199805 American Renaissance

8/8/2019 199805 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/199805-american-renaissance 1/12

A

Childhood experiences mayaffect the race more thanthey do the individual.

by Glayde Whitney

lthough the major media andthose who formulate government pol-icy have yet to acknowledge it, familyenvironment does not determineintelligence or personality. For a

society imbued with the egalitarianmyth, it is unacceptable that important individual and group dif-ferences should have genetic ori-gins. But even if family environ-ment has little effect on individualtraits, it can play a crucial role ininstilling the values and expectationsthat determine the fortunes of the

group. A child’s abilities and person-ality are largely established at birth, but the focus of his most importantloyalties appear to be formed withinthe family. The traits and prospects for survival of the individual are generallyimpervious to upbringing; those of thegroup are not.

As for the question of what thefamily cannot achieve, David Roweintroduces the dilemma in his 1994 book, The Limits of Family Influence:

“Most people believe that differentrearing experiences have something todo with differences in the way chil-dren turn out. Parents who want brightchildren are told to read to them, andencouraged to take them to the li-

brary. . . . Parents are warned to beaffectionate lest a child become wor-ried and anxious [and develop lowself-esteem] . . . . In our cultural be-liefs, the idea that family experiencesmold a child’s life course is stronglyendorsed—that is, ‘As the twig is bent, the tree grows.’ A social scientistopposing this cultural belief would bedismissed as uninformed and possibly

dangerous. In response, many peoplewould recount stories from their ownlives. Social scientists would mentionthe massive research literature show-ing influences of rearing on behavioraldevelopment. Nonetheless, many so-cieties once accepted a flat earth; bothexperts and cultural beliefs, on someoccasions, may be wrong.” (p. 1.)

The most recent and best scientificevidence shows that the whole gamutof environmental factors that varyamong families—social class, income,quality of schools, parenting style, twoor single parents (the list is endless)— have very little effect on a child’s per-

sonality or intelligence or whether hedevelops mental illness. Generations

of social scientists who put the empha-sis on family environment are plainwrong. In fact, the failure to pay atten-tion to genetic influences has resultedin the colossal misinterpretation of a

century’s worth of research.It is easy to see where commonobservation might lead people astray.Bright parents, who spend time talkingwith their children, tend to have brighter children than do dumb par-ents who ignore their children. Crazy people who live chaotic lives tend tohave children who grow up to becrazy. It seems obvious to all that the

experiences of children in their fami-lies determine developmental out-comes.

Nevertheless, Shakespeare, Dar-win, and even the ancient Greeksknew that particular forms of insanitytended to be inherited and that intelli-gence was a family trait that is alsosometimes inherited. Indeed, Sir Fran-

cis Galton, who was the firstmodern scientist to attempt

precisely to gauge the impor-tance of heredity versus familyenvironment, worried that hisfindings might be disbelieved because they seemed to provetoo much; he himself was sur- prised that family experience

seemed to account for so little.Galton’s 19th century discoveries

have largely been rejected by main-stream 20th century social and psy-chological science, but not because of better evidence. Rejection has beenmainly for theoretical and ideological

reasons. Liberalism abhors inequality,especially genetic inequality. It viewsinherited diversity as evil, and it didnot take Hitler to make it so. Theegalitarian movement antedated Na-tional Socialism; Hitler has just madeit easier to demonize the truth. Ambi-tious social engineers hate genetic dif-ferences because they mean that socialreform cannot remake mankind.

Once hereditary differences wereruled out, research could be done onthe correlations of family traits withchild outcomes, with the assurancethat differences in family environ-ments were always the cause. Manythousands of studies have been done,leading to one of the best-establishedgeneralizations of modern science:most traits tend to run in families.

Another well-established generali-zation is that individual differences

Continued on page 3

The focus of a child’s

most important loyalties

seems to be formed

within the family.

American Renaissance - 1 - May 1998

Vol. 9, No. 5 May 1998

What is the Role of the Family?

There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.

– Thomas Jefferson



their wealth outside the country willconsider themselves lucky to get outalive.

What position will your AmericanINS take when that happens? Will ittreat them as victims of persecution or reject them as "racists" who wouldcontaminate America. I can almostimagine the Congressional debates.

Name Withheld, Birmingham,

England

Sir – I have read The Menace of Multiculturalism, which was reviewedin the last issue. James Lubinskasgives it only a qualified endorsement because it does not take the AR posi-tion on race, but I think it belongs inthe same category as Alien Nation,and The End of Racism. These books,like The Menace of Multiculturalism,were written by mainstream conserva-tives with solid qualifications, who

explicitly place Western Civilizationabove the barbarism and squalor of the Third-World. They helped startdebate in their respective fields. Hope-fully, Prof. Schmidt's book will do thesame.

Charles Bradley, Mobile, Ala.

Sir – In his review of Scalp Dance,Steven Schwamenfeld quotes the fol-lowing description of what life waslike for a plains Indian woman: "Sheis bought and sold; wife, mother, and

pack animal, joined in one hideousand hopeless whole." This has, of course, been the status of women invirtually all non-Western societies,and certainly in all primitive societies.It is only among whites that senti-ments such as chivalry or gallantrytook root, and their origins are an-cient. Tacitus himself writes of thehigh status of women among the Ger-manic tribes and marvels that men of even the highest status content them-selves with only one wife. "Wife,mother, and pack animal." Such is the

station of women in most of Africa,Asia, and South America. And this iswhy it so amuses me when "feminists" promote multiculturalism and culturalrelativism. I have come to take a cer-tain pleasure in the hypocrisy withwhich they ignore or even extol prac-tices they would abominate if theycould find white people guilty of them.

Carla Fittipaldi, Phillipsburg, N. J.

Sir – I have never had a high re-gard for the French. I have had some professional contact with them, andgenerally found that they fit all theanti-French stereotypes: they are arro-

gant, self-absorbed frog-eaters whowill make a pass at your wife if givenhalf a chance. Not since Napoleonhave they fielded an army worth thename.

However, I am tremendously im- pressed by the work of Jean-Marie LePen as reported in the April issue of AR. Here is a man who clearly hasseen the demographic threat to our people and culture, and who has de-voted his life to fighting the forcesthat are bringing us down. No one inthe United States even begins to ap-

proach him in dedication or success. Iwould never have thought it would bethe frogs who take the lead in thestruggle to save Western Civilization, but it sounds as though they deserveour heartfelt thanks and respect. Theyface the same opponents we do butthey – unlike us – are really beginningto fight back.

I never dreamed I would ever enda letter with: Vive la France!

Alan Todd, Muldrow, Ok.

Sir – Jared Taylor hints that the FNmay one day govern France. I wouldlove for this to happen, but I believethe French armed forces would beordered in to prevent it. Perhapstroops from other European coun-tries – maybe even the U.S. – would be called in to "protect democracy."Leftists love democracy only when itgives them power.

Name Withheld, Toronto, Canada


Letters from Readers

Sir – I was tremendously encour-aged by your report on the Front Na-tional and its increasing successes. Atthe same time, what is happening inFrance is evidence of the incrediblestrength of suicidal liberalism. Thefront has now elected hundreds of

candidates to office and even governsthree cities in southern France. Itsleaders have shown themselves to besober, responsible men (and women).Their message is the clearest sort of common sense. And yet the press andthe rest of the political establishmentcontinue to treat them like lepers.

Usually, it does not take long for success to open all doors. No matter how vulgar or ill-bred, the rich rise insociety. Political power likewise winsfriends and respectability. People arewilling to do business even with

Communists once they are in office.But the moral quarantine of the Front National continues year after year.There could be no stronger testimo-nial to how deeply self-hatred has been pounded into today's whites.

Charles Cuneo, Salt Lake City,Utah

Sir – I read with great interest your April O Tempora account of theSouth African woman who is appeal-ing for refugee status in Australia,

claiming that she is a victim of racial persecution. Whatever the merits of her individual case, I feel sure thatgenuine, large-scale persecution of whites in that country is only a matter of time. Within a decade or so I pre-dict hundreds of thousands of whiteSouth Africans will be streaming outof the country with only the clotheson their backs. People who are stay-ing now because they cannot take



Continued from page 1

tend to be stable across the lifespan.Mentally retarded adults were oftendevelopmentally disabled when chil-dren; timid children tend to become

shy adults. This gave rise to one of the central tenets of environmentaldeterminism and egalitarianism,namely that early experiences must becrucially important. Who has notheard that vital, formative experiencesoccur before age six? As intervention programs like Head Start continue tofail, the cutoff age for formative experience just gets pushed further back.Government social engineers startmuttering that they could solve all of society’s problems if only they couldget their hands on your children be-

fore age two.

Debunking the Myths

One of the first scientific studies of recent times to debunk the egalitarianmyth was an investigation of schizophrenia, which is well known to runin families. Although the incidence inthe general population is about one percent, the incidence among the chil-dren of schizophrenics is about 10 to15 percent. Therefore, most childrenof schizophrenics—indeed about 90

percent of them—do not becomeschizophrenic, and most schizophren-ics do not have a schizophrenic par-ent. Nevertheless, the incidenceamong children of schizophrenics isfully 10 to 15 times higher than in thegeneral population.

Given that schizophrenia runs infamilies, literally thousands of studieswere done to discover what rearing

patterns caused it, and researchersfound that family backgrounds of schizophrenics did tend to be differentfrom those of normals. The environ-mental determinists came up with

theories about “schizophrenogenicmothers,” inconsistent parents, and“icebox moms,” who caused schizophrenia in their children.

Of course, in most human familiesthe parents provide both the rearingenvironment for children and thegenes. Yet more studies of familiescould never have separated genesfrom experience as a cause of schizophrenia, because the source of thefamily environment is the same as thesource of the genes.

Len Heston, now at the University

of Washington, finally cut through thefog in 1966. He tracked down adultswho were the adopted-away childrenof schizophrenic mothers. Becausethese people were reared in normalfamily environments they should benormal—if family environmentcauses schizophrenia. In an amazingfinding reminiscent of Galton’s con-cern about seeming to prove toomuch, it turned out that the incidenceof schizophrenia is exactly the same,however children are reared. Muchadditional research has verifiedHeston’s discovery: Schizophrenia isa genetic condition. The best evidenceat the present suggests that beingreared by normal parents does notdecrease the likelihood of developingschizophrenia, for someone withgenes from a schizophrenic.

Contrary to a century of theory inabnormal psychology and psychiatry,there is little or no credible evidence

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor

James P. Lubinskas Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor

— — — — — — American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contribu-

tions to it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage is

an additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, PO. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: [email protected]


that family environments cause anyform of mental illness. Much researchon bipolar affective disorder (manic-depression) suggests a similar conclu-sion: Broadcasting tycoon Ted Turner probably inherited his manic-depression from his suicidal father.Although he may have acquired“Hanoi” Jane Fonda from a flawedadult environment, gene-influenced bad judgment could also be a cause.

The only way to disentangle genesfrom experience in assessing the cas-ual role of the family is to make it possible for them to vary independ-ently from each other. It is hard to de-sign and carry out studies like this, somost social scientists don’t bother. Inthe past, there was no reason to, be-cause genetic influences were thoughtto be evil and could be ruled out inadvance anyway.Studies that separate genes from ex-

perience in family influences aremostly adoption and twin research.The modern spate of unwed mothers, broken homes and remarriages also

provides material: Lots of familieswith both full- and half-siblings, whomay or may not be raised by a com-mon birth parent. Children with differ-ent degrees of relatedness who arereared in the same environment (by people who may not be their biologi-cal parents) offer a different anglefrom which to distinguish the effectsof heredity from environment.

Even a single study, well con-ducted, can provide much informa-tion. However, with the power of computers and modern analytical

techniques, the results of differentstudies with different designs can becombined. The data from multiplefamily types can be analyzed to-gether—like solving simultaneousequations—to test theories that bestexplain real world data.

When adoption studies were firstdone in the 1920s and 1930s, the re-sults indicated that both genes and



family environment contributed to in-dividual differences in intelligence.These studies contributed to the “openminded” interpretation that both he-redity and family environment are important. These early studies were lim-ited, though, by the fact that they compared young adopted children with parents (biological and adoptive) whowere already adults.

Further breakthroughs came onlyin the late 1970s, with the first studiesof grown-up adopted children. After puberty, as a child begins to choosehis own activities and associates, thecorrelations between child and adop-tive (non- genetic) parent decrease tothe point that they are not significantlydifferent from zero. This finding iscontrary to the environmentalist ex- pectation of a cumulative effect of family environment. At the same time,as children grow up, the resemblance

to the genetic parents who never reared them increases. Likewise, bythe time they become adults, the cor-relations among adopted (non-related)siblings average around zero.

These results hold for intelligenceand for the “big five” indices of per-sonality—extroversion, agreeableness,conscientiousness, emotional stability,intellectual openness—as well asmeasures of mental illness. Thesefindings from adults, that there is no family resemblance among adopteesthat are not genetically related, leads

to the eye-opening conclusion that all of the commonly observed similaritiesamong family members on such traitsare caused by shared genes, not sharedfamily environments.

What Use is the Family?

These studies do not indicate thatenvironment has no effect on intelli-gence and personality. They showonly that the ways that families aredifferent from each other—the differ-ences social scientists thought were so

important—have essentially no effect.For intelligence, which is the mostintensively studied of all the mentalcharacteristics, by the time people areadults, about 75 percent of the individ-ual differences appear to be due togenetics, perhaps 10 percent may bedue to measurement error, and the restis presumably due to environmentalfactors we don’t understand . What-

ever those factors are, they are almostcertainly not family income, socialclass, or education of the parents, thatis to say, the characteristics on whichliberalism pins its hopes.

The heritability of personalityseems to be generally less than that of intelligence: About 50 percent of thevariation among adults appears to begenetic. However, measures of per-

sonality are less reliable than meas-ures of intelligence, which means thatmeasurement error is greater. That puts a cap on the apparent importanceof inheritance. However, as with intel-ligence, the environmental influenceon personality does not seem to berelated to the various ways in whichfamilies differ from each other. We

don’t know what it is, but we knowwhat it is not.

How can it be that families have solittle effect on the development of children? One explanation is that for important traits, individual develop-ment is deeply ingrained, bufferedfrom environmental perturbation, sothat the genetic potential of the indi-vidual will develop almost regardless

of the details of the rearing environ-ment. This is the “cast iron theory of the mind.” Children develop their unique individuality into adulthoodeven in spite of, rather than becauseof, what we as parents do to them.

Throughout history and prehistorythere have been many periods duringwhich children have been reared amidthe horrors of famine, war, pestilence,or predation. Studies of special co-horts in the modern era that have suf-fered from these misfortunes suggestthat calamity has little effect on devel-

opment of intelligence or personality.Today, the range of environmentaldifferences found among families inmodern societies is typically verysmall by comparison. The human psy-che appears to resist damage or change. The other theory is the “spun-glass theory of the mind” that is fa-vored by modern meddling liberalism.It holds that the human psyche is a

delicate, fragile thing. Without a pre-cisely optimal rearing environment itwill fail to develop properly. Of course, prescriptions for what is opti-mal keep changing with the latest fadsof progressive liberalism, but the bulk of the available evidence strongly sup- ports the cast iron theory.

Galton, therefore, was generallycorrect. The environmental differences

provided by different families havelittle effect on individual differences.However, this does not mean that dif-ferent family environments are unim- portant. The family, and its surrogatessuch as school, club, church, and state,are fundamentally important for hu-man survival. They are necessary for the survival of the individual, the fam-ily’s genes, and the family culture be-cause they influence a child—and in-fluence the group through the child— in ways that have not been thoroughly

studied. If we draw an analogy be-tween an infant and a computer, most(but not all) of the hardware and oper-ating software is genetically deter-mined. But much of the contents of many of the files—most of the num- bers in the spreadsheets, for example—are written by environmentalexperiences, many of which are deter-mined by the family.

Some of the same studies men-tioned above that showed little influ-ence of family environments on somethings showed their fundamental im-

portance for others. Whether or notteen-agers profess a belief in God isalmost entirely a matter of shared fam-ily environment. So is denominationalaffiliation. Family environment almostalone seems to determine attitudestoward racial integration. The culturalstandards you value are almost en-tirely determined by your family, or family surrogates such as the schools.The contents of the psyche, therefore, but not its style or capability are deter-mined by family environment.

It is not always certain, however,

where personality ends and culture begins. It is clear that a child who isgenetically destined to be intelligentand conscientious almost regardless of where or how he is reared is going tospeak the language of the peoplearound him. He will probably adopttheir religion, preferences, and poli-tics, too. Therefore, a child—bright or dumb, extroverted or not—if raised in


Children develop theirunique individuality inspite of , rather than

because of, what we asparents do to them.



F

by Samuel Francis

rom the very beginnings last sum-mer of President Clinton’s “nationaldialogue on race” and the creation of his Advisory Board on Race, the pur-

pose has been clear. It not been to ini-tiate or maintain a genuine dialoguethat reaches beyond what the NewYork Times has called “banal chatter,”let alone to examine in an impartialway the very material threats to do-

mestic harmony that our current immi-gration policy and various trends of racial thought and behavior represent.The real purpose of the “dialogue onrace” was evident in Mr. Clinton’sown remarks at the time it was initi-

a family that espouses modern liberal-ism’s views of a progressive utopia, isalmost certainly doomed never to experience a feeling of sublime pleasurefrom handling an engraved work of artthat happens to be a side-by-side dou- ble-barreled shotgun of the supremequality that is labeled a “Best Gun.”Of course, it is natural that peoplehave differences of opinion; it is whenthe indoctrinated products of other families’ prejudices feel a moral com- pulsion to prevent me from exercising preferences they abhor—that is whatis unacceptable.

Race destroyers like Morris Dees’Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)certainly can have a profound influ-ence on the cultures of families andthe survival of their genes because of the propaganda they spread via familysurrogates. The SPLC runs a“Teaching Tolerance” program thatsaturates schools and teachers withwell-prepared materials that glamorize

miscegenation and promote multicul-turalism.

More broadly, it is interesting tonote that Head Start and other central-ized government programs aimed atchildren have been convincinglyshown not to affect intelligence— which refutes the claim on which theywere initially sold to the public. Our liberal masters are nevertheless deter-mined to expand these programsrather than drop them. Why? Could it be that they understand the effective-

ness of propaganda in shaping thecontents and values of young mindseven if the efficiency of those minds isnot affected? As all totalitarians know, propagandizing the youth is a particu-larly effective way to modify the cul-tural values of a population.

A very dramatic example of theeffects of environment can be found inmodern Japan. Today’s Japanese aregenetically no different from those of 50 years ago. And yet it would be hardto find a nation that has more dramati-cally changed its stance towards war,aggression, and militarism. The Japa-nese still love their country but theyno longer invade their neighbors or diein banzai charges. What is more, theyare probably no long capable of a ban-zai charge.

The effects of environment are justas clear in the case of nations thatwere divided by Communism. Kore-

ans and Germans were not changed biologically by half a century of scien-tific socialism, but the contents of thecollective psyche were so thoroughlyrefashioned that people on the other side of the border seemed like strang-ers to each other.

These are differences that are justas dramatic as the change in whiteAmericans brought about by the revo-lution in racial thinking. Biologically,whites are no different from their turn-of-the-century ancestors. And yet intheir terror of being thought “racist,”

in their inability to take even the mostelementary steps to preserve their na-tion and culture, they are as differentfrom their ancestors as the cowed North Koreans are from South Kore-ans.

Let us imagine the ultimate out-come for two different groups of fami-lies engaged in long-term competitionfor survival. Families of the firstgroup indoctrinate their children in the belief that they are different from and better than any other people. They are

told others will harm them if given achance. They constantly remind eachother of the wrongs others have donethem in the past or present. They areencouraged to criticize other groupsand to breed only within their group.They learn that this is a hostile world,in which it is their prime obligation tocare for and provide mutual supportfor members of their own group.

By contrast, a prescription for ra-cial and cultural suicide is easy to for-mulate. Imagine a different group of families, which allow their children to be taught that their ancestors were per-sonally responsible for many of theevils of the present world. They learnthat it is their obligation to atone for the sins of their group. Should they,themselves, be harmed it is divine toturn the other cheek. Moreover, their culture is merely one—and a not verynice one—among a diversity of others.

They must never criticize other groups, and it is neat to celebrate di-versity, even in choice of mates. Theymust treat all members of other groupsand other families as if they were brothers, and it is best and most nobleto treat members of other groups bet-ter than they treat their own. In thereal world of competing groups that play by different rules, this will lead tototal elimination, both genetically andculturally.

As the title of David Rowe’s important book emphasizes, there are

limits on family influence with regardto the development of individual dif-ferences in intelligence and personal-ity characteristics. At the same time,family indoctrination and support is of unlimited importance for the very sur-vival of a family’s individuals, genes,and culture. ●

Glayde Whitney is professor in psychology, psychobiology and neuro- science at Florida State University.


The President’s Dialogue on Race: A Critique



ated, and it has been apparent in thevarious hearings the advisory boardhas conducted over the last severalmonths.

In his commencement address inSan Diego last June announcing theinitiative, the president remarked that“A half century from now, when your own grandchildren are in college,there will be no majority race inAmerica.” Mr. Clinton is to be com-mended for being the first president tosay what has hitherto been unsay-able—that U.S. Census Bureau projec-tions show that by the middle of thenext century, barely 50 years fromnow, non-Hispanic whites for the firsttime in American history will cease to be the majority of the U.S. population.That projection, first reported by theCensus Bureau in 1992, let alone itscultural and political implications, hasyet to sink into the American public

consciousness, and had Mr. Clintonchosen to make Americans aware of the significance of that transition andits meaning, I would find no fault withhim.

Instead, both the president and hisadvisory board have taken the demo-graphic and racial transformation of the United States as a given, an inevi-tability that cannot be halted or re-versed, and the president himself afew days prior to his San Diegospeech even welcomed the transfor-mation. Speaking to a group of jour-

nalists in Boston, Mr. Clinton stated,“This will arguably be the third greatrevolution in America . . . to provethat we literally can live without ineffect having a dominant Europeanculture. We want to become a multira-cial, multiethnic society. We’re notgoing to disintegrate in the face of it.”

Again, Mr. Clinton is correct thatthe racial and demographic transitionfrom a majority white to a majoritynon-white population will indeedmean the end of the “dominant Euro- pean culture” that has prevailed

throughout American history and onwhich our civilization—our form of government and laws, our languageand literature, our religion, and our manners, customs, and tastes—is based. Unlike many supporters of an“open borders” immigration policy,Mr. Clinton apparently does not be-lieve that we can alter the racial composition of our population without

also altering the cultural character of our nation, and if he had seen thistransformation as a problem to beavoided, again, I would have found nofault with him.

Yet the fact that the President of the United States appears to welcomethe end of our “dominant Europeanculture” is ominous, since it meansthat the chief executive no longer con-siders that cultural identity to be worthconserving or even that it can be con-served, and it is in this that the real purpose of Mr. Clinton’s race initia-tive is to be found. Its real purpose, inshort, is simply to accommodate whiteAmericans to the racial transformationof their country and the imminent de-struction of their culture.

Hence, from that perspective, it ishardly surprising that the board shouldspend little time listening to the criticsof affirmative action or that it be so

concerned to show that all racial prob-lems in the United States are really thefault of whites, that these problemscan be resolved only when whites aremade conscious of their guilt and re-sponsibility, and that the guilt and re-sponsibility of whites for racial prob-lems are rooted in the very dominanceof the European culture whose termi-nation the president welcomes. Nor isit surprising, given that real purpose of the initiative, that various members of the commission in the last few monthshave positively discussed national

reparations for slavery or that the fail-ures, racial animosity, and “hatecrimes” of non-whites are never dis-cussed. The president himself set thetone for this way of framing the“dialogue” in his remarks in SanDiego last summer. “We still see evi-dence of bigotry from the desecrationof houses of worship, whether they bechurches, synagogues or mosques, todemeaning talk in corporate suites.”“Bigotry,” in other words, is entirelyconfined to white arson of black churches and to cases, such as the one

alleged against Texaco, of white corporate managers discriminatingagainst non-whites—both of them in-stances of “bigotry” that have now been widely challenged if not actuallydiscredited.

The manner in which the publicsessions of the race advisory boardhave dealt with unexpected expres-sions of dissent from the public re-

flects this intentionally one-sided viewof race relations. When the board metin Fairfax County, Virginia, last De-cember, a white man interrupted its proceedings by complaining that“there’s no one up there talking aboutwhite people.” The gentleman was brusquely removed by police officers,and former Education Secretary, BillBennet, who happened to be sittingwith the advisory board that day, promptly denounced him as a “fool.”When another white critic of the panelmade similar remarks during one of itssessions in California earlier this year,he too was summarily bounced by the police.

Yet, in March, at a board meetingin Colorado, 20 American Indians pre-sented similar grievances about the

lack of representation of their owngroup but did so in a rather more dis-

ruptive way: They donned ski masks,shouted, whooped, and beat tom-toms,and made it impossible to conduct ameeting at all. When the commissionreconvened the next day, it once again became a shouting match. No one wascalled a “fool” or removed by police.“The issues are deeply felt,” explainedthe board’s executive director, JudithWinston. And so they are—at leastwhen they are felt by non-whites.

Of course it is whites who should be whooping about an anti-white in-quisition that is being passed off as

“dialogue.” We have yet to hear fromMr. Clinton or his race panel any men-tion of instances of black or other non-white bigotry, such as the kidnapping,gang rape, torture and murder of Melissa McLauchlin in South Carolinain 1992 by blacks in retaliation for what one of her killers called “400years of oppression” by whites, or theobviously racially motivated assault,




rape, and murder committed againstthree white youths by a group of six black men in Flint, Michigan on June19, 1997, barely a week after Mr.Clinton’s San Diego address, or anynumber of other racially motivatedcrimes committed against whites bynon-whites or against non-whites byother non-whites for ethnic or racialmotivations. The chatter of the“national dialogue” is indeed largely banal, but the banalities are confinedto only one perspective and one over-riding purpose, that of holding whitesalone responsible for all racial wrongs.

Recent statistics on “hate crimes”suggest some truths that the presidentand his race commission are unwillingto face. While 66 percent of the perpe-trators of “hate crimes” in 1996 werewhite, 20 percent of the perpetratorswere black. In other words, “hatecrimes,” while conventionally held to

be confirming evidence of the con-tinuation of violent white bigotry andracism, are in fact disproportionatelycommitted by blacks, who composeonly 12 percent of the population,while whites, composing some 74 per-cent of the population, are underrepre-sented as “hate crime” perpetrators.

Aside from deliberate outragesagainst whites, the responsibility of non-whites for a legion of their ownsocial failures and problems must bediscussed if the “dialogue on race” isto have any real meaning. There is no

need to repeat here the dreary statisticsabout black crime rates, illegitimacy,welfare dependency, venereal diseaseand AIDS rates, unemployment, andother indices of social failure and so-cial dysfunctions, but it is increasinglyimplausible to blame all of them onwhites. Nor do I mean to single out blacks. Hispanics also show similar but usually less dramatic indicationsof social failure and dysfunction. Theteen-age illegitimacy rate among His- panics (at 11 percent) now exceedsthat of blacks (at 10 percent), and both

exceed the illegitimacy rate for non-Hispanic white teenagers (4 percent).Hispanics are also more likely than blacks to fail to graduate from highschool.

Taxpayers, particularly white mid-dle-class taxpayers, are the ones who pay the public burden of these failuresof non-whites, and they also are oftenthe victims of black and other non-

white crimes and social dysfunctions.In addition, of course, the fiscal bur-den and the administrative impact of civil rights enforcement, affirmativeaction, and other state-enforced privi-leges for non-whites are also borne bywhites, especially white men. But ontop of bearing most of the financial burden for public costs arising fromthese non-white dysfunctions, in addi-tion to having to confront every daythe physical danger of non-white vio-lence and crime, and in addition toenduring the larger national social de-composition that non-white failuresand dysfunctions cause, whites arenow told chirpingly by their presidentthat all racial bigotry is due to themand that the “dominant European cul-ture,” by the norms of which mostwhite Americans continue to abide, isgoing to come to an end and that hewelcomes it.

The purpose of the president’s raceinitiative, then, whether manifested inhis own words, in the actions of hisadvisory board, or in what the advi-sory board and the president fail todiscuss or forbid to be discussed, isnot “ to le rance ,” “d ivers i ty ,”“harmony,” “equality,” or “justice.”The real purpose is to accommodatewhite Americans to the end of their culture and their dominance as a majority of the American nation and asthe cultural core of the nation, and tomanage their adjustment to the com-

ing non-white dominance of the near future. The real issue of the presi-dent’s race initiative, then, is, as somany things are, a question of power—in this case, racial power.

White Americans today are con-fronted with the two most overwhelm-ing facts of our time—first, the com-ing demographic transformation of American society from a majoritywhite to a majority non-white society,and, secondly, the emergence of whatcan only be described as an explicitracial consciousness among non-

whites that identifies whites as their enemies and oppressors, a racial con-sciousness that is encouraged and ex- ploited and certainly seldom chal-lenged by many whites themselves,whether liberal or conservative. Thisracial consciousness ranges in its expression from a mild but unquestionedassumption of non-white solidarity inconflict with whites to outright, mili-

tant hatred of whites, but whatever itsform of expression, white Americansneed to ask themselves what will betheir fate as a white minority in a non-white society where the racial demon-ology created by non-whites prevails,and they need to think hard about theanswers they reach.

White Americans also need toquestion and indeed reject the very premises of the pres ident ’ s“dialogue”—that the racial and cul-tural transition to a non-white Amer-ica is inevitable or desirable; thatwhites somehow possess a monopolyon racial bigotry, the perpetration of racial injustice, or racial conscious-ness and solidarity; and that it is mor-ally incumbent on whites to alter their behavior, their culture, and their senseof moral and social responsibility indeference to non-white and often anti-white demands. If there is anything we

as a nation have learned since the civil

rights movement thirty years ago, it isthat race is a reality, a natural as wellas a cultural and social reality, and

that the denial of racial realities thathas been written into our laws, our public conduct, and our national pub-lic discourse is a denial of a major truth about human beings. Every other race and ethnic group in the UnitedStates has learned or is presentlylearning this truth, and only whiteAmericans deny it, deny themselvestheir own racial consciousness, anddeny the threats to their civilizationand to their own safety that their deni-als invite. If we are to have a real dia-logue on race, then let us have one,

but let it be one in which white Ameri-cans engage only if they are able andwilling to claim the identity and theheritage to which they have everyright. ●

Dr. Francis is a syndicated colum-nist. This article is adapted from re-marks he delivered on March 11, 1998in New York City.


The real purpose of thepresident’s initiative is to

accomodate whiteAmericans to the end of their culture and their

dominance as a majority.



F

France is in an uproar asthe Front National exer-cises its power.

by Jared Taylor

or two weeks in March, Francewent through a multi-stage electoral process for local governments that setthe country on its ear. Although theFront National (FN) improved itsshare of the vote by only one percentover the previous local elections in1992, its 15 percent tally was enoughto make it king-maker in many con-tests. For the first time since the fronthas been fielding candidates (seecover story, previous issue), promi-nent figures in the mainstream right

made vote-sharing deals with it, send-ing the political and chattering classesinto something approaching hysteria.Serious journalists have written aboutthe “destruction of the [mainstream]right” and of “threats to French de-mocracy.” When a racial-nationalist party wins votes, it is apparently sucha threat to democracy that the other parties have banded together to dis-cuss how to rig the electoral process inways they think will cripple the front.So much for the will of the people.

French politics are of a uniquelyGallic complexity. Local elections areheld every seven years both for re-

gions (of which there are 22 on theFrench mainland) and for cantons (of which there are nearly 2,000). To be-gin with the regional elections, theyare by single-round ballot, and partieswin seats in proportion to their per-centage of the vote—unlike the win-ner-take-all system in the UnitedStates. A few days after balloting, the1,829 elected councilors of the 22 re-gions elect presidents of regions. Re-

gions can be thought of as equivalentto American states, and the regional presidents are like governors.

This year, the FN won 3,270,000votes, which lifted its tally of regionalcouncilors to 275, compared to 239seven years ago. The two essentiallyinterchangeable “conservative” par-ties, the Union for French Democracy(UDF) and the Rally for the Republic(RPR), saw their combined number of

councilors drop from 623 to 547,while the combined figure for Social-ists and Communists rose from 433 to543. Given the fragmentation of thevote (more than 20 different parties,

including Greens and a Hunters andFishers Party, won seats), there wereonly two regions in which either theleft or the mainstream right won anoutright majority. Thus, in 19 of the

22 regions, the front had enough seatsto swing the vote for regional presi-dent to either the right or the left.

Before the elections, the main-stream right held the presidency of 20of 22 regions, and if it had been will-ing to form coalitions with the FN, it

could have held all these regions and perhaps even added another. There-fore, knowing that it could play king-maker in so many regions, the frontmade what it considered “minimalist”demands in exchange for its votes for the election for regional president: Itwould support any candidate of the

right who agreed to emphasize crimecontrol, defend French cultural iden-tity, and refuse to raise taxes. It askedfor no commitment on immigration. If a candidate of the right would not ac-cept this program, the FN councilorswould vote for an FN regional presi-dent, thus splitting the conservativevote and allowing lefty coalitions toelect regional presidents—even if, to-

gether, the right and the FN had thecombined votes to elect presidents of the right.

This proposal naturally left manyUDF and RPR councilors licking their

chops. The mayors of Nice, Cannes,and three other cities on the Rivieraurged the parties of the right to“respect the electorate that by a major-ity wished that the region stay on theright,” that is, to work with the frontrather than, once again, destroy them-selves for the benefit of the left. TheUDF, in particular, broke into virtualcivil war over the issue, but the lead-ers of both “conservative” parties for- bade any coalition-building with thefront.

Philippe Seguin, leader of the RPR,

which is the party of French PresidentJacques Chirac, said that cooperatingwith the FN would lead to a “moral, political and economic impasse.”President Chirac himself went further,saying that cooperation with the“racist and xenophobic” front would“risk damaging France, its values, itsimage.” The leader of the Socialists,Lionel Jospin, said cooperation would“be an attack on France’s image inEurope and the world,” and “a danger for our democratic life.” Pascal Per-rineau, head of the prestigious Paris

Institute of Political Studies, saw theissue in terms of power. He called thefront’s minimalist offer “belly-dancing,” saying that its real messagewas “I seduce you, I embrace you tosave your region, and then I choke youwhen your party explodes.”

The UDF very nearly did explode.Seven of its outgoing regional presi-dents accepted the FN’s conditionsand were returned to office. Their logic could not have been clearer. AsJacques Blanc, who kept his seat as president of Languedoc-Rousillon ex- plained, “You cannot govern this re-gion with insults or by refusing to rec-ognize reality.” François Mancel of the RPR, trying to win reelection as president of the Oise region, pointedout that the right “was gutted in thelegislative elections . . . . Must we doit again and again?” The most promi-nent of the UDF renegades wasCharles Million, who had been de-


Thunder on the Right

When a racial-nationalistparty wins votes it is

called a threat todemocracy.



Well known friend of democracy.

fense minister from 1995 to 1997.Jacques Chirac personally telephonedto ask that he not work with the front but he defied the president.

This series of defections, in whichthe FN was treated like an ordinary party of the right, set up a terrific me-dia din and was widely hailed as a seachange in French politics. AlainGenestar, editor of Journal de Diman-

che wrote: “The right of today is notcapable of suppressing the extremeright. Nothing will be the same again.”The well-known political historian,René Rémond agreed: “From now onthe political landscape might be or-ganized around two poles: the Social-ist party and its allies, against a Front National around which the debris of the moderate right will revolve.”

On the heels of these seven elec-tions for regional president, FN leader Jean-Marie Le Pen proposed a deal intwo other very important regions,

Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur (PACA)in the south, and Ile-de-France, whichcontains Paris. The latter had long been a stronghold of the right, and af-ter the vote for councilors, the line-upwas 86 on the left, 83 on the right, and36 with the FN. Mr. Le Pen offered tohave his councilors vote for the RPR candidate—without even proposingthe “minimalist” demands—if theright would support his bid for presi-dent of PACA, where he was electedcouncilor. In this southern region theleft had 49 seats versus an even split

of 37 for the right and 37 for the front.After an orgy of denunciation and re-crimination the right decided to walk the plank rather than work with theFN. The FN and the right thereforesplit the conservative vote in both re-gions, and the two presidencies wentto the socialists.

Nor did the success in the sevenother regions last very long. The UDFhigh command gave its renegades oneweek to resign their positions as re-gional president or be expelled fromthe party. In the face of tremendous

pressure, two resigned immediately.Two others waffled for a day or two before returning to the fold. Threethumbed their noses at the party bosses and vowed to stay on as presi-dent, but not without making a pointof distancing themselves from thefront. In a particularly ungrateful at-tempt to parade his respectability,Charles Millon, the former defense

minister, called Jean-Marie Le Pen a“fanatic, a 1920s fascist lost in our era.” He claimed that he could wooFN voters back to the mainstreamright:

“If we do not want to resolve thisissue, we will see a real revolt . . . .Those four or five million people whoare worried, desperate and unhappyand often vote out of spite for the front

will become 10 million. Some day wewill have a presidential election withtwo candidates, one from the left andone from the far right.”

There has been some confusion inthe regions that lost their presidents.The Socialists profited from UDF ti-midity in Midi-Pyrenées and took thetop job. In Bourgogne, the UDF manwho resigned was reelected, onceagain with FN votes. This time hevowed to stay on. By early April the presidencies of the two other regionswere still unfilled but the left seemed

likely once again to profit from stupid-ity on the right.

After the high drama in the regions,the second round of the cantonal elec-tions—which are less important any-way—was an anticlimax. The main-stream right failed to cooperate withthe front, and lost ten of the 74 depart-ments it held before the election.(There are 95 departments in all, com- posed of the 2,000 or so cantons, atwhich level the actual voting takes place.) The French press noted gloom-ily that in those cantons surrounding

cities in which the front holds themayor’s office, the front did particu-larly well. Those who have experi-enced FN rule seem to like it.

Over all, the left once again rode tovictory while the right slit its ownthroat. Instead of holding on to its 20mainland regions and perhaps evenadding one, the right tossed severalregional presidencies and ten depart-ments into the hands of the left.

At this point it is not certain theUDF will survive as a political party.The seven defections—several of

which appear to be permanent—haveled some of its leaders to consider dis- banding and trying to reformulate as a“center-right” party. The crack-upcould well produce “debris” that drifttowards the front.

Indeed, the front has shown that itis now at the epicenter of French poli-tics, and it is not only potential allieswho have noticed. In the region of

Haute Normandie, when word got outthat a UDF candidate was going to bevoted in as president with the FN’shelp, protesters actually invaded thehall where the vote was taking place.There have also been huge, anti-FNdemonstrations all over the country. InParis, 30,000 lefties marched throughthe streets, chanting “F as in Fascist, N as in Nazi. Down with the Front

National.”Recently, to a chorus of gloating on

the left, Jean-Marie Le Pen himself was fined and given a suspended sen-tence because he got into a pushingmatch with opponents during the leg-islative elections last year. The courthas stripped him of his right to holdoffice, but Mr. Le Pen has appealedthe decision. He will continue as re-gional councilor and member of theEuropean Parliament until a ruling ismade on the appeal—perhaps in two

years. This kind of harassment, fromwhich politicians of any other partywould probably be spared, only showshow much the establishment fears thefront.

At the same time, even the mostlevel-headed observers note that if only on a procedural basis, Francefaces a very serious political crisis:The more the French electorate votes

for the right, the more power the leftholds. This distortion of representativegovernment cannot continue muchlonger. Contemptibly enough, the“conservative” reaction has been to tryto rig the system. President Chirac hasannounced talks with the leaders of allthe parties—except the front—to dis-cuss ways to change the electoral sys-tem so as to keep the front out of of-




Pledging Allegiance—to

Which Flag?A March 21st change to the Mexi-

can constitution grants dual nationalityto Mexicans. Previously, any Mexicanwho became a naturalized citizen of aforeign country was stripped of allrights as a Mexican. The change isretroactive, which means that virtuallyall Mexican-Americans—even those born in the United States—can regain

their nationality, if they apply withinfive years. The new provisions grantdual nationality but not dual citizen-ship, the only difference being thatdual nationals may not vote in Mexi-can elections or hold high politicaloffice. However, there are strong pres-

sures to remove this distinction, andMexican-Americans may be voting inMexican elections by 2000. This couldturn the American Southeast into animportant electoral battle ground for Mexican politicians.

There are two aspects of the newlaw that Mexican-Americans careabout particularly. One is that theywill be able to own property and makeinvestments in Mexico without the

restrictions placed on foreigners.

Many will now buy retirement homesin Mexico and spend their Americansocial security there. Dual nationalityalso removes the final reservationsmany Mexicans may have had aboutnaturalization.

As Leticia Quezada, a Los Angelesschool board member explains, “Inever stopped feeling Mexican. I have become a United States citizen be-cause this is where I live, where I havemade my professional life. I havemade a commitment, but it’s sort of anintellectual commitment, whereas

emotionally I’m Mexican. I want to beMexican. I feel very close to the coun-try of my birth.” The INS expects asurge in applications for U.S. citizen-ship now that Mexicans can retaintheir ancestral nationality and most of its privileges.

Elsewhere, the Dominican Repub-lic plans to let Dominicans living inAmerica vote in its elections in 2000.Fernando Mateo, a businessman fromthe Bronx who has lived 35 of his 40years in the U.S. says, “what I want tofocus on is making my country

[Dominican Republic] the best coun-try in the world.” The recently elected president of South Korea, Kim Dae- jung has promised to extend dual citi-zenship to Koreans living in America.

According to a 1967 SupremeCourt ruling, naturalized U.S. citizenswho swear an oath renouncing alle-giance to other countries are not le-gally bound by it. The oath is retained

o n l y f o r i t s “ s y m b o l i c

value.” (Jonathan Tilove, Rise of the‘Ampersand American’, San Fran-cisco Examiner, Feb. 15, 1998, p. A-17. James F. Smith, Mexico’s Dual Nationality Opens Doors, L. A.Times, March 20, 1998.)

Different Values

David Abernathy III is a black Georgia state senator who represents a black district in Atlanta. He was re-cently arrested for possession of marijuana. State representative Bill Clark,who is white, recently wrote a guesteditorial for the Augusta Chronicle,explaining why he will not try to im- peach Mr. Abernathy:

“It seems to me that representativesare sent to Atlanta to represent the val-ues of the people who sent them. Sen.Abernathy does this. His people indowntown Atlanta, however, have dif-ferent values from ours. If given achance, they would legalize marijuanatomorrow. They see marijuana laws as‘white man’s laws.’

“I can vote to try to force northGeorgia morals on Sen. Abernathy, but we may start something we can’tstop. White middle class Americanswill soon become a minority. I don’twant Sen. Abernathy trying to forceAtlanta morals on us.

“Get rid of Sen. Abernathy and,unless there is a change in their valuesystem, they will send another justlike him.” (Rep. Bill Clark, Different


O Tempora, O Mores!

fice. He says France’s democratic val-ues may not be compatible with a sys-tem of proportional representation thatseems to give the front too much power.

The irony could not be more exqui-site. When the front wins too manyvotes in a democratic election it be-comes a “threat to democracy” anddemocracy must be tinkered with. Atthe same time, the socialist prime min-ister Lionel Jospin presides over acabinet with two Communists in it. Of course, the Communists have beeninvited to President Chirac’s little get-together to discuss ways to thwart thedemocratic will of people who are so

perverse as to vote for candidates whosay “France for the French.”

What is happening now in Franceis one of the clearest examples of howthoroughly entrenched anti-whitethinking has become, not just in theUnited States but around the world.The France of “liberty, equality, fra-ternity” considers itself one of theramparts of democracy. Also, liketheir counterparts everywhere, French politicians will usually do just aboutanything to stay in office. That for fear of being thought “racist,” French“conservatives” will not only try tosabotage democracy but actually handover political power to the left is an

astounding commentary on the power of racial taboos.

As always seems to happen whenthe issue is racial nationalism, other-wise reasonable people completely jump the tracks. At this rate, it is notimpossible to imagine a socialist or even “conservative” French govern-ment trying to annul the outcome of an election it didn’t like. If there is athreat to French democracy it isclearly not the Front National. It is thehysteria and hatred born of racialdogma that are a threat to the democ-ratic expression of a people’s wishes. ●




Values: a Question of Principle, Au-gusta Chronicle, Feb. 11, 1998, p. 5A.)

Ethnic Cleansing

Hawaiian Gardens is a mostly His- panic neighborhood in Los AngelesCounty that seems to be driving out its black residents. Black children com-

plain they are picked on in school andthat Mexican gangs attack them. After three recent racially-based murdersand a spate of assaults, blacks areleaving. Melinda Harris left theneighborhood after her son wasthrown through a window by Mexicangang members and nearly killed. Shesays, “If there is one thing I could tell black people still living there, it’s ‘Getout as soon as you can.’ “

Measures to stop violence and“celebrate diversity” have failed. Amulticultural fair drew only four

blacks, and a series of interracial dia-logues never materialized because notenough people were interested. ManyHispanic officials are not willing toadmit there is a racial problem whilesome Mexicans are proud to be run-ning blacks out.

A 21-year-old gang member says,“Three [murders] ain’t that much. Be-lieve me there should be a lot moredead ones.” Another Mexican claims,“Niggers come here thinking they’regonna take over, but there ain’t no blacks here and there never will be.”Others claim they are only acting inself-defense, “Blacks don’t give af***. They see a Mexican with newshoes, they go after him and try tosteal them from him.” (Ron Russelland Victor Mejia, City of Fear, NewTimes (Los Angeles), Feb. 12-18,1998, p.13.)

Seeing the Light

Syndicated columnist CharleyReese seems to have woken up to a

few basic facts. In a recent column henotes that “[diversity] is a breeder of perpetual conflict. There’s no nationon earth with a diverse, multicultural population that is politically stable,democratic and prosperous.”

He also goes on to say that:“America is already experiencing

an undeclared race war. . . .“The world is a graveyard of once

powerful and prosperous nations andempires. Unequal distribution of wealth, of resources, of opportunity,is, always has been, and always will be a fact of life.

“European-derived people seem tohave lost the will to survive. BiologistGarrett Hardin has said, ‘The politici-zation of universalism by Western

elites and their legal and social institu-tions . . . has deluded many European-derived people into believing that it isimmoral to survive as a distinct group.As a result they can find no reason toresist the Third World flood inundat-ing the West.’

“I believe we are now at the pointwhere the ruling class will have to bereplaced or we will proceed into thegloomy and dismal future where their false beliefs and bad actions are takingus.” (Charley Reese, The Ruling ClassCan Ruin Us All, King Features Syn-

dicate, Dec. 15, 1997.)

Black Justice

Frederica Massiah-Jackson is a black judge in the Court of CommonPleas in Philadelphia. In January,President Clinton proposed her as a judge for the federal Eastern Districtof Pennsylvania.

Judge Massiah-Jackson has beenknown to scream profanity at lawyersarguing cases before her, and she hastwice denied that abdominal gunshotwounds constitute “serious injury.”Once she urged defendants to “take agood look at the faces” of undercover police officers who were testifyingagainst them and “to be careful outthere.” Judge Massiah-Jackson deniedsaying this until transcripts were pro-duced. Judge Massiah-Jackson once broke into tears after a jury found aman guilty of raping a 10-year old girlsaying, “It’s not that I think the rapedidn’t occur, but five years is a lot of time.” She has imposed only one

harsh sentence during her tenure of more than ten years, explaining that itwas because the defendant was a“Caucasian.” Opposition to JudgeMassiah-Jackson eventually becameso strong that in March she withdrewfrom consideration. (Mona Charen,Here’s President Clinton’s Idea of aFine Judge, Augusta Chronicle, March16, 1998, p. 4A.)

Wicked Words

Publishers of the Merriam-Webster dictionary have received more than2,000 letters and calls from peoplecomplaining about its definition of the

word “nigger.” Inaccordance with itsusual practice, it

starts with the old-est definition, “a black person.” Inits usage note itgoes on to say thatthe word is

“perhaps the most offensive and in-flammatory racial slur in English” andis “expressive of racial hatred and big-otry,” but some middle-class blacksdon’t want the word in the dictionaryat all. In the face of a threatened boy-cott of its products, the 150-year-old publisher has appointed a committee

to review how it defines offensivewords. (Trudy Tynan, AP, Censorshipor Sensitivity? March 17, 1998.)

Chickens Home to Roost

A Miami federal judge has ruledthat the city discriminated against 105non-black police officers in 1992when it promoted unqualified blacks.Judge James Kehoe ordered the city to promote the officers and to give them$2 million in back pay. Gary Eugene,

a Haitian officer, was promoted de-spite finishing 107th out of 114 on the promotion exam. The city claimed the promotions were necessary to easeracial tensions in the city. (AP, Judge:Miami to Give Cops Back Pay, March18, 1998.)

A federal jury in Ohio has awarded$122,000 to a journalism teacher whoclaimed he was denied a job becausehe is white. When he applied for a po-sition at Bowling Green State Univer-sity in 1994 he was passed over in fa-vor of a black woman with less teach-

ing and publishing experience. JohnHartman noted that the woman hired before him was then paid out of some-thing called the Minority Enhance-ment Fund, which was set up to in-crease the number of non-white pro-fessors. (Jeffrey Selingo, Jury BacksProfessor Who Says He Was Denied aJob Because He Is White, Chronicleof Higher Education, March 9, 1998.)



This Man is Nuts

Reginald Denny is the truck driver who was nearly killed by black riotersduring the 1992 Rodney King post-verdict riots in Los Angeles. He later embraced the mother of one of his as-sailants and excused their behavior

because of the hard times they hadfaced. He now thinks racism was to blame for his beating—but racism onthe part of the police, not the rioters.He and three other whites who wereattacked have filed a $40 million suitagainst the city of Los Angeles, claim-ing that police did not quell the riots because they did not care what wasgoing on in the non-white parts of town. Police “racism” therefore leftthem at the mercy of angry blacks.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsis considering the case. (Minerva

Canto, AP, Judge: Riot Beatings NotRacial, March 2, 1998.)

Slave Trade

President William Clinton has beenrunning around Africa apologizing for slavery, but Ugandan president Yow-eri Museveni says he needn’t bother.“African chiefs were the ones wagingwar on each other and capturing their own people and selling them,” he said.“If anyone should apologize it should be the African chiefs.” As for the view

that the American President shouldmake some kind of public atonementfor slavery, Mr. Museveni says, “Idon’t have time for that diversion or rubbish.” He notes that some Africanswho were sent off to the New Worldwere lucky because they would other-wise have been killed in tribal wars.(Nicholas Kotch, Reuters, No Needfor Clinton Apology, March 26, 1998.AP, Museveni: Slavery Was Also theFault of Africans, April 1, 1998.)

Of course, if Mr. Clinton had reallywanted to denounce slavery he didn’t

have far to look. Ever since Sudan be-came independent in 1956, there has been intermittent rebellion by theChristian-animist blacks in the southagainst the Muslim Arabs in the northwho run the country. The fighting has been more or less continuous for the past 14 years, and an estimated 1.5million people have died from war,famine, and disease. The Muslim gov-ernment in Khartoum considers

counter-insurgency a jihad, or holywar, and lets its fighters treat the black rebels entirely as they please. Govern-ment militias therefore take their payin loot and slaves, robbing older blacks, killing young men, and takingwomen and children as slaves. Thehuman booty goes north, where anestimated 10,000 blacks are held asslaves. They are chattel and can bekilled, mutilated, bartered, or sold. ASwiss charity called Christian Solidar-ity International buys and frees slavesin Sudan, but some critics say its ef-forts only drive up the price and creategreater incentives for raiders. (KarinDavies, AP, Slave Trade Fed by Su-dan’s Civil War, Feb. 8, 1998.)

The Elusive Truth

Conservatives have often arguedthat opinion polls understate conserva-tive views because people are afraid tovoice dissent from prevailing liberal-

ism. The Pew Research Center for thePeople and the Press recently tried tosee if this is true. They compared theresults of a standard telephone surveywith those of a more “rigorous” one,in which the people who refused to participate by telephone were con-tacted in person. The researchersclaim that for the most part the opin-ions reported were the same—withone exception. “The Pew experiment

suggests that accurately measuringracial antagonisms may be a problemin all survey research,’’ the reportsaid.

The study found, for example, thatin the “rigorous” survey, 64 percent of the whites said that if blacks can’t getahead it is their own fault, with 26 percent blaming racial discrimination.In the more informal survey, the split

was 56-31. Of course, neither ap- proach takes into consideration the possibility that the results would moveeven further on racial questions if re-spondents could be anonymous. (AP,Study: Polls Include Conservatives,March 27, 1998.)

Good-bye Father Flanigan

Thanks to Hispanic immigration,the American Catholic church is beingtransformed. The change is most ap-

parent in Los Angeles, where an esti-mated 70 percent of Catholics are His- panic and 60 percent speak Spanish athome. Proficiency in Spanish is a re-quirement for graduation from semi-naries in Los Angeles and Orangecounties, and in Los Angeles, Spanishmasses are better attended than massesin English.

In parishes where Hispanics arestarting to take over from older whites, “there are basically twochurches that share the same building but are not a community,” notes John

Coleman, a religious sociologist atLoyola Marymount University. Manywhites move away from such parishes,and contributions drop. Some priestsdo not like the Aztec practices Hispan-ics incorporate into their worship or their habit of caressing and speakingto religious statues.

The transformation has politicalramifications. Bishops in Californiawere very active in opposing ballotinitiatives to discourage immigrationand abolish affirmative action, and thechurch is an increasingly strong voice

for expanded welfare programs. Butchurchmen are only playing to their new constituencies the way politiciansdo. As one priest explains, “If youwant a growing church, work with theimmigrants. The Spanish-speakingmasses are full, full, full, and the An-glo ones are dying.” (Anne-MarieO’Connor, Los Angeles Times,Church’s New Wave of Change,March 25, 1998.) ●


Register for

the Conference!

This issue should contain regis-tration materials for the AR con-ference to be held in Northern

Virginia over the weekend of Aug. 28-30. We have reducedrates for early registrants so please do not delay. If you needmore information please call us

at (703) 716-0900.

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	american-renaissance
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

199805 American Renaissance

Documents