|Vol 6, No. 3||March 1995|
Prospects for Racial and
Separation, as proposed in the previous issue,
would not work but there is a better solution.
by Samuel Francis
It is all very well to say, as Mr. McCulloch and Rabbi Schiller do in the February issue of AR, that racial separation is necessary for the survival of whites and the civilization whites have created. It is quite different to spell out exactly how separation could come about and be successful. Neither they nor most other advocates of separatism seem to offer much in the way of concrete proposals, perhaps in part because they know that racial separation involves problems that today are virtually insurmountable, and that until those problems are solved neither separation nor any other enduring solution to the racial crisis is possible.
I do not question the arguments for the desirability of separation that Rabbi Schiller and Mr. McCulloch have mounted. Even if the survival of whites as a people and a civilization were not threatened, I am willing to grant at least a pragmatic right of every self-conscious people to govern itself and to create and live within its own institutions — a right that liberal ideals of assimilation refuse to recognize despite their deference to the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, I do question whether separation as Rabbi Schiller and Mr. McCulloch have described it can come about or even whether it should come about.
Racial separation means the relocation of the different races (let us limit the discussion here to the two main races in America, whites and blacks) either to areas of the country that would become politically independent and self-governing or to other countries. It can therefore take place in only two different ways: (1) as Rabbi Schiller seems to propose, through the establishment of “racially based nations within the territory of the United States,” “dividing the nation into racial zones” — in a word, the political breakup of the United States; or (2) through relocation of one race by its removal (voluntary or not) to some other territory outside the present United States. In either case, there are three problems: (a) Where is each or either race actually going to go; (b) How is separation going to be implemented; and (c) How are the separated races going to be induced to stay where they are once they get there?
If racial separatism is to be a serious movement and not just one more escape hatch for whites who refuse to deal with political and social reality, these questions will have to be answered. Avoiding answering them with responses such as, “It’s too early to tell how it’s going to happen,” suggests that separatism is just another fantasy for whites who refuse to face the threats to their survival.
Rabbi Schiller’s proposal for breaking up the United States is one that whites ought not to embrace readily and at the present time will not embrace, since it involves surrendering large parts of their own country to nonwhites. Most white Americans retain too much sense of nationality and too much allegiance to their country and their own communities to accept the proposal of giving up large parts of the United States to others (racially different or not). For defenders of the white race and its heritage to adopt this strategy at this point would simply increase their problems because it would place them in antagonism to the patriotic and nationalist loyalties of most of their fellow whites and would allow their enemies to brand them as literally “un-American.”
By embracing a strategy that involved breaking up the United States, not only would whites be abandoning their own country but also they would be forced to give up appeals to its history, its traditions, and its interests as a nation. We could no longer cite the words of Jefferson and Lincoln (and other American statesmen) on racial matters; we could no longer invoke the U.S. Constitution as an authority; we could no longer argue that immigration threatens our national interests because there would be no nation to have interests; we could no longer mention the settlement and conquest of North America by whites, if only because we would have confessed that that settlement and conquest have been failures from which we are now running as fast as we could. By consenting to national disintegration and separatism, in short, we would have to start all over in the project of constructing a culture, a country, and a political order. If only for practical reasons, it is much easier to stay with those we already have than it is to invent new ones that do not exist save in the mind’s eye.
Moreover, whites should not embrace this proposal because at the present time and for a long time to come, there is no need to. There may well come a time when partition is the only recourse left to whites, but that time is far off. The fact is that descendants of Europeans are still a large majority of the American population and still retain far more wealth, political power, and even cultural dominance than nonwhites. If whites wanted to do so, they could dictate a solution to the racial problem tomorrow — by curtailing immigration and sealing the border, by imposing adequate fertility controls on nonwhites and encouraging a higher white birth rate, by refusing to be bullied into enduring “multiculturalism,” affirmative action, civil rights laws and policies; and by refusing to submit to cultural dissolution, inter-racial violence and insults, and the guilt that multiracialists inculcate.
Ending all of these threats to the white European character of the United States would involve no vast constitutional or political changes, but it would involve an uncompromising assertion of white will and identity. The fundamental problem with whites today will not be solved by giving away any more of what remains of their country and their heritage but by asserting their own will and identity in order to retain the primacy of their heritage in their own country. It is that lack of will and identity, that lack of racial and cultural consciousness, that must be remedied before we resort to any dissolution of the country (or indeed any other resolution of the racial crisis).
If national breakup is a plan that we neither can nor should accept, there remains the other kind of racial separatism in the form of the relocation of one race by its removal to some other territory outside the United States. Rabbi Schiller considers this contingency in his suggestion (and subsequent rejection) of white removal to Europe. He rejects this proposal, rightly, in reflecting that Europe would not particularly want another 100 million residents. While that is a powerful reason for rejecting the suggestion, there is another that is at least as compelling: However much they may deplore their accelerating dispossession, most whites might not want to jump ship from the nation they created, and live in countries where they have no roots.
Yet, if emigration to Europe is not practical for whites, emigration to Africa or other black majority regions is not practical for American blacks either. It is highly unlikely that very many black African countries would welcome large numbers of American black emigres and even more unlikely that very many American blacks would want to go. “Back to Africa” may have been feasible in the days of the American Colonization Society, when Africa was a diplomatic toy of European and American imperialism, but today, with independent and sovereign (however dilapidated and repressive) nation-states in Africa, mass migration there is not possible unless the African states were simply forced to accept it. Moreover, in the unlikely event that foreign nations were willing to receive large numbers of black American immigrants, none (except perhaps for other white majority nations) has the infrastructural capacity to assimilate them.
Yet even if physical relocation (within or without the United States) were to occur, and even if it were voluntary on all sides, there remains the problem, which is hardly ever considered, of how the separated races would be induced to remain separate. Let us assume that Rabbi Schiller’s proposal has been implemented, that black and white “racial zones” have been established, and that democratically chosen representatives of both races have accepted such a partition. The brute fact is that there will still remain immense pressures for the breakdown of this separation — for the same reasons that the United States today finds itself practically unable to control its own borders. (These reasons, as I shall argue presently, are deeply rooted in the white race.)
Whites will want cheap labor, and many nonwhites will want to supply it. If the black zone in any way resembles most of the black majority nation-states or American cities today (detailed accounts of which American Renaissance never fails to provide us), it will be unable to support itself, to control crime and social disorder, to supply elementary administrative services, or even to avoid the most brutal political repression. This kind of breakdown would undoubtedly generate both humanitarian and imperialistic designs in the white zone (as in Africa in the nineteenth century or Somalia and Rwanda today), but even if those designs were resisted, there would be other anti-separatist pressures in the white zones too.
Just as there would be immense pull pressure from the white zone for cheap labor, so there would be immense push pressure from within the black zone for emigration to the white zone. As the white demand for labor generated political and ideological forces favoring some immigration (you would see the replication of all the Jack Kemp-Julian Simon arguments that we now enjoy), the separation would gradually (perhaps quickly) dissolve. The fact is that the nonwhite world almost invariably beats a path to the white door, and the whites behind the door almost invariably open it. This is why there is immigration into this country and Europe today. This is why, at the height of apartheid in South Africa, there were some 100,000 illegal black immigrants every year. Because whites are almost always more economically successful than nonwhites, nonwhites almost always want to come in, and because the whites (aside from generosity and ideology) often seek cheap labor, they often let them come or even subsidize their coming. This, after all, is why there was an African slave trade.
The only possible solution to these problems, one that has always been possible but has never worked for very long, is simply for the white zones to maintain such a solidified and univocal racial consciousness that no nonwhites are allowed to enter. But, unless we are able to rewrite the history of white civilization for these new white zones, casually omitting any legacies from liberalism, socialism, capitalism, or Christianity, it is almost inconceivable how that kind of racial solidarity could even come into existence.
The problems of separation are compounded by the geographical features of the North American continent: its lack of natural barriers that would serve as boundaries for autonomous political units or as obstacles to population movements, military invasions, economic integration, political and cultural absorption, etc. Europe, after all, has mountain ranges like the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Carpathians, a system of rivers, and various peninsulas that permitted the creation of geographically distinct nation-states. North America has nothing like these geographical features that would facilitate politico-racial separation.
But perhaps I exaggerate the willingness with which whites would compromise the founding principle of their separate entity. Assuming that a separate zone or state were established, would its existence not presuppose that its residents were sufficiently committed to white racial identity that they would not be tempted by the prospect of cheap labor or by the ideological pathologies that afflict us today? It is of course possible that such a racially solidified state could evolve, but on historical grounds it is highly unlikely.
Not a purely racial appeal.
White racial separatism presumably would center on race, pure and simple, as the basis of separation, and in all the history of the white race and its various civilizations there is no precedent for that degree of racial consciousness. Even the Confederacy did not make such a purely racial appeal but combined it (usually incoherently) with regional, cultural, economic, and political aspirations. Probably many Southerners did not seriously want to secede, or expect to remain out of the union for long, and virtually none of them thought of their new state as a racially pure nation. One of the few white Southerners who did advocate something like a racial nationalism, Hinton Rowan Helper, was forced to flee the South and take refuge in the North.
Nor indeed did the National Socialists, perhaps the most extreme racialists in history, rely on race to the degree to which a white separatist movement would. The National Socialists came to power only in part because of their racialist ideology; they also appealed to economic fears, anti-communism, and German nationalism. Only later did the Nazi government move more and more explicitly toward a purely racial doctrine as the basis of the state, and few Germans were ever committed to that doctrine.
A Thin Reed
The reason for the lack of any precedent for a purely racial foundation of a white state, society, or culture ought to be clear. An appeal only to race selects the thinnest possible reed on which to base a movement. Race, as it is understood today in scientific terms, is largely an abstraction, and while it serves to explain much about society, history, and human behavior, it remains too much of an abstraction to generate much loyalty or motivate much action. The skeleton of race acquires concrete meaning and generates concrete loyalties only as it takes on cultural and political flesh, as race becomes tied up with community, kinship, nationality, territory, language, literature, art, religion, moral codes and manners, social class, and political aspirations. It is precisely such accretions that convert the biological abstraction of “race” into the concrete category of a “people.”
I agree with Rabbi Schiller (and for that matter with Father Ronald Tacelli in an earlier issue of AR) when he writes that “so much of our civilization’s crisis goes beyond race.” While race is necessary for an explanation of the civilization of European man, it is not sufficient. If race were sufficient, there would be no problem. If racial (biological, genetic) factors were sufficient to sustain a people, it would never experience a decline as long as its racial integrity endured.
Thus, whites did not descend to their present pitiable condition because their racial purity was somehow diluted but because they conceptually surrendered their will and identity — which they did well before they began to surrender their heritage politically and materially. If race were sufficient, that conceptual surrender would never have taken place. The conceptual surrender is leading to a situation where the biological survival of the race is threatened, and if that occurs, then — because race is necessary, because no other race or people seems able to replicate or adopt the concepts on which white civilization is based — the conceptual surrender will not be remedied, and white civilization, the whole conceptual corpus, will die with the race.
Moreover, with all due respect to any innate sense of racial solidarity, we all know that that sense among most whites today is largely non-existent. Even if it developed significantly in the near future (and it does seem to be developing), there are a great many other factors to be taken into consideration in setting up a separate political order for whites.
To name only the obvious, would John Kenneth Galbraith, Bill Clinton, Earl Warren (were he still alive), George Bush, Bill Buckley, etc., be admitted into the white separatist enclave? All of them are undoubtedly white, but if you did admit people like these, you would soon have all the problems that made you want to separate in the first place. There would be other debates: How about Eastern and Southern Europeans? The Irish? How about Jews? Could Yankees come into a Southern white separatist state? If there were several white racial states, would one or some ally with nonwhite states against the white states? My point in bringing up all these questions is that it is idle to talk about racial separatism without (a) a widely shared and well defined concept of race to which virtually all whites would rigorously adhere and (b) equally widely shared and well defined concepts of other criteria in addition to race that would prevent replication of the same errors and flaws that caused the problems in the first place.
The conclusion to which we are forced is that race by itself — and therefore a state or zone constituted on a purely racial basis — is not sufficient either to sustain the kind of society most AR readers would want or to prevent the perpetuation of the poisons that have helped weaken and now threaten the survival of both white civilization and the white race. Racial separatism is therefore not a solution to the crisis the white race encounters. There must also be other, non-racial, cultural and political remedies in addition to an awakened racial consciousness. I have to say also that Mr. McCulloch’s argument for separatism does not persuade me either. No more than Rabbi Schiller does he offer any concrete considerations about actually implementing a separation or how to make the separation work. But there is also a larger problem with his point of view. Mr. McCulloch argues, based on analogy with what ecologists and sociobiologists have discovered about animal populations, that unless races, subspecies, or populations are reproductively isolated, intermixture and therefore racial extinction is inevitable.
I do not doubt the truth of this claim, but the point is that it is true on an evolutionary time-scale. When we are talking about whether human societies should be monoracial or not, we are dealing with a human, historical time-scale, and the evolutionary scale is largely irrelevant to the limited endurance of historical human societies. North America has in fact been a multiracial region for some 300 years now, a significant period of time in human history (about 10 percent of the known history of the European peoples) but insignificant in biological time. Despite a good deal of racial mixture in 300 years, there is no prospect of the extinction of either the black or white races on this continent because of mixture. The threat of white extinction is due to nonwhite immigration and high fertility coupled with low white fertility.
Moreover, I think Mr. McCulloch comes close to contradicting himself when he writes, on the one hand, that reproductive isolation “requires geographic separation” and on the other hand that “tremendous advances in transportation … have reduced the main obstacles to separation.” If transportation is so easy these days (as it is), how can geographic separation persist? My own view is that the advances in transportation technology tend to render geographical isolation almost impossible, and certainly they have immensely facilitated immigration into Europe and North America.
Separatism v. Supremacy
But there is also a deeper problem with the strategy of white racial separatism. I have the impression that at least some of its advocates support it because they think the alternative of white supremacy is simply unacceptable, that white separatism as opposed to supremacy sounds nicer, less threatening, less dominative, and may be more palatable to liberal orthodoxy. Moreover, I suspect that many who regard themselves as white separatists are unwilling or unable to assert a moral foundation for white supremacy and that in this respect they share, however unconsciously, the liberal and egalitarian abhorrence of any assertion of power, dominance, or hierarchy. Some (perhaps most) white separatists renounce white racial supremacy because they genuinely have ethical problems with one race ruling another.
In this respect, white separatism is somewhat analogous to neo-conservatism, which also seeks to avoid invoking more radically anti-liberal ideas and values in order to make itself acceptable to the dominant liberalism. The flaw of both separatism and neo-conservatism in these respects is that they do nothing to challenge liberal premises but try to work within the framework established by liberalism. Hence, neo-conservatives are continually being dragged to the left by the implications of their own hidden premises. I expect something similar would happen to white separatists, especially as they tried to make alliances with nonwhite separatists. I already see tendencies toward this, specifically, an unwillingness to assert unequivocally that since the United States is a white creation, whites should not willingly accept its political destruction through separatism.
To put this problem of white separatism more bluntly, the history of the white race is one of conquest and domination of nonwhites. This has been true since the prehistoric Indo-European invasions of Europe and the Near East. The tragedy of this history of conquest is that there have almost never been enough whites to avoid being absorbed by the conquered peoples, either racially or culturally. Only when whites have wiped out those they conquered or when the conquered nonwhites were a small population did absorption by indigenous nonwhites fail to occur. Even the Romans were eventually overcome by Asiatic populations.
One reason for this pattern of the conquered giving laws to the conquerors is, as I noted with respect to the probable breakdown of a white racial state, that whites need (or at least want) the conquered peoples — as slaves, cheap labor, concubines, etc. Hence, even the most racially conscious white states (the early American Republic, the Confederacy, South Africa) used or planned to use the labor of subjugated races, and eventually (if the regimes lasted long enough), those races overcame their masters, at least indirectly.
My point is that this urge to expand and conquer seems to be biologically rooted in whites, manifesting itself also in Spengler’s Faustian spirit of the West: science, architecture, mathematics, etc. The passivity and timidity of today’s whites are clearly temporary though suicidal aberrations, due to historical causes; not to consider them so is to deny one of the central characteristics of a people. White separatism, as some of its exponents describe it, because it would involve the deliberate dissolution of a white-created political and cultural order, appears to be radically at odds with this innate dynamism of the white race. Therefore, the concept of a separate white state composed of the fragments of a disintegrated and surrendered United States would not work and ought to be deeply repugnant to what I take to be an instinctual white proclivity.
My bet is that no sooner should a white separatist state establish itself than it would begin to import nonwhites for labor and other forms of exploitation, and the whole history would begin to repeat itself. Moreover, my bet is that nonwhites would eagerly lend themselves to this, as they have in the past, since the standard of living and political conditions in the white areas would be so much more attractive than in the nonwhite areas.
Racial separatism, then, does not impress me as a realistic strategy for the survival, let alone the flourishing, of the white race and any civilization it would be likely to build, at least at the present time. To summarize, it fails to identify any physical area for the relocation of either race; it fails to anticipate the likely pressures for recombination of the races; it relies almost entirely on a supposititious white racial consciousness that has no historical precedent and would be inadequate by itself, even if it existed, to sustain a real society, culture, or government; and it involves the deliberate surrender of part of a territory, political order, and civilization that were created by whites and remain theirs. Until the advocates of separatism can provide answers for these objections, I cannot see that what they advocate is anything more than a desperate and fantastic effort to avoid grappling with the real roots of our racial and cultural decline.
Nevertheless, though I am not convinced by their arguments, white separatists are correct that we do face what is probably the most serious and threatening crisis in our racial history, a crisis that, if it is not resolved in our favor, will almost certainly result in the loss of white control of the United States within half a century, the disappearance of white civilization, and eventually in biological extinction. If white separatism is not the answer, what is?
The answer is, quite simply, the reconquest of the United States. This reconquest does not involve any restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation, and there is no reason why nonwhites who reside in the United States could not enjoy equality of legal rights. But a white reconquest of the United States would mean the supremacy of whites in a cultural sense, or in the sense of what is nowadays called “Eurocentrism.” There are essentially three things that whites must do in order to carry out this reconquest of the nation and culture they have almost lost:
(1) Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization. The formation of a white racial consciousness does not mean that whites should think of themselves only as whites, to the exclusion of ethnic, national, religious, regional, class, or other identities, nor that individuality should yield to the collective category of race. It means merely that we recognize racial realities, that we recognize that racial-biological endowments are necessary to certain kinds of human behavior (e.g., the political and civic behavior appropriate to stable self-government, the work habits and life-styles appropriate to a dynamic economy; the intellectual behavior that is necessary for science and scholarship, etc.) and that because these endowments are largely unique to whites, the behavior they make possible cannot be replicated by most nonwhites.
Nor does the formation of white racial consciousness mean that we should conceive of ourselves only as biological beings to the exclusion of religious or metaphysical identities. Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. It may be true that some traditional religious and metaphysical conceptions would not survive recognition of the scientific realities of race, just as some did not survive earlier scientific discoveries in astronomy, geology, and biology.
But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance nonwhite aggression and insults or the idolization of nonwhite heroes, icons, and culture; white children would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end.
(2) Based on this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the nonwhite birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among nonwhites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility.
(3) Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power. It also would require recovering an understanding of constitutional law that permits local and state governments to govern, and private institutions to function independently of government.
Under such an understanding, whites and nonwhites would enjoy equality of legal rights in the sense of those fundamental rights listed in the very first Civil Rights Act of 1866: “the inhabitants of every race … shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment … and no others.”
But, as the Northern enemies of slavery who drafted and enacted this language recognized, equality of legal rights, equality before the law, does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the “right” to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted.
All these are phony “rights” that have been fabricated through the corruption of our constitutional law and our understanding of it, and no citizen of any race is entitled to them. Under a proper understanding of constitutional law, states and localities could differ as to whether they recognized such “rights” or not, but the federal government would not, and the only legal rights that either the U.S. or state governments would be required to recognize and enforce equally would be those Blackstonean rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property mentioned above. Those citizens of either race who found these rights insufficient for the satisfaction of their ambitions would be free to depart. (For an exposition of the constitutional history and theory of this conception of rights, see Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Harvard University Press, 1977.)
In order to achieve these goals and the reconquest of the United States they involve, there must be an immense amount of cultural and intellectual reconquest beforehand, a long march through the dominant institutions and apparatus of power by which the incumbent elites exercise control over the state, the economy, and the culture of the United States. I have outlined the theoretical framework of such a long march elsewhere (see “Winning the Culture War: The American Cause,” Chronicles, December, 1993). Recent political developments encourage me to believe that such a movement remains possible and is indeed beginning, though the danger is that it will be captured and betrayed by agents of the incumbent elite.
However great that danger may be and however remote the chances of victory today may seem, it remains a strategy that is far more likely to succeed than the strategy of surrender that racial separatism involves. What white Americans must do is get on with ensuring that it does succeed before they lose their country, their heritage, and their posterity forever.
Samuel Francis is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.
|B O O K R E V I E W|
A valuable study of a problem
that is often ignored.
reviewed by Samuel Jared Taylor
Any country that makes heroes out of victims of “hate crimes” is bound to produce some false heroes. Crying Wolf, by Laird Wilcox, is probably the only full-length study of these false heroes — people who pretend to be victims of “racist” aggression in order to benefit from the sympathy that ensues. This thoughtful, informative account is based on the author’s many years of observing radical groups, both left and right.
Hate crime hoaxes are a byproduct of America’s peculiar hysteria over “racism.” Some people who stage “racist” outrages simply cannot resist the payoff: “instant fame, instant sympathy, and often in some form or another, instant compensation,” as Mr. Wilcox puts it. Others invent hate crimes to “prove” that whites are evil and to heighten racial consciousness among their own group. One first-rate racial scandal can do the work of years of propaganda.
It is impossible to say how many “hate crimes” are hoaxes, partly because this is a problem no one studies. Governments, police departments, and “anti-hate” groups carefully collect statistics on every victimization claim, so hoaxes and staged events are counted along with the real thing. Mr. Wilcox cannot find evidence of any procedure to subtract even the proven hoaxes from hate crime totals, and he suspects that many of the most common unsolved incidents — anonymous graffiti and threatening telephone calls — may well be self inflicted.
Mr. Wilcox has done informal research by asking college administrators how many of the racial incidents on their campuses are fake. He reports that replies range from “a few, not too many,” to “damned near all of them.” Whenever the victim of a real attack gets the hero treatment, imitators are likely to spring up, hoping to share the adulation.
People of all races make false claims but Mr. Wilcox reports that blacks are responsible for the largest number, followed by Jews. Interestingly, the motives of the two groups are often different.
Although some black activists, especially students, fake racial incidents to “raise consciousness about racism,” the book’s findings suggest that blacks are more likely to use a hoax to cover up something. By contrast, Jews almost invariably stage an event for its own sake.
Tawana Brawley, who is perhaps the best known of all phony victims, is probably a typical black hoaxer. In 1987 she claimed to have been abducted and raped by white policemen — but not particularly because she wanted to stir up black hatred for whites. She invented the story to explain an unexcused absence for which she feared her step father would beat her. It was her handlers — Al Sharpton and Alton Maddox — who turned the incident into anti-white propaganda.
Mr. Wilcox writes of many blacks who invent a racial incident to cover up mistakes. A black who accidentally shot himself in the hand claimed that racists had attacked him. A young man playing with gasoline burned himself and then said whites set him on fire. A woman who accidentally spilled acid on herself at a summer job claimed that racists had thrown it on her. A young man damaged the family car when he drove it into a ditch but told police whites were responsible. Another had a smash-up in a stolen car and then pretended violent racists had broken his jaw and knocked out his teeth.
Sometimes when blacks commit crimes against other blacks they try to throw the police off their trails by making the crime look like a hate crime. One killer carved “KKK” on the leg of his victim. Other blacks have burned down their own houses to get insurance money but scrawled racial insults on the premises to make it look as though whites set the fires.
Sabrina Collins, another famous hoaxer, also used fake racial incidents as a diversion. In 1990, when she was a student at Emory University, she repeatedly vandalized her dormitory room but claimed that whites had done it. In the outpouring of sympathy and attention that followed, it was all but forgotten that she had just been accused of cheating on an examination.
Mr. Wilcox’s evidence suggests that Jews rarely stage “anti-Semitic” incidents to cover up accidents or embarrassment. A more frequent motivation is the desire to heighten what they see as insufficient Jewish vigilance in a hostile Gentile world. Jews who spraypaint swastikas on synagogues are usually fanatic anti-anti-Semites who need “proof” that the world hates Jews. In Israel, West Bank settlers have been known to fire-bomb Jewish installations in the hope of provoking greater hostility towards Arabs.
At a more prosaic level, some Jews concoct hate crimes to cover up insurance fraud. In 1991, in Germantown, Maryland, Susan and Curtis Klein found their townhouse systematically vandalized, and daubed with swastikas. In the wake of wide publicity, five hundred people volunteered to help the couple clean up. Businesses donated refreshments for the volunteers, and a hauling company offered to move the debris for free. Neighbors organized a raffle to raise money for the Kleins, and newspapers printed an address to which donations could be sent. Mr. Klein’s story eventually unraveled and he was charged with insurance fraud.
In one of the sillier recent incidents, Jewish television personality Mort Downey claimed in 1989 that skinheads attacked him in an airport men’s room and carved a swastika on his face. This fraud, apparently designed to boost disappointing ratings, was quickly exposed.
Attacks on Jews, with the evocations of Nazism that often follow, can be such effective attention-getters that non-Jews have resorted to them. Mr. Wilcox reports the strange case of a Gentile who set fire to his own house and then claimed that it was the work of unknown anti-Semites who thought he was a Jew.
In another curious case, the non-Jewish owner of a Los Angeles security company desecrated a Jewish cemetery in East Los Angeles. Not detectably anti-Semitic himself, he apparently wanted to discredit the cemetery’s current security company so that his own firm could get the job.
Whites sometimes accuse blacks of imaginary crimes but it is usually for a straightforward reason: to cover up their own crimes. They implicate blacks because blacks are plausible perpetrators; they do not claim to be victims of racism. Mr. Wilcox has not found a single case of a white who implicated a black for any other reason, nor is he likely to. White victims of black crime do not become heroes, so there is no psychological payoff. Also, since white racial consciousness is largely unaroused by even the most blatant anti-white crimes, white activists have little reason to be agents provocateurs.
Although it happened too late to be included in Mr. Wilcox’s book, Susan Smith of South Carolina became famous just last year for a typical fraud: She appears to have murdered her two children and then claimed that a black man abducted them. In a similar incident in 1989, Charles Stuart of Boston shot his pregnant wife and then wounded himself, later claiming that a black had attacked them. His motive was to collect on his wife’s life insurance, and he killed himself when his story fell apart. At the outset, both hoaxers got sympathy, but not the hero treatment deserved for victims of “racism.”
Another difference between black (or Jewish) and white hoaxes is the media reaction. Coverage only intensified when Susan Smith and Charles Stuart were exposed as frauds, and they are almost as famous for “racism” as for murder. Plenty of whites agonized in print over the terrible damage these false accusations had done to race relations.
This does not happen when hoaxers seek to pin the blame on whites. They cease to be news as soon as their game is discovered — unless the original coverage was so lavish the denouement cannot be ignored. As Mr. Wilcox observes, newspaper editors downplay hoaxes to avoid “giving ammunition to racists.” Also, non-white and Jewish spokesmen almost never apologize to the community on behalf of the hoaxer.
Instead, anti-racists often try to milk a fake incident as if it were real. The lawyer William Kunstler said of the Tawana Brawley case:
“It makes no difference anymore whether the attack on Tawana really happened … a lot of black women are treated the way she says she was treated.”
When a series of well-reported “anti-Semitic” crimes was found to be the work of the “victim,” a representative of the Anti-Defamation League said:
“The tragedy of Nathan Kobrin [the perpetrator] in no way discounts or diminishes the reality of increased anti-Semitism and the increase throughout society in hate crimes.”
Otis Smith of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP could not help pointing out how useful Sabrina Collins’ hoax really was:
“It doesn’t matter to me whether she did it or not, because of all the pressure these black students are under at these predominantly white schools. If this will highlight it, if it will bring it to the attention of the public, I have no problem with that.”
Moreover, when hoaxers are caught they are usually found to be “troubled youths” who deserve leniency. A good example of this was the case of a young man who set a series of fires in synagogues and Jewish community centers in West Hartford, Connecticut in 1983. This “anti-Semite” so terrorized the community that the mayor offered a $50,000 reward for his arrest. When he was finally caught and found to be Jewish, the monster quickly became “a troubled and alienated 17-year-old,” and editorials called for understanding. The arsonist was given a suspended sentence and five years probation.
Bona fide racial vandals and arsonists get different treatment. They go to jail rather than to the psychologist. As Mr. Wilcox points out, hate crime laws have now piled so many additional penalties onto racist acts that a white who paints “nigger” on a black man’s store is likely to be more severely punished than a black who burgles it.
Mr. Wilcox argues that provocations by real racists and anti-Semites never do the perpetrators any good. The community always supports the victims and mounts a crusade for “tolerance” and “sensitivity.” Mr. Wilcox recounts the strange case of a genuine anti-Semite in Salem, Massachusetts who was caught painting over anti-Semitic graffiti on a synagogue. He said the graffiti would create a false impression of anti-Jewish hostility, which Jews would use to their advantage.
After years of observing both the radicals and the anti-radicals who combat them, Mr. Wilcox concludes that there are far fewer “racists” and other bad guys than either side would have us believe. The “hate group” haters, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Democratic Renewal have no reason to exist unless America is awash with dangerous bigots. These groups invariably magnify the threat, and their opponents happily play along.
Mr. Wilcox writes of something called the Farmers’ Liberation Army that, after national media attention in 1984, was found to have one member. As Mr. Wilcox explains, “A creative trickster with access to a photocopy machine can create havoc in a community with the help of a properly ‘sensitized’ local media on the watch for witches to burn.”
A study like Crying Wolf was long overdue. For obvious reasons, it is not published by a mainstream press, but is being distributed privately by the author. Unfortunately, it looks it. The book has a spiral binding and although it is perfectly readable, it is not typeset but printed in a typewriter font. Twenty dollars is a lot to pay for a book in this format, but the information it contains can be found nowhere else.
Crying Wolf can be ordered from Editorial Research Service, Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. The price of $19.95 includes postage.
IN THE NEWS
O Tempora, O Mores!
Separation for Israel
After a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 19 Israelis in January, the call went out for a new solution to the Middle-East problem: separation. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir himself has proposed that the time has come for Arabs and Israelis to go their separate ways and to live apart from each other. To that end he has proposed construction of a wall that would separate Israel from the West Bank. Other government officials would like to see armed guards and patrol dogs in addition to a wall. Israel already has walls along its borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and is finishing one on the border with Gaza. [Clyde Haberman, A Wall Around Israel, NYT, Jan. 25, 1995, p. A1.]
Dying for the Flag
On January 14th, a 19-year-old Kentucky man named Michael Westerman was shot dead by black juveniles because he was flying a Confederate battle flag from the back of his pickup truck. The blacks have been arrested and will probably be tried as adults. The press, though regretting the killing, has taken its usual position that the battle flag is an “insensitive” symbol, which should not be displayed in public.
Local whites are tired of exhortations to “sensitivity” that run only one way, and have decided that blacks should start being “sensitive” too. Mr. Westerman’s funeral motorcade was bedecked with battle flags. A coalition of Southern groups has also planned a memorial gathering in tribute to Mr. Westerman, to be held on Confederate Flag Day, March 4, 1995. Those seeking information can call Bill Rolen at (901) 767-6699.
Michael Westerman leaves a young wife and twins who are only two months old. Gifts to the family can be made payable to Hannah Westerman and sent c/o Brenda Arms, 3387 Sugar Creek Rd., Woodlawn TN 37191.
Tales From the Multicultural Underground
Mr. and Mrs. Long Liu Lee, immigrants from China, have been living for 17 years in a house in Queens, New York. For over a year, the Lees kept meter readers from the gas company out of the house, but in Dec. 1994 an official showed up with a locksmith and a city marshall and announced that, like it or not, he would read the meter. Ignoring Mrs. Lee’s attempts to keep him out of the basement, the meter reader pushed through a thick growth of cobwebs and discovered a fully-clothed skeleton sitting in a chair. The skull had dropped from the shoulders onto the floor and had rolled under the chair. The skeleton, dressed in a sweater, beige slacks, and black slippers, still had a wallet in its pocket, and has been identified as that of Mr. Lee.
Police report that Mrs. Lee speaks little English and appeared confused. She said that she had not seen her husband for two months, though neighbors claim to have seen him as recently as a month ago. So far, the police have no reason to suspect foul play. Forensic experts explain that in the Lee’s overheated basement, the flesh could rot completely off a corpse in a matter of weeks (New York Times, Dec. 3, 1994). [Ronald Sullivan, Meter reader discovers human skeleton in Queens Basement, NYT, 12/3/94, p. 26.]
Who Needs White People?
Keith Hamilton Cobb is a light-skinned black who plays in a television program called “All My Children.” He recently told Soap Opera Weekly what he would want if he had one wish: “I’d wish that everyone in the world were an indistinguishable shade of brown.”
Truth or Consequences
In January, the city of St. Louis was shocked to learn that a white high school student was raped and beaten to death by a black student. The assault took place during school hours in a girls’ restroom. The black had been transferred to the school only the day before, but had been suspended from his previous school for lurking in girls’ restrooms. Over the Christmas holidays he was questioned by police for an alleged burglary. He is known to be deranged, and parents want to know why he was not in a special school.
This crime finally prompted a local television personality, Bruce Bradley, to unburden himself on the air. On January 26 he announced that he was going to talk about something “no one discusses: that black young men commit most of the violent crime in this city and in this country.” He went on to say that “if we refuse to believe this is happening, if we refuse to discuss this, we might as well turn the country over to them.”
Mr. Bradley was promptly fired, but there has been a huge groundswell of public support for him. His case became even stronger when another crime made the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch just two days after he was fired. A white woman was stabbed to death in her apartment by a young black man whom she had met at work. [Michael Sorkin, Immigrant’s dreams died with daughter, St. Lou Post Dis, 1/29/95, p. 1., Gail Pennington, KETC fires show host who linked race, crime, St. L Post-Dis, 1/28/95, Virginia Baldwin Hick, Behavior-Disordered students pose dilemma, St. L Post Dis, 1/29/95, p. D1.]
Opportunity for a Brother
On Sept. 6, 1972, five black men armed with machine guns descended on the Fountain Valley Golf Course in St. Croix, American Virgin Islands. After robbing a number of golfers, they lined up eight of them and calmly shot them to death. All five killers were arrested and sentenced to life in prison. Late last year, just before his term as governor of the Virgin Islands expired, Alexander Farrelly pardoned one of the gunmen along with four other convicted murderers. He said he wanted “to give some of our brothers and sisters who have strayed a second opportunity.” Federal prosecutors are furious, but can think of no way to countermand the now ex-governor’s order. The freed man, Raphael Joseph, says he plans to enroll at the University of California at Santa Cruz. [Paul Rogers, Pardoned killer plans new life at UCSC, San Jose Merc News, 12/31/94, p. 1A.]
The United States has promised to give South Africa $600 million in aid over the next three years. This makes South Africa the largest sub-Saharan recipient of foreign aid by far, and makes the United States its single largest donor. Nelson Mandela’s reaction? “It’s peanuts,” he said; “We would have expected from the United States far more than that.” [John Daniszewski, Associated Press, Jan. 6, 1995.]
Sharing the Bed
Ralph Abernathy was a colleague of Martin Luther King during the 1960s. Five years ago, he was much criticized by “civil rights” leaders when he disclosed in his memoirs that not only was King a womanizer but that he had committed adultery the night before he was murdered. King’s partner has now identified herself. Georgia Powers, a black woman who was a Kentucky state legislator for many years, tells the story in her own memoirs, Sharing the Dream. [Rita Delfiner, Author: I shared king’s dream — and his bed, NY Post, 1/26/95, p. 9.]
Fiddling While America Burns
It has dawned on a few in the chattering classes that classical music is in headlong decline, and some have even begun to murmur about the causes. Cities, they note, are where the great orchestras are to be found, but increasingly that is where nonwhites are also to be found. Nonwhites think classical music is for sissies, that is to say, whites. Also, America’s love-suicide pact with multiculturalism ensures that no one dares suggest that immigrants should abandon reggae or lambada and listen to Bach. Finally, public schools used to have bands, orchestras, and music classes, which introduced many students to real music. Music classes are the first to go when school districts have to scrape for money to pay for busing and metal detectors.
The great philanthropies should be the natural allies of Western art, but they are its enemies. The Rockefeller Foundation, which used to give lavishly to ballets and orchestras, now funds only those art programs that “can advance international and intercultural understanding.” This is foundation-speak for grants to blacks and Hispanics. At the Ford Foundation, money for the arts is meant to “enlarge opportunities for minority artists and to strengthen minority arts institutions.”
Likewise, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, known for its “genius” awards, has turned its back on Western Civilization. Of the four performing arts “geniuses” it found in 1994, only one was white. He is a “theater arts educator,” whose qualification for genius is having founded “a theater company for inner-city children of Manhattan’s Clinton Neighborhood [formerly known as Hell’s Kitchen] and the Times Square welfare hotels.” No doubt, it will be mounting epic productions.
Even corporate sponsors, slavish followers of art-set fashions, have changed their thinking. One contributions manager says, “We no longer support the arts. We use the arts in innovative ways to support the social causes chosen by our company.” [Robert Brustein, The Cost of Culture by Coercion, NYT large Type Weekly, 12/5/94, p. 20.]
The Demography of AIDS
In San Francisco, the number of people getting AIDS has been decreasing while the number of people dying from it is at record levels. This is because it usually takes AIDS about ten years to kill its victims, and the highest infection rates were between 1981 and 1984. At that time about 8,000 San Franciscans a year were getting AIDS; today about 8,000 a year are dying from it. Because white homosexuals have become much more careful about AIDS, there were only 2,264 new cases in 1993. However that number is likely to start climbing again, as the disease spreads among nonwhites and drug users.
San Francisco is the only city in the country in which AIDS has outstripped heart disease, and is the leading killer of men. Some populations have been particularly hard-hit. The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus has had 115 casualties since 1989; only seven original members are left. [Dara Akiko Tom, AIDS tops heart disease as No. 1 killer of men, Detroit News, 11/20/94, p. 5A.]
The Geography of AIDS
Things are worse in Haiti. AIDS is so common that police put on rubber gloves before they frisk suspects. Occupying U.S. soldiers have been ordered not to have sex with Haitians, and in some cases have been ordered to spend their free time in camp rather than mix with the locals at all.
Sixty percent of city hospital beds are occupied by AIDS patients, and the U.S. government estimates that by 2010 the disease will have reduced life expectancy by 15 years to 44. In Haiti, as in many African countries, AIDS appears to be spread heterosexually, and about 70 percent of the prostitutes are infected. It is well known in Haiti that condoms can prevent AIDS infection, but the market price of a condom is often more than a prostitute earns from a customer. The United Nations has therefore been selling condoms at a subsidized rate of three for the equivalent of seven cents. [Rogers Worthington, Proliferation of AIDS casts a cloud over Haiti’s Future, Chi Trib, 11/20/94, p. 6.]
Grants for the Deserving
Last winter, the Borough of Manhattan Community College held competitions for scholarships. The application form for the Ho Chi Minh Scholarship explains the purposes of the grant:
“1) Honoring and promoting the legacy of the Vietnamese freedom fighter, Ho Chi Minh; 2) Promoting awareness about the global history and struggle of people of non-white Color …” The application notes that Ho Chi Minh “supported efforts to overthrow South Vietnam’s government and to unite the nation under a communist regime.”
Applicants were to have a 2.0 grade point average and submit a two-page essay. One suggested topic was “World Leader Ho Chi Minh: His Life and Struggle.” Twenty-five students were to be awarded $500 each.
Students could also apply for the Assata Shakur Scholarship, named for a woman who called herself Joanne Chesimard before she joined the Black Panthers. The biography of Miss Shakur included in the application concludes on this inspiring note:
“Long a target of J. Edgar Hoover’s campaign to defame, infiltrate and minimilize Black nationalist organizations and their leaders, Assata was incarcerated for four years prior to her conviction on flimsy charges in 1977, as an accomplice to murder. Two years after her fraudulent conviction, Assata escaped from prison. She was given political asylum in Cuba, where she now resides.”
The purpose of this scholarship was to encourage students to take ethnic studies courses, and applicants must have taken at least one. It was also meant to promote “awareness around the struggles of People of non-white Color.” Applicants were to write a 300- to 500-word essay entitled “A Heroine/Hero Personality of Color who Fought for the Liberation of People of Color,” or “How my Education can Contribute to the Well Being of My Community.” Twenty-five winners were to receive $500 each. [From copies of actual applications.]
Shades of Shay’s Rebellion
Hatred of the federal government is increasing, especially in the West. Something called the “county movement” is a new attempt by local people to fight what they see as intolerable federal intrusion. Already, over 100 counties (and 16 out of Nevada’s 17) have passed ordinances making it illegal for the federal government to regulate use of public land.
In Catron County, New Mexico, where the movement began, the sheriff has threatened to arrest the head of the local Forest Service office, and the U.S. attorney has threatened to arrest the sheriff. Catron County has passed a resolution predicting “much physical violence” if the federal government tries to restrict grazing rights on public land, and it now requires heads of households to own weapons to “protect citizens rights.”
When Forest Service officials tried to inspect a Catron County mine they thought was spilling toxic waste into a watercourse, the owner refused to let them on the property. He is reported to have said that if the feds ever showed up again, they would be met by “100 men with rifles.” So far, the county movement appears not to have spilled any blood, but federal agents are fearful. [Charles McCoy, Catron County, N.M. leads a nasty revolt over eco-protection, WSJ, 1/3/95, p. 1.]
The militia movement is another sign of unprecedentedly deep resentment against federal authority. Militias have sprung up in the wake of BATF actions against white separatist, Randy Weaver, and cult leader, David Koresh. Members state frankly that their main potential enemy is tyrannical government. There are militias in 30 states, with an estimated membership of 10,000. Press reports have noted ominously that almost all members are white. [Christopher John Farley, Patriot Games, Newsweek (?), Dec. 1994.]
Jewelry to Die For
For Christmas, Wanda Matthews of New York City gave her 17-year-old son $600-worth of decorative gold and diamond bridge work. Glamorous teeth are a fashion statement in certain circles. Early in the new year, Adonis Matthews was shot to death on a subway platform.
“I know they must have wanted his gold teeth with the little band of diamonds in them,” said Miss Matthews. She says she repeatedly told him “Keep your mouth closed at night and hide your gold chains in your clothes.” Adonis Matthews died in surgery with his mother at his side. [AP, Teen with jeweled teeth killed, early 1995, no paper or date.]
More Imaginary Racism
It is frequently charged that American governments deliberately locate dangerous dumps and disposal sites in nonwhite neighborhoods. Study after study has shown that this is not true, but the accusation is too tempting to resist.
The latest investigation was in Chicago, where it was found that the racial mix of the people living around 122 polluted sites was exactly the same as that of the city as a whole. [Race not a factor in siting of dumps, researchers say, Chi Trib, 10/18/94, p. 8 Sec. 2.]
Federal Fine Tuning
Moffett is a tumbledown village of 340 people in Oklahoma. Under the latest federal crime bill, it has been offered $106,000 to make its dirt streets safer. The only catch is that it would have to come up with a nine percent match, or about $11,600. That is $1,000 more than the entire town’s annual budget. Moffett’s former part-time policeman applied for the grant after a squabble with the mayor over how well he was doing his $120-a-week job. Mayor David Carolina, a 78-year-old who collects aluminum cans for extra money, says the biggest crime problem in that outsiders drive too fast through the seven-block-long town. [AP, Small town gets crime grant — whether it needs it or not, Post and Courier, 10/22/94, p. 9A.]
Rage On, Carl Rowan
Last year, Californians voted to strip illegal immigrants of public benefits. In 1996, they are likely to have a chance to vote on another initiative, which would forbid the state and its agencies from practicing racial and sexual discrimination in employment and college admission. Plenty of laws already forbid this, but they are not applied to white men. The initiative would eliminate preferences, once and for all.
Carl Rowan, a black columnist, does not like the initiative. “There seems to be no way to stop the internal destruction of America by people driven to madness over such issues as illegal immigration and affirmative action …,” he writes; “California is determined to drag us all into a new civil war fired up by insane emotions over ‘reverse discrimination,’ [and] the rights of ‘angry white men’… [The initiative’s supporters] “exploit shrewdly every bit of white male paranoia, every notion of white superiority, every greed ever embraced by the privileged classes …” [Carl T. Rowan, Embers of new civil war are smoldering, Chicago Sun Times, 12/28/94.] It would be hard to find a clearer expression of how deeply the supporters of affirmative action manage to delude themselves.
Johnny Lee Barnes is a black man, now on trial for murder in Alameda County, California, and faces the death penalty. Recently, Mr. Barnes got lucky. Ted Landswick, a white assistant prosecutor who is handling the case, complained about two blacks who had assaulted the 84-year-old mother of one of his colleagues. Mr. Barnes’ public defender, also white, overheard Mr. Landswick describe the assailants as “two niggers.” The defender objected to this language, and Mr. Landswick replied, “I don’t care. That’s what they are: niggers.”
Mr. Landswick is, of course, off the case. He got a “severe reprimand,” and was suspended for two weeks. The usual people are insisting that he be fired. But Mr. Barnes’ lawyers had another idea: They argued that their client should no longer face the death penalty. They filed a motion, arguing that “Given Landswick’s seniority, his substantial input into charging decisions and his broad discretion, it seems likely that his hate-filled attitude to African-Americans tainted the decision to seek death in this case.”
Mr. Barnes is accused of a double murder. In 1989, he wanted money to buy crack cocaine, but his parents would not give him any. He then allegedly shot his 84-year-old father three times, stabbed him, and then beat him over the head with two castiron skillets, one of which broke. He then strangled his 75-year-old stepmother, stole $100, and went on a crack binge. [Raoul Mowatt, Racial slur roils court officials, San Jose Merc News, 12/8/94, p. 1B.]
Facts to the Rescue
Blacks and liberals have complained for years that bankers discriminate against blacks. Just why bankers, who can make money only if they make loans, would wish to deprive themselves of income from blacks has never been explained. Furthermore, if blacks are being held to higher credit standards than whites, their default and repossession rates should be unusually low.
The Federal Reserve Board has just released a study of default rates. In an examination of 220,000 mortgage loans made by the Federal Housing Administration from 1987 to 1989, blacks were twice as likely to default as whites. Hispanics defaulted at a rate somewhere in between. [Albert Karr, Fed Study Challenges Notion of Bias against minorities in mortgage lending, WSJ, 1/26/95.] Far from being held to higher credit standards, blacks are held to lower standards.
Convert to Conservatism
Star Parker is a black woman who used to be on welfare. In the 1980s she had a religious experience and went “cold turkey” on her government check. She is now an ardent campaigner for the abolition of welfare.
“I quit my job to go on welfare” says Miss Parker; “I did it because I didn’t want to go to work. It was easier.” She now says that welfare encourages single motherhood and irresponsibility of the worst kind.
Miss Parker has made enemies because of her views. On at least one occasion, she has required an armed escort for public appearances. [Julia Malone, Black conservatives initiate movement to abolish welfare, Albany Times Union, 12/9/94.]
LETTERS FROM READERS
Sir — I suggest that the majority of white Gentiles who openly support racial separation in this country blame Jewish leadership for much of the country’s present racial situation and moral decay. In assigning blame, they do not distinguish between Jewish liberals and conservatives, religious and atheist Jews, Jews as a religion or a race, etc. Consequently, I suspect that many of your readers would have preferred that Rabbi Mayer Schiller’s article deal with the Jewish involvement in bringing about our current situation and why white Gentiles and the Jewish right should unite in a saparatist movement.
I have wondered for some time how AR was going to handle “the Jewish question.” The number of Jews who will support racial separation in this country is infinitesimal and the Jews who do not will be in the forefront of the opposition. The inclusion of Jews in a separatist movement is likely to result in internal conflict between anti-Semites and philo-Semites. I suspect there may even be those who think that AR is deliberately trying to divide white separatists in order to ensure that their movement will fail.
Robert Grooms, Michigan City, Ind.
Sir — AR has finally departed from racialism and joined the ranks of other minority pets, such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Keep it up and maybe you can get Sam Newhouse to distribute your paper. Wake up and smell the matzos. You’re being used.
H.K.I., St. Louis, Mo.
Sir — Rabbi Schiller’s article in your February 1995 issue was marvelous. He covered just about everything. Jewish notables have added spice to many Western endeavors over the centuries, and I’m glad you see the desirability of including them in the coalition you are trying to build.
Erik Peterson, Gresham, Or.
Sir — In light of Rabbi Schiller’s article I would point out that in every issue of The Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s newspaper, there is a full-page summary of what is called The Muslim Program. Parts of it are very interesting:
“We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own — either on this continent or elsewhere.”
So far, so good, but the Muslims want something more:
“We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years — until we are able to produce and supply our own needs.”
The Muslim Program also calls for racially segregated schools and legal prohibition of miscegenation.
Paul Tomlinson, Carson City, Nev.
Sir — I read Fr. Tacelli’s excellent article as well as the large number of letters it appears to have prompted. However, no one — not even Mr. Taylor — replied to his concern that in a materialist world there is nothing to keep whites from viewing nonwhites as biological competitors who may be exterminated if necessary.
My suspicion is that Fr. Tacelli thinks quite naturally and instinctively in racial terms, but believes that only a transcendent morality would be a sufficient check upon the excesses that might be committed in the name of the racial consciousness AR proposes. He may or may not be right, but the risk of excess must be run if we are not simply to be displaced by others who do not have the same scruples.
Chris Kingsly, Raonoke, Va.
Sir — I take issue with the February issue’s “O Tempora” item about the Japanese relocation camps during the Second World War. The people who were interned were not Japanese, but American citizens of Japanese ancestry. All were either legal immigrants or the American-born children of these people. Their Constitutional rights were thrown out the window. With all the personal property that the U.S. government “legally” seized from them, $20,000 each in compensation wasn’t nearly enough. No American of German or Italian descent was locked up for being in that category, nor were any Americans of Korean descent locked up during the Korean War. As for keeping one camp open as a memorial: Good idea. It will help prevent such a thing from ever happening again.
W. Dranem, Huber Heights, Oh.
Sir — I read with great interest your review of Race, Evolution and Behavior in the December issue. Could you be more specific, however, about what you mean by “Asians?” In this country, “Asian” usually means anyone who comes from the Asian continent, and covers a wide range of racial types, from Arabs to Japanese. I have guessed from the context that you mean Chinese/Japanese/Koreans, but it would make for more clarity, certainly on this side of the Atlantic, if you were more specific.
S. E. Parker, London, England
You have guessed correctly. We sometimes write about North Asians in order to avoid ambiguity. — Ed.