|Vol 4, No. 4||April 1993|
Prisoner of Democracy
Reflections of a man who has gone to prison because of his racial views.
It is my understanding that Americans are currently being softened up for the introduction of so-called “hate laws” — legislation similar to that existing in Canada and most Western European countries, which makes it illegal to say, write, publish or distribute anything which could be construed as stirring up “racial hatred” against an ethnic group. I have actually served a term of imprisonment in Britain under such a law, and Americans may find my experiences instructive.
British legislation is currently codified within the Public Order Act, of which Part III deals with “racial hatred.” At one time the prosecution in a case of this kind had to prove that a defendant intended to stir up hatred. Intent is difficult to prove, so the law was broadened to make conviction possible without proof of intent, providing it could be shown that racial hatred resulted from what was said or written. This too was difficult to prove, so the law was further extended to include the concept of “likelihood.” Even if intent cannot be proven, and even if no hatred can be shown to have been stirred up, the mere likelihood that hatred might result is sufficient for conviction.
It was on this basis that I was charged in 1986, with having “conspired … to publish divers items of written matter which were threatening, abusive or insulting in cases where … hatred was likely to be stirred up against racial groups …” I am editor of Spearhead, which is published by the British National Party, and it was mainly in that capacity that I was said to have offended. John Morse, editor of British Nationalist, was charged with the same crime, and we undertook a joint defense.
|We were never told which actual words were considered by the jury to have been unlawful.|
Naturally we asked for information on the specific passages that were considered to have landed us on the wrong side of the law but we never received this information. It became obvious that the prosecution’s strategy was to produce in evidence as much material dealing with racial matters as the jury could be expected to digest, and hope that the general impact would shock the latter into finding against us.
Even after we had been found guilty, we were never told which actual words were considered by the jury to have been unlawful and which were not, and we have had to surmise, in the light of the emphasis that the prosecution placed on each piece of evidence, which were the ones that were our undoing. My own feeling is that it was not so much one specific reference that tipped the scales but the cumulative effect of all the material.
Nevertheless, we consider that one of the major causes of our being found guilty was an editorial in the May 1985 issue of British Nationalist dealing with the South African situation. In this article certain races were referred to in terms of superiority and inferiority. In the witness box we were asked what we meant by “superior” and “inferior” and we replied that we were referring to the accomplishments of the respective races throughout the world, and in particular Africa, and the criteria we had in mind were the particular arts and capabilities required for the construction of our own civilization. We were not attempting to establish any absolute and all-embracing standard of what was superior and what was inferior. This explanation apparently did not suffice.
One article from Spearhead that may be considered a possible cause of conviction was one that appeared in the August 1984 issue. This was in fact a reprint from an American publication, which affirmed the belief that there existed a global race war and that in that war there could be no neutrals. Today it would probably not be overstepping the bounds of “legality” to use the expression “race war,” or indeed to admit that such a thing is in progress. What would, on the other hand, not be prudent would be to suggest: (1) that the race war is the responsibility of any specific racial group; and (2) that in such a war whites should take up a position of defense of their own side. Another item in Spearhead that is likely to have contributed to my conviction was a different article published in the same August 1984 issue. It contained decidedly unfavorable references to the standards of morality achieved by certain racial groups. Clearly, such outright condemnation of the morality of any identified racial group must now be regarded as “dangerous.”
In our defense we offered ample evidence that words which could be classified as “threatening, abusive, or insulting” had been repeatedly used against whites in this country, but this was not considered relevant. The jury found us guilty.
During the week of the trial, Mr. Morse and I made a close study of the jury and of its reactions to the court proceedings. We had eliminated all non-whites from the panel by exercising the right of objection (though this is no longer possible because of changes in the law). Our assessment was that the jurors were mostly a timid-looking bunch likely to go whatever way a strong argument took them.
We did not know who the foreman was until the moment of the verdict, when he identified himself. He looked like a small-time trade union official and a possible Labour Party activist, and his personality appeared just a shade stronger than those of the others. We guessed that it was his hectoring of his fellow jury members that probably swayed them into deciding against us.
Undoubtedly, however, the judge in his summing up address to the jury played a part too. His tone clearly indicated that in his opinion we had crossed the line between mere expression of views about race and the voicing of hatred — or at least the encouragement of hatred — and had thus broken the law. His imposition of a sentence of one year’s imprisonment — later reduced on appeal to six months — confirmed this, for he could have given us a considerably lighter penalty.
On reflection, my reckoning is that the jurors most certainly did not go over every piece of evidence with a fine-toothed comb and interpret it with legalistic precision. It is much more likely that they concluded: “Well, it seems that the judge thinks these two are dangerous characters who must be given a lesson — and who are we to disagree with him?”
On the other hand, the jurors did not reach their verdict all that quickly. My guess is that this was primarily because they could not at first agree and it took some time to convince the waverers. Whatever the reasoning, two British subjects, on trial in their own country, under prosecution by a department of their own government, were sent to prison for six months for expressing their opinions.
|Part of the policy is to intimidate people with the threat of racial hatred laws rather than actually enforce them.|
I should point out, though, that in Britain, just as in the United States, there are areas of the country where the local population consists of plenty of robust-minded folk who will not easily be swayed by glib “liberal” rhetoric. In the county of Kent, in a town about forty miles from London, a colleague of mine was acquitted on a race charge when a jury refused to be intimidated by the prosecution’s arguments. The same thing happened to another defendant I know of in the North East of England. Our trial took place, however, in Inner London and the result was different: a weak jury deferred both to the judge and to the jury foreman, whatever the individual jurors’ innermost feelings may have been.
After sentencing we were assigned to Wormwood Scrubs Prison. Upon arrival we put in an application to go on what is known as “Rule 43,” which provides for the segregation of prisoners from the rest of the inmates. [This is what is called “protective custody” in the United States.] The reason for our application was that at the time of our imprisonment, about one fifth of Britain’s prison population was black, and in areas of high immigrant concentration like London the proportion was higher still. In an exercise yard that we could see from our cell we once counted over 60 blacks out of a total of about 180 prisoners.
Racial conflict has become a major problem in British prisons. Blacks have the advantage due to their tendency to stick together and hunt in packs, while whites do not show the same solidarity. We also learned that it is common for blacks facing punishment for offenses against prison officers to claim that the officers made “racist” remarks. Mr. Morse and I could see that the same defense might be offered by a black who was caught assaulting us, and by “going on Rule 43” we could avoid trouble of this kind.
Rule 43 has an adverse side, however. A fairly large proportion of our neighbors consisted, as one prison officer warned us it would, of the absolute scum of the earth. Prisoners who have to apply for protection in jail are, very largely, child molesters and child murderers (often the same people), rapists and informants. The company we had to keep was far from pleasant and we had as little contact as possible.
When a man goes to jail he can either regard his sentence as a slice taken out of his life or as a part of his life during which he can do things he might not otherwise be able to do for lack of time. For several years I had been planning to write a book, and had made a modest start a month or two before I was sentenced. I resolved immediately that I would get as much of the book done as possible, and in the event I almost completed it.
Mr. Morse and I also embarked on a program of exercise, and we discovered how a bit of improvisation can turn a prison cell into a gymnasium. For example, one can load all the furniture in the room — in our case, two tables and two chairs — onto one of the beds. Then gripping the bottom crossbar at the end of the bed, one can curl the bed to shoulder height.
Soon after we arrived we had a visit from the Padre. On learning what we were in for, he set himself the task of saving our souls — which meant converting us to internationalism, liberalism, multi-racialism, and world peace. From the start he could see that we were difficult pupils but he seemed to want to persevere. At first we did not mind his coming because it made a bit of a change to talk to someone else. However, after several conversations we got tired of his silly slush and decided we would have to discourage him. He soon concluded that Tyndall and Morse were hopeless cases who seemed to get worse rather than better as a result of his lectures; we were then able to get on with more useful things.
I should add that throughout our time in jail we were treated extremely well. The average prison officer is representative of the best qualities in the British race. Our jailers knew why we were there and their behavior toward us indicated that they respected us and what we stood for. Some professed open sympathy while the others simply indicated by the way they spoke to us that they did not regard us as common criminals. One of the prison staff summed it up shortly before our time for release: “You two are only in here for saying what three quarters of the country is thinking!”
What Can One Safely Say?
Since my release from prison I have had reason to reflect on what one can and cannot say in this country, and I personally do not believe “race-hate” laws in Britain to be anything like as much of a handicap to free discussion as some of my friends and political allies believe them to be. In a way, they can even be looked at as something of an advantage inasmuch as they impose a certain discipline in the use of language which is desirable in any case. I have, for example, read some American publications in which the writers, because they are free of legal restraints, express themselves in terms that are so crude and offensive that they are likely to alienate a great many would-be readers and appeal only to the mentally maladjusted.
Since resuming editorship of Spearhead I have found that one has a fairly wide area of freedom to expound on racial differences, provided that one emphasizes that one is referring to just that: differences, and not questions of superiority or inferiority. This may require an approach that is distasteful to one’s sense of honesty, but if it is a question of keeping out of jail one simply has to suppress certain emotions. In any case, I have discovered that an emphasis on differences provides an extra layer of armor-plating against the law. By talking about differences one can speak with comparative openness against the cultural standards and living habits of other races while not risking prosecution.
Even in the case of descriptions of superiority and inferiority, one can get away with these providing they are used in a certain context. As the law in Britain currently stands, I am fairly confident that I would not be prosecuted for writing that the academic performance of West Indian children is inferior to that of white children, for the fact is so obvious and widely recognized — even by liberals — that to convict someone in court for saying so would reduce the law to absurdity. For the same reasons it would be pretty safe to say that the athletic performance of young blacks is, in certain fields, superior to that of young whites.
It is another matter, however, to take things further and say that such superior and inferior performances are the consequence of inherent genetic factors. Here one would probably be on thin ice speaking of white intellectual superiority though probably not when speaking of black athletic superiority.
The judge at our trial exhibited the typical do-gooder liberal attitudes in this respect. He could not possibly gainsay, and therefore condemn someone for saying, that blacks perform intellectually at a lower level than whites. At the same time his emotions could not bear the thought that this state of affairs was unchangeable and not capable of remedy by education and social engineering. The first thought was just about acceptable to him; the second was not. It is essential to the liberal’s faith in his ability to guide people forward that he have the capacity to lift up the low by civic action, whatever their depressed condition. Offend that faith, and you make the liberal very angry! Once again, it is my opinion that in Britain we still retain considerable freedom to express ourselves on matters of race, but we need to be careful when venturing into fields of genetics and heredity.
Advice for Americans
Should Americans eventually have to face “hate” laws similar to ours, they should bear in mind that they will have been introduced not for the high-sounding purpose of “stopping hatred” but to gag certain people. In other words, their object is to shut you up, but with the humbug that is characteristic of legislators in all “democracies,” they prefer to do this while maintaining the pretense that your right to express your opinions still remains inviolate. Theoretically, all opinions can still be expressed and it is only the stirring up of hatred that is off limits. Decisions to prosecute can therefore be expected to be based not on any genuine concern for the public interest but on the basis of whether the authorities think that, on the evidence of what you have said, they have enough to “hang” you.
|People are induced to believe that they are not allowed to say anything about racial differences.|
It is good to recall that part of the policy of gagging “racists” consists of intimidating people with the threat of the law rather than actually enforcing it. In other words, the purpose of legislation on “racism” will largely have been accomplished if people are induced to believe, albeit mistakenly, that they are not allowed to say anything about race and racial differences, and that they must speak of other races only in flattering terms. A great many people in Britain have been frightened by the existing race laws into thinking just this, with the result that they do not exercise their still-existing rights to speak on racial matters.
I have one further consideration. There may be some in the United States who will be inclined to take the view, “Publish and be damned!” with the idea of courting prosecution, conviction and thereby martyrdom. That would, of course, be up to Americans to decide — with a careful eye to probable political effects in a country where the history of free speech may be different from that of Britain.
I can say only that in this country martyrdom achieves very little. The whole concept of calculated martyrdom rests on the supposition that masses of people are going to be made aware of it, and that they are going to be so outraged that it will be worth the sacrifice involved. Our case here in 1986 was given only the tiniest coverage by the media, and the national climate at the time was one of such apathy that it is doubtful that the matter would have aroused much emotion even had many people known about it.
I certainly hope that Americans will not permit themselves to be gagged by means of “hate” laws and that it will continue to be possible to discuss not only the genetic basis of racial differences but any other matter that a free people should wish to investigate. Nevertheless, in closing, I would repeat the view that “hate” laws need not curtail debate to an intolerable degree and that they can even serve the useful function of deterring the publication of crude, offensive materials that only hurt our cause.
John Tyndall is Leader of the British National Party, editor of the party’s monthly magazine, Spearhead, and author of The Eleventh Hour, most of which he wrote while in prison.
America’s ‘Best’ Small Towns
Prentice Hall has just published a book called The 100 Best Small Towns in America, in which a man named Norman Crampton made the selections. These towns all have populations of between 5,000 and 15,000, and most are places few people have heard of: Red Wing (MN), Baraboo (WI), Kalispell (MT), Bisbee (AZ), Carthage (TX), Hartselle, (AL), etc.
How did Mr. Crampton choose his towns? Some of his criteria, like per capita income, growth rate, crime rates, good scenery, educational levels, and number of physicians, are fairly straightforward. One, however, leaps off the page: “Percentage of Nonwhite Population.” Has Prentice Hall actually published a book that recognizes that a largely white population is one of the best guarantors of pleasant living?
Of course not. “We were seeking small towns that reflected racial diversity,” explains the author, and towns get extra points if they have large numbers of non-whites. Two of the top 100 actually have non-white majorities. Cleveland (64.6 percent non-white) and West Point (54.3 percent) are both in Mississippi. Oxford (MS) has a non-white population of 48 percent, and Georgetown (SC) is 45 percent non-white. Of course, most of Mr. Crampton’s small towns are overwhelmingly white. Seventy-five of the 100 are more than 90 percent white, 51 are more than 97 percent white, and Crossville (TN) is the fairest of all at 99.8 percent.
It is not easy to imagine someone who is seeking the charms of smalltown life rushing off to 65-percentblack Cleveland (MS), but Prentice Hall is pretending that a non-white majority could be a real draw. What more typical sign of the pretenses of our times could there be than a system of ranking that rates the towns with the largest proportions of whites as the least desirable?!
Facing the Gorgon
Two authors write about biology and intelligence without being turned to stone.
The Road to Equality: Evolution and Social Reality, Seymour Itzkoff, Praeger Publishers, 1992, 219 pp., $24.95.
America’s Bimodal Crisis: Black Intelligence in White Society, Foundation for Human Understanding, Stanley Burnham, 1993, 126 pp., $6.00, (paperback).
The Road to Equality, by Seymour Itzkoff, is a book about which one scarcely knows whether to be pleased or disappointed. Unquestionably, it is reason to celebrate when a publisher brings out a book that dares to speak so many forbidden truths: That intelligence is largely hereditary, that the races differ in average intelligence, that a nation’s competitiveness lies in the intelligence of its people, and that salvation for the United States lies in a vigorous eugenics program. It is only the unusual and courageous author who says these things, and it is wonderful that he should find a publisher to let him say them.
And yet, the preceding paragraph essentially summarizes the entire book. Prof. Itzkoff tells us over and over that high intelligence is the vital substrate for civilization, and that a nation in which the stupid are outbreeding the intelligent is on the road to barbarism. This is certainly true, and it is good to say so, but repeating it does not make it any more true.
This book is more a cry of pain than a sober analysis. It is not a patient, didactic text that presents evidence and draws careful conclusions. At the outset, Prof. Itzkoff warns the reader that thought crimes lie ahead, so we assume that he expects us to be unfamiliar with the ideas that follow. However, he then simply states the hereditarian thesis on intelligence without describing the evidence that supports it, and bemoans the fact that the average intelligence of Americans is dropping with every generation.
How does Prof. Itzkoff propose to stop the downward drift in what he calls the nation’s “intellectual capital”? His eugenics plan — which lies at what should logically be the heart of his message — consists of two sentences: “In each generation let us strive to bring 50 percent more children into this world from the upper half of the intelligence scale than from the lower 50 percent.” Later he alludes to “a whole series of adjustments” that society must make to bring this about. What adjustments? How implemented? Under whose auspices?
This book is likely to be unsatisfactory for almost all readers. Those who already see the truth of what Prof. Itzkoff says will find little that is new or illuminating; those who do not agree are unlikely to be persuaded by sweeping assertions. Moreover, the book veers into stylistic peculiarities that do not succeed. One chapter is the lecture Prof. Itzkoff thinks Plato might deliver to Americans if he were to come back from the dead. Another is an open letter to whomever is elected President of the United States in 1996. These chapters are just different ways of saying the same things.
|Prof. Itzkoff dismisses racial differences as a “matter of historical and evolutionary accident.”|
Although Prof. Itzkoff has clear, hard-headed views on intelligence and heredity, he is surprisingly muddy about race. He recognizes that the “races and ethnic groups of the tropical south” are not at the same level of intelligence as the more northern races, but dismisses this as “a matter of historical and evolutionary accident.” Accident it may be, but calling it that changes nothing. Perhaps it was “by accident” that the Australian aborigines took a different evolutionary turn from that of the Japanese, but the two groups are still vastly different from each other.
Prof. Itzkoff notes that it is no coincidence that the most successful nations on earth — Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany — are racially homogeneous. And yet he writes hopefully of how race could be made to fade into insignificance in America if we could only institute a eugenics program to bring blacks and Hispanics up to the same level as whites and Asians. It is difficult to see how he can believe this when, elsewhere, he wonders whether white flight to the suburbs may not be the first step in the racial breakup of the United States.
Perhaps it is this effort to down play race that explains why Prof. Itzkoff says nothing about immigration. According to the book’s dust jacket, we can expect to learn why the less intelligent behave no differently when they are put into an environment created by the more intelligent. This is what explains why America’s inner cities have much in common with Kinshasa and why Los Angeles’ barrios look, sound, and even smell like Mexico. But if Prof. Itzkoff is worried about America’s declining intellectual capital, why is he silent about large-scale immigration from the admittedly less developed “tropical south.” Perhaps eugenics will iron out whatever problems the newcomers bring with them.
There is no joy in being so critical of a book that takes brave stands on urgent questions. Prof. Itzkoff has clearly agonized over the dysgenic course that America has set for itself and sees the pressing need to right that course. For this fact alone it is vital that books like his should be published, but since the voice of reason has so few opportunities to make itself heard, we can only wish that it would speak with more care and eloquence.
A Different Kind of Book
The just-published second edition of Black Intelligence in White Society is an entirely different kind of book. It is a clear-eyed, methodical account of what the presence of large numbers of blacks means for the United States. The author, writing under the pseudonym of Stanley Burnham, explains how employment, education, law enforcement, and welfare programs have all been strained nearly to the breaking point to accommodate a group that cannot, on average, meet the cognitive standards that European civilization requires.
Those accommodations have been made in awkward, often destructive ways because our country refuses to face the fact that racial differences in achievement are due largely to heredity rather than to environment. The first part of this book is therefore an overview of the evidence for a genetic explanation of racial differences. Mr. Burnham summarizes the data on intelligence testing, physiological differences, and cultural achievements of blacks around the world, and draws the only conclusions that the evidence permits.
Good though this summary is, it is diminished by the fact that the only parts of this book — first published in 1985 — that have been brought up to date in this edition are the introduction and the bibliography. There has been something of a renaissance in research on racial differences, and it is a pity that Mr. Burnham has not included the most recent results. However, his observations on American society in general are still accurate; little has happened in the last eight years to invalidate them.
Mr. Burnham is acutely aware of the costs to American society of its refusal to acknowledge racial differences. Since it is forbidden to attribute the failures of blacks to their true cause, “racism” and other environmental evils must be held accountable. The increasingly hysterical and futile search for “racism” that ensues does nothing to encourage black achievement.
|Mr. Burnham is not optimistic that our country has the will to look the Gorgon in the face.|
Mr. Burnham has spent several decades teaching college students, both black and white, and his description of how standards are lowered is especially convincing. Universities simply cannot afford to give blacks the failing grades many deserve, and everyone else’s grades must then be pushed up by way of compensation. Standards then decline for everyone. Our schools and universities will slide still further into mediocrity unless we accept that blacks and whites do not achieve at the same levels. Some blacks are, of course, capable of excellent work, and Mr. Burnham argues in favor of selective, compensatory education whenever it may be effective.
In law enforcement as well, writes Mr. Burnham, we are reaping the inevitable consequences of expecting blacks to meet white standards:
“[T]he United States endures the very worst crime rate among industrialized nations and at the same time offers the world’s most generous guarantees for protecting the rights of suspected criminals … [W]e are trying to apply unduly civilized standards in the effort to curtail widespread low-I.Q. criminal behavior. We want to maintain our Constitutional rights despite our multi-racial composition which puts us in a class with the nations of Africa and South and Central America, all of which have found it necessary to resort to more stringent law enforcement policies.”
Mr. Burnham writes that most common criminals, who are disproportionately black, have no understanding of the meaning or purpose of Constitutional safeguards. They know only that when the authorities are incapable of enforcing the law, they have all the more reason to break it.
Our welfare programs are yet another example of a social structure first devised for people with a certain level of intelligence and discipline but now twisted by a different people into something entirely unintended. What was designed as temporary, Depression-era relief for women with small children whose fathers had died has now become an accepted way of life for succeeding generations of illegitimates. As the irresponsible behavior of blacks becomes more common and goes unrebuked, whites too become infected with the same diseases. Although blacks are six times more likely to be on welfare than whites, there are nevertheless almost as many whites as blacks on the dole.
Like Prof. Itzkoff, Mr. Burnham fears a “dysgenic juggernaut.” “A revolutionary horde is being created right before our eyes,” he writes, “and its threat to our nation consists of nothing more than its perpetuating itself in exactly the same fashion as it is doing today.” Elsewhere, he writes, “Marxist theory has been turned on its head: This underclass has become the exploiters and everybody else the exploited, and the familiar metaphors of class conflict (theft, rape, and the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, etc.) seem perversely appropriate …”
Mr. Burnham is not optimistic that our country has the will to look the Gorgon in the face and take the measures necessary to avert catastrophe. He does not see separation or segregation as solutions, but proposes tax incentives to subsidize procreation by the intelligent and cash rewards to welfare recipients if they agree to be sterilized.
Like Prof. Itzkoff, Mr. Burnham asesses the prospects for our nation and concludes that American civilization hangs in the balance. Unlike Prof. Itzkoff, he sees race as central both to the problems we face and to the solutions we might attempt. Black Intelligence in White Society is an invaluable summary of what is not only our most threatening problem but the one we most resolutely refuse to face.
Mr. Burnham’s book is available from the Foundation for Human Understanding, Box 5712, Athens, GA 30604 for $6.00, postage paid.
IN THE NEWS
O Tempora, O Mores!
California is increasingly hostile to business (see cover stories of two previous issues). One recent act of hostility has been a change in workers’ compensation laws that lets employees file claims for work-related stress even if work accounted for only 10 percent of the problem. Workers can invent all sorts of stresses after they have been fired or laid off, so there is always a chance of retribution when an employee is dismissed.
When an employee files a stress claim, the employer must pay for medical tests that can cost thousands of dollars. Even if the claim is found to be frivolous, the employer is not reimbursed. An employee has absolutely nothing to lose by filing a claim, and always has the chance of being bought off or of striking it rich with a sympathetic jury.
The system is also a gold mine for the doctors who do the tests; they have started advertising for people to come in and file stress claims. “Workers’ comp’ mills” find that unemployed Hispanics are particularly willing to cooperate in frauds like this, so most of the advertising is in Spanish. People who will file complaints are so valuable to the doctors that they are willing to pay an introduction fee to anyone who brings in a fraud prospect. The going rate is said to be $320 a head, plus a cut of the medical billings.
The new regulations have caused claims to jump by 36 percent, state-wide, but the rise has been concentrated in Southern California. Eric Holomon, who owns 17 fried chicken restaurants in Los Angeles has seen his annual workers’ compensation insurance premiums go from $129,000 to $445,000 in just three years. Most of the increase is due to phony stress claims filed by former employees. He is so fearful of yet more expensive stress claims that he has decided not to fire an employee he knows is stealing from him.
Guy Starkman, who also owns restaurants in Los Angeles, fired a cook for fondling waitresses and dismissed two security guards after he caught them asleep on the job three nights in a row. The men promptly filed stress-related workers’ compensation claims. “All these fraudulent claims are making it impossible to run a business in California,” says Mr. Starkman; “you can’t fire anyone anymore.” His annual insurance premiums have gone from $50,000 to $600,000 in four years. [Don Nichols, Stress Claims Costing California Owners Plenty, Restaurant Business, Jan. 20, 1993, pp. 15ff.]
Tom Houston Gets Our Vote
Of the 50 or so candidates for mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Houston has caught our attention in a most favorable way. On a recent radio program, he suggested that the best way to deal with gang warfare was to deport illegal aliens. He pointed out that criminal aliens can be kicked out without the bother and expense of a trial and that since 80 percent of them are wanted for crimes in their own countries, they are not likely to come back any time soon if we hand them over to their own police. Mr. Houston thinks this is such an obvious solution that he cannot understand why we are not already doing it. He also points out that the massive influx of immigrants is swamping schools, hospitals, and all government services. We wish Mr. Houston every possible success. [Frank Clifford, “LA Mayoral Candidate calls for deportation of illegals in 2 gangs.” LA Times, Jan. 15, 1993, p. A17.]
Missy McLauchlin, RIP
Ordinarily, anti-white crimes committed by blacks get little notice in the media. Earlier this year, however, blacks committed a crime so cruel and sordid that it seemed impossible that the media would ignore it. The media proceeded to do the impossible, so we are obliged to report the details.
In January, Missy McLauchlin, a 25-year-old resident of Charleston (SC), found herself locked out of her apartment. As she crossed the street to a grocery store, she was forced into a car full of black men who took her to a mobile home complex. The men put out the word that they had “captured a white woman,” and invited all the black men in the complex to come rape her. No one knows how many men answered the call, but Miss McLauchlin may have been raped over a period of five hours. At least two black women came by to observe and encourage the men.
At one point in her ordeal, Miss McLauchlin was bathed in bleach and tortured by having bleach rubbed into her eyes. Finally, she was shot six times and dumped into a ditch. Unfortunately, she survived for several hours.
So far, five men and two women have been arrested. The man who is thought to have fired the murder weapon is reportedly still on the loose. According to the police, Miss McLauchlin was abducted, raped, tortured, and killed in “revenge” for oppression of blacks by whites.
AR does not ordinarily report routine anti-white crime, but this case deserves to be an exception. Nearly everyone in America has heard of Tawana Brawley, the black woman who was not raped by whites. Miss Brawley is very much alive and enjoys a reputation among blacks as something of a racial hero. Missy McLauchlin is dead, and practically no one knows her name. [Malcolm X Followers Attack White Woman, The Truth At Last, Issue No. 362, p. 4.]
The Politics of Suicide
Several months ago, an 18-year-old black man named Andre Jones was found dead in the shower of the Simpson County Jail in Mississippi. Mr. Jones was hanging from a noose made of his own shoe laces, and the U.S. Justice Department ruled the death a suicide. Simpson County police speculated that the man must have killed himself because he had given police useful information about gangs and was afraid of retaliation.
Mr. Jones’ parents think the police murdered their son. “They did take his life, and he was not suicidal. We know this,” says his mother. She claims that Mr. Jones was killed because she is the head of the Jackson (MS) chapter of the NAACP and his stepfather is the leader of the Jackson branch of the Nation of Islam. These would both be excellent reasons to treat Mr. Jones with circumspection rather than to kill him, but no matter.
Mr. Jones’ mother and other black leaders have made much of the fact that 23 black men are said to have hanged themselves in their cells in Mississippi since 1987. They say these men were murdered and that the state has scarcely changed in decades. The only difference is that lynchings now go on inside the jails rather than in public.
Lost in the controversy is the fact that since 1987, 20 white men have hanged themselves in Mississippi jails. [Jim Yardley, “Was Jail Hanging a murder?” Atlanta Constitution, 2/12/93, p. 1.] There are considerably more blacks than whites in Mississippi jails, so whites are more likely to hang themselves than are blacks. No one seems to have noticed.
New School Board Member
Kwame Kenyatta (who used to go by the name of Norman Tyrus) is a new member of the Detroit school board. He has been a black activist for many years, having been a founder of the Detroit Black Student Association when he was in high school. He was also expelled from Detroit’s Cooley High School for leading a take-over of the principal’s office.
Since his upset victory in an election to the school board, the 36-year-old Mr. Kenyatta has been working to put Afro-centrism at the center of the city’s education effort. Even some of the other black board members are disturbed by his goals. “We should not [!] continue to teach our children to get a good education so they can get a good job,” he says. Employment is scarcely a worthy goal, since, as he says, “there was full employment on the slave plantation.”
One of Mr. Kenyatta’s first formal proposals has been for the school board to stop recognizing the American flag. He says the flag is a symbol of hypocrisy and of exploitation of blacks.
In the long term, Mr. Kenyatta has grander schemes than Afro-centric education. He is the Detroit coordinator of the New Afrikan People’s Organization, which would like to establish an all-black homeland in North America. The group has its eye on Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina.
Riots to Come
According to a recent cover story in USA Today (Feb. 16, 1993), Los Angeles gangs are preparing for another riot. If the four police officers who beat Rodney King are acquitted in the second trial or if the black hoodlums who nearly killed the truck driver, Reginald Denny, are convicted, they promise to go on the war path. If anything, says USA Today, blacks are angrier than they were at the time of the first trial.
The new police chief, Willie Williams, is black and has vowed to respond with overwhelming force if there are more riots. Gang members refer to him contemptuously as “super slave,” and are planning ways to defeat him. Since so many gun stores were looted during the last riot, gangs are more heavily armed than ever.
They are planning a different riot this time. Stung by the observation that all they did before was burn down their own neighborhoods, they promise to streak out into white and Korean areas and burn them down. The plan will be to kill as many police, judges, and prosecutors as possible, but as one gang member puts it, “If they can find white people [to kill], that’s fine and dandy, too.” Los Angelenos certainly cannot claim that they were not warned. [Richard Price, “‘Sooner or later,’ justice will happen,” USA Today, Feb,. 16, 1993, p. 1.]
As it happens, the threat of massive violence may be more real than many think. According to a 1992 study by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, fully 47 percent of black men between the ages of 21 and 24 have some kind of gang affiliation. For Hispanics, the figure is 8.5 percent and for whites it is 0.5 percent. [Sheryl Stolberg, “Gang Study Has Startling Findings,” LA Times, May 22, 1992, p. A3.]
New Heroes for a New Era
In the meantime, Rodney King himself only grows in stature. Early this year he was invited to speak to the students at Saddleback High School in Santa Ana (CA). Although the press was not allowed to cover Mr. King’s remarks, they did interview students afterwards.
“People look at him as a hero,” said 17-year-old Tony Cannon.
“He can really say something about racism because of the beating,” said 14-year-old Princess Hollins; “I wasn’t able to see Martin Luther King or Malcolm X, but I was able to see him.”
Another black icon in the making?
It’s a Black Thing …
On February 9th, the city of Dallas celebrated its football team’s Superbowl victory with a parade down city streets. Although the parade was held during school hours on a weekday, thousands of teenagers skipped school to watch it, and in some largely black schools, the absentee rate was over 60 percent. When the parade ended, young blacks went on a 90-minute rampage of robbery and assault, deliberately targeting whites and Hispanics. Not even the newspapers could bring themselves to overlook the racial character of the attacks, after television footage of the parade was widely broadcast.
The next day, one Dallas newspaper interviewed some young blacks who had participated in the mayhem. They laughed as they remembered what they had seen, and called the racial attacks justified. “They [whites] deserved what they got,” said one student at Sunset High School; “If it was thousands of whites and a few blacks they would have kicked the [obscenity] out of us.” Of course, blacks pass unmolested through crowds of whites every day, but these young blacks are essentially saying that any white so foolish as to find himself outnumbered by blacks deserved to be attacked.
What did the whites who were attacked by blacks think about it all? Those whom the newspapers chose to quote had such vigorous reactions as:
“Things like this happen nowadays. It makes you street smart.”
“There wasn’t enough help there; not enough police officers.”
“I feel like there’s a lot of racial tension right now that needs to be looked at.”
[Steve Scott, “Some Try to explain attacks to kids,” Dallas Morning News, 2/11/93, p. 8a. Melanie Lewis, “Some teen-agers condone, others decry assaults,” Dallas Morning News, 2/11/93, p. 1. Bill Sullivan, Houston Chronicle, “Violence Mars Cowboys Celebration,” Feb. 10, 1993, p. 1A.]
Spare Rib is a British feminist magazine. In its issue of January 1993, it published an interview with Novette Thompson, a British black who has completed her training as a Methodist minister and who expects to be ordained next year. Some excerpts:
“Spare Rib: Who was Jesus?
“Novette: … We’re not too sure about the actual details, but there is no doubt that Jesus was Black. Put it this way, with immigration laws the way they are in Europe today, Jesus would not be allowed in.
“Spare Rib: So Jesus has been Europeanised, like everything else.
“Novette: Yes, and because of that a lot of the essence has been lost … For example, the Greeks took the whole concept of African Gods and Goddesses, and adapted and distorted it all to fit their own culture and society, which was a patriarchal slave society. And while there is nothing wrong with learning from other cultures, the problem arises when you don’t acknowledge that that’s what you’re doing, when you are dishonest, and you distort other people’s ideas.”
[A Holy Revolution, Spare Rib, Jan., 1993, p. 30.]
The New Journalism
Jocelyn Walters is, a black, second-year journalism student at the University of Georgia, who has been unbosoming her views on America. In the February 15 issue of a campus-related paper called The Red & Black, she has written an article called “Blacks Should Revolt Against White, Male America.” Here are some of her choicest thoughts:
“I’m talking to you, white America.
“You’re wrong. You’re evil … Your greed is overwhelming. Your lust for power disgusting. The blood on your hands signifies what a demon you are …
“You have always thrived off of the blood and sweat of others. You drink them. It is your sustenance … You make me sick! Sick with anger. Sick with disgust. Sick with the desire to ruin you like you have ruined so many others …
“On the day of the revolution, the minorities are going to rise up and take all of your power. What will you do then? I suggest you fall down on your knees and pray, but this time to God.”
[Jocelyn Walters, “Blacks Should revolt against white, male America,” The Red and Black, 2/15/93.]
This little essay is unlikely to spoil her chances for a job when she receives her journalism degree.
Rewriting the Past
Jap Lane is in Orange County, Texas. Jap Road is in Jefferson County. Both were named after Japanese farmers who first developed the land early in this century, and old-timers say the names never meant disrespect. Hal Wingate still owns some of the land his grandfather bought from a Japanese settler in 1924. Mr. Wingate, who is 83, remembers the Japanese very well and recalls that they were well respected. “They knew they were Japs,” he says; “They’d tell you they were Japs. They were proud of it.”
Sandra Nakata is a young Japanese-American woman who moved into the area in 1985. She is trying to get the names changed because she claims they are insulting. However, local residents have put up considerable resistance to the idea of an outsider telling them what to do, and local officials are treading warily. Miss Nakata, who teaches second grade, says her pupils came up with a new name for Jap Road. “We should call it ‘American Road,’” she says, “because we’re all Americans now.” [Richard Stewart, “Wrong Ways?” Houston Chronicle, Jan 31, 1993, p. 1E.]
LETTERS FROM READERS
Sir — Marian Evans’ cover stories on the population changes in California were as informative as they were disturbing. As the state changes from white to non-white it will become less congenial and even hostile to whites.
Miss Evans laments the fact that whites always give up their neighborhoods and flee from advancing nonwhites. As she points out, this has happened in cities all across the country, just as it is happening in whole regions of California. Miss Evans urges whites to “stand and fight” rather than flee, but what is an individual to do? Slash the tires of Mexicans who move into the neighborhood? Fire bomb their houses?
In Germany this sort of thuggery apparently had an effect on lawmakers who are now changing the rules on asylum, but recommendations of violence would be entirely out of keeping with the philosophy of American Renaissance as I understand it. In today’s political climate, no law can be passed to keep a neighborhood, a town, a region, or a state white.
Immigration laws could perhaps be changed to reduce the inflow of nonwhites, but even if immigration stopped tomorrow, resident nonwhites would continue to outbreed whites. Non-whites will therefore continue to push their way into those white areas that remain.
What, therefore, does it mean to “stand and fight”? Would it be meanspirited to point out that American Renaissance itself once had its offices in California? Is moving to Kentucky, which is still 92 percent white, AR’s way of “standing and fighting?”
Name Withheld, Sacramento, Cal.
Sir — I couldn’t help chuckling over your description of how Californians are fleeing the brown, southern part of the state for the whiter north. Your readers may not know this, but the north is actually trying to detach itself from the rest of the state. During the last elections, 31 of California’s 52 counties voted on an initiative to break the state up into three pieces. Only three counties voted against the idea, and the rest approved the breakup by an average majority of bb percent. In the whitest, richest northern counties, the majorities in favor of separation were over 80 percent.
Needless to say, Los Angeles County, which is the part of the state that everyone is trying to get away from, did not put the initiative on the ballot. The county board of supervisors would not even let the proponents of the initiative make a presentation.
The pretenses and posturings of whites are laughable. Everyone knows that northern California is trying to escape the rising tide of color, but no one is willing .to admit it.
Christina Ingeborg, Eureka, Cal.
Sir — Thomas Jackson’s review of Forbidden Grounds in the March issue suggests that in a free market, whites set aside racial feelings and hire capable blacks. The book even appears to argue strongly that this may always have been so. I did not realize that the Louisiana railroad that put Homer Plessy into a blacks-only car did so against its will and only because a state law required that it do so.
I can understand the inclination to point out this sort of thing since whites are so commonly accused of “racism.” Anything that shows just how overblown such charges are is useful. However, is it not one of AR’s missions to increase racial consciousness among whites?
In his review, Mr. Jackson seems pleased to note the relative shallowness of race consciousness or “racism” in America’s past. If it was a choice between “racism” and making money, Americans made money. But is it not precisely the shallowness of race consciousness that accounts for affirmative action, massive non-white immigration, and the routine capitulation to preposterous demands from aggressive non-whites? Would it not, for example, be AR’s preference that white farmers have enough racial consciousness to hire resident whites rather than invite low-wage Mexicans into the country?
It seems inconsistent to me that Mr. Jackson should point with apparent satisfaction to evidence that racial consciousness among whites was weaker in the past than we had thought, while AR worries that whites may not have enough racial consciousness to defend themselves or their culture.
Jim Harkness, Columbus, Ga.
Sir — In the March “O Tempora” section you write that more and more cities are barricading streets in the hope that crime can be reduced if getaway routes are blocked. The city of Detroit is preparing to go one further. Mayor Coleman Young has proposed not just barricading streets but temporarily sealing off entire city blocks. With the residents immobilized inside barriers, police would search every man, house, and car for weapons. Mayor Young concedes that there could be legal objections to sweeps of this kind, but he is looking for ways around the Constitution.
This may be nothing more than a natural adaptation to artificial circumstances. Search and seizure laws were passed by whites for a society of whites. When a city goes mostly black as Detroit has done, it can be expected to evolve legal forms that are more appropriate to its population.
Michael Golding, Wyandotte, Mich.