights” he peddles aren’t about “equality” at all but about power – the power of one race to dominate another, namely whites. The civil rights revolution and all the rest of the eyewash was just about one thing: what white Southern slaveholders used to call “bottom rail on top” – the dispossession of whites of their power and position and their replacement by blacks and other non-whites.

Does anyone, like Miss Swain, believe that carries “identity politics too far”?

Well, no. And in fact, most are perfectly right.

The truth is that all politics is identity politics. In every political conflict, there is a dispute about power – who has it and who should get it. And every such dispute involves groups – parties, classes, clans, religious sects, regions, civilizations, nations, or races – that possess a particular “identity.”

The truth, exclusionary or enriching as the case may be, about what has happened in this country and throughout much of the world in recent decades is that most non-white racial and ethnic groups have acquired their own consciousness and identity and are pursuing power for themselves and in their own interests.

Yet another truth is that, for the most part, whites have not and are not.

Whether Miss Swain is right about the rise of white nationalism or not may tell us how true these truths will remain in the future.

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