Blind Diversity Equals Death

Blind Diversity Equals Death

By Michelle Malkin

The violence at Fort Hood, President Obama told mourners on Tuesday, was “incomprehensible.” The “twisted logic that led to the tragedy,” he reiterated, may be “too hard to comprehend.” If the Bush administration suffered a systemic failure of imagination on homeland security, the Obama administration is suffering a willful failure of comprehension.

What exactly is so hard to comprehend? Fort Hood jihadist Maj. Nidal Hasan made his means, motives and inspiration all too clear for those willing to see and hear. In his 2007 slide presentation to fellow Army doctors on “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the Military,” Hasan spelled it out: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”[Slideshow Gallery]

Hasan exposed the deadly tension between his adherence to Islam and his service in the U.S. military. Slide 11 stated: “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” Slide 12 cited Koranic sanctions for killing fellow believers. And Hasan made clear he wasn’t alone among Muslim soldiers who “should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly.”

Slide 13 ominously listed “adverse events” involving Muslim soldiers—including the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case is on appeal); the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun; and the espionage case of Muslim chaplain James Yee (the charges were dropped, but the case raised lingering security concerns about Muslim chaplains at Gitmo and elsewhere trained by terror-linked Saudi-subsidized institutes).

Hasan missed a few “adverse events” that have faded from public memory in our reflexive age of “Islam is peace” emotionalism-over-comprehension:

  • John Muhammad, the Beltway jihadist put to death Tuesday night, was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. As I’ve reported previously, Muhammad was suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being court-martialed while serving in the Louisiana National Guard for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property and being absent without leave.

    Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. He later brainwashed young Lee Malvo in black nationalism and jihad—and the two carried out the three-week killing spree that left 10 dead in 2002 in the name of Allah.

  • Muslim American soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified information with al-Qaida financiers, including movements of U.S. ships just six months after al-Qaida operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.
  • Jeffrey Leon Battle was a former Army reservist, convicted of conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” He had planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
  • Egyptian Ali A. Mohamed joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA. Honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed then hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. He later pleaded guilty to conspiring with bin Laden and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

Political correctness is a gangrenous infection. My generation has submitted to a toxic diet of multiculturalism, identity politics, anti-Americanism and entitlement. The problem festered under the Bush administration. Despite 9/11, government at all levels refused to screen out jihadi-apologizing influences in our military, at the FBI, in prisons and even fire departments. Despite the bloody consequences of open borders, the Bush Pentagon allowed illegal aliens to enter the military. The grievance lobby has plied the Muslim jihadist-as-victim narrative for nearly a decade now.

They prevail. In June, Muslim domestic terror suspect Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad went on another shooting spree at an Arkansas recruiting station that left one serviceman dead. The Obama Justice Department response: to redouble its efforts to use “criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans.”

Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

How did Fort Hood happen, obtuse Washington asks. Simple: Blind diversity equals death.


Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin’s website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and the just-released Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.


Congress begins probe of ‘worst post-9/11 terror attack’ (Debkafile) Lieberman: “We don’t know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan has become an Islamist extremist and therefore this was a terrorist act … “

Chicago Mayor Daley blames
massacre on love of guns!

( “Unfortunately, America loves guns. We love guns to a point where that, uh, we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group” …

CAIR tries to blunt FBI mosque search(ABC News) “We’re concerned any time a house of worship is searched in this fashion,” said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations …


Hasan warned of ‘adverse events’
of pressing Muslims to fight Muslims

(Washington Post) Hasan told a conference that to avoid “adverse events,” the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against Muslims …

Mass murderer jihadist visited
strip club before massacre
(Fox News) “The last time he was here, I remember checking his military ID at the door, and he paid his $15 cover and stayed for six or seven hours …”

Homeland chief warns against
anti-Muslim backlash
(Associated Press) The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas …

Fatal reluctance to see evil(Wesley Pruden, Washington Times) George Washington, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, John J. Pershing, George S. Patton and even Dwight D. Eisenhower never acted as if diversity is more important than the ability to kill bad guys …

Congress begins probe
of ‘worst post-9/11 terror attack’
(Debkafile) Lieberman: “We don’t know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan has become an Islamist extremist and therefore this was a terrorist act … “


The Path to National Suicide





T h e P a t h t o N a t i o n a l S u i c i d e
An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism

by Lawrence Auster

The Meaning of Multiculturalism


If someone had told me as a boy: One day you will see your nation vanish from the world, I would have considered it nonsense, something I couldn’t possibly imagine. A man knows he is mortal, but he takes it for granted that his nation possesses a kind of eternal life.
Milan Kundera,
The Book of Laughter
and Forgetting
In the quest to become a true world nation . . . the United States must break away from its European roots and begin treating Asian history and culture equally with those of the West.
Kotkin and Kishimoto,
The Third Century
They will take the city and the characters of men, as they might a tablet, and first wipe it clean—no easy task.
The Republic, Book VI

We have seen that the legislators who passed the 1965 reform had no intention of changing the “ethnic, political or economic make-up of the U.S.” When Hyram Fong asserted that under the new law “the cultural pattern of the U.S. will never be changed,” no one challenged him and said that the U.S. must become a multicultural country. Clearly, there was an expectation that the new immigrants would only augment the cosmopolitan mix of minorities in our predominantly white society; clearly, there was a consensus that the United States had the intention, as well as the right, to preserve its “cultural pattern.” Yet today both liberals and conservatives speak the language of cultural diversity, and they seem to look forward with complacency, even eagerness, to the prospect of the U.S. becoming a white-minority country during the coming century. Today, it is unimaginable that any politician, unless he were planning instant retirement, would speak about “preserving the ethnic make-up of the U.S.” What happened to bring about such a reversal in our national consensus since 1965?

In one sense, this revolution can be seen as but the latest stage in the triumph of the philosophical and cultural relativism that has characterized modern thought. “In twentieth-century social science,” Allan Bloom writes in The Closing of the American Mind, “the common good disappears and along with it the negative view of minorities. The very idea of majority—now understood to be selfish interest—is done away with in order to protect the minorities . . . and the protection of them emerges as the central function of government.”(24) Certainly, this evolving attitude toward minorities has served as a rationale for the large-scale immigration of previously excluded groups; but I would add that the evolving attitude toward minorities is also, in its present, radical form, a product of the post-1965 immigration.

The 1965 Act had revolutionary implications that no one, except for a handful of conservative critics like Sam Ervin, understood at the time. The legislators did not see that by extending the principles of equal rights and family reunification—with its unanticipated effect of chain migration—to every country on earth, and by failing to assert any balancing principle of the common good or national self-interest (and reasonable discrimination based on that national interest, as exercised by every other country on earth), they were opening the door to mass Third-World immigration. As a result, when the nation unexpectedly found itself by the mid to late 1970s experiencing unprecedented diversity, it had no remaining legitimate principle—having abandoned traditional notions of self-interest—except for universal equality and humanitarianism; it therefore had no choice but to turn around and endorse diversity as an end in itself. Faced with the seemingly irreversible fact of multiracial change, we gave ourselves a new national myth of diversity to accommodate ourselves to that fact.

Almost overnight, without debate or public awareness of what was happening, mainstream opinion adopted a radical new credo. “We must respect all cultures equally,” “All cultures are equally enriching,” “America’s strength lies in its diversity”—these slogans have become articles of our national faith, without anyone’s thinking too clearly about what they really mean. There is an enormous difference between accommodating ourselves to diversity by saying that the diversity exists, that it presents certain challenges to a liberal order, but that we must deal with it as best we can, and saying that diversity is the highest good, to be pursued as an end in itself. The former position leads to a realistic response to the actual circumstances in which we find ourselves; the latter to a search for utopia. Unfortunately, it is the utopian way of thinking that has become dominant. Thus we keep hearing the strange idea that our nation can become “strong” in the pursuit of unlimited diversity. Two thousand years ago, the historian Polybius voiced the traditional wisdom, that “every state relies for its preservation on two fundamental qualities, namely bravery in the face of the enemy, and harmony among its citizens.”(25) By contrast, today’s progressives seem to believe that the state relies for its preservation on unconditional accommodation to foreigners and maximum diversity among its citizens. They seem to think that since a moderate degree of ethnic diversity (mainly among European peoples along with a black minority) has been by and large a good thing for America, therefore, an unlimited amount of diversity (among all the peoples of the earth) must be even better—which is like saying that since a few glasses of water a day will keep you healthy, a hundred gallons a day will make you a superman.

The myth of unlimited diversity tells us that the mass influx from Latin America and Asia represents, not a departure from our history, but its fulfillment. “Nor is this [demographic and cultural] transformation contrary to American tradition,” write Joel Kotkin and Yoriko Kishimoto. “Throughout our history, America’s racial and cultural identity has been in constant flux, reacting to each new wave of immigration. Today’s immigration, primarily from Asia and Latin America, continues that pattern. . . . From its earliest days, the U.S. has always been something of a ‘world nation.’”(26) In the same vein, James Fallows of the Atlantic assures us: “The glory of American society is its melding of many peoples.”(27) What is neatly obscured by these soothing clichés is the fact that until only two decades ago that “world nation,” those “many peoples,” were almost exclusively European. A revolutionary mass immigration from every race and nation on earth is thus portrayed (and sanctified) as a mere continuance of an established tradition.

The question needs to be asked: Is America’s entire three hundred and fifty year history up to 1965, during which it drew its people and its civilizational roots predominantly from England and Europe, totally irrelevant to a definition of our national character? The multiculturalists say yes. In the words of former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso: “America is a political union—not a cultural, linguistic, religious or racial union.” Now, while there is some truth in this statement, can it not be carried to extremes? Mr. Reynoso seems to be saying that the United States is nothing but a blank slate—a sort of political abstraction lacking any cultural identity that has a right to be preserved. Since, for example, we are not a “linguistic” union, the English language has no special status; we could turn into a Japanese or Spanish-speaking society tomorrow and, according to Mr. Reynoso, this would in no way change America’s essential character, since, in his view, America has no essential character.

The New Cultural Revolution

Among its many sinister potentialities, the myth of a totally open, undefined America provides a sanction for the widening attack on Western culture in our schools. I have written elsewhere about the most recent manifestation of this movement, a “multicultural” curriculum plan proposed by the New York State Commissioner of Education. The report, entitled “A Curriculum of Inclusion,” opens with the declaration that “African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Ricans/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American world for centuries.”(28) This oppression consists in the fact that a “systematic bias toward European culture and its derivatives” has “a terribly damaging effect on the psyche of young people of African, Asian, Latino, and Native American descent.” The proposed solution is a totally restructured curriculum for the state’s public schools, in which the “history, achievements, aspirations and concerns of people of all cultures [shall be] made an integral part of all curricula.” What the report’s authors have in mind is not merely greater treatment of the historical experiences of America’s ethnic minorities, since such inclusion, no matter how extensive, “cannot counteract deeply rooted racist traditions in American culture . . . [nor] reverse long established and entrenched policies and practices of that dominant culture.” Rather, children will be taught that all cultures are to be “equally valued”; that the contributions of the American Indian, African, Hispanic (and even Asian!) cultures are as important to our civilization’s heritage as the Anglo-Saxon and European contribution. What this “equality” really means is that whites and the West must be consistently vilified. Thus the report recommends that the Age of Exploration shall be portrayed with a view to “negative values and policies that produced aggressive individuals and nations that were ready to ‘discover, invade and conquer’ foreign land because of greed, racism and national egoism.” Meanwhile, the history of African Americans must be presented “so that the heroic struggle for equity waged by African Americans can be an inspiration to all.” Similarly, blacks during the American Revolution were fighting “strictly for freedom,” while whites were only fighting to “protect their economic interests.” My article continues:

But not to worry. To this proposal to divide up the entire student population, every school subject and every idea into official “cultural” designations—with each culture striving for its own piece of the curricular pie—the report has added a reassuring caveat: “Aspects of cooperation and amicability among all cultures should be stressed over conflict and violence.”

But one searches in vain for any sign of amicability in a document that is based on a race-oppression model of intellectual life. “The curriculum in the education systems reflects . . . deep-seated pathologies of racial hatred. . . . Because of the depth of the problem and the tenacity of its hold on the mind, only the most stringent measures can have significant impact.” Doesn’t sound very amicable to me. But how could it be otherwise? Since “European American” culture is by definition exclusive and oppressive, it obviously cannot co-exist with the oppressed cultures that seek equality with it until it has been stripped of its hypocritical pretensions to universality and legitimacy—i.e., until, as a national culture, it has ceased to exist.

At this point, two questions may have arisen in the reader’s mind: how can the ravings of an extremist clique in New York State represent a threat to civilization, and what, if anything, does this cultural radicalism have to do with immigration? Both questions need to be addressed.

First of all, it is understandable that people should not want to take declarations like “A Curriculum of Inclusion” seriously. As philosophy professor Thomas Short of Kenyon College has written, this is a typical response to the cultural diversity movement.

It is a remarkable symptom of the present extraordinary situation in higher education that one segment of the academic community regards such views, so far as they are acquainted with them at all, as sheerest nonsense, and refuses to believe that anyone, least of all any of their colleagues, could take that nonsense seriously, or that it will be taken seriously long enough or by enough people to pose a real threat, while another rapidly growing segment is busily elaborating these ideas and teaching them to their students.(29)

Far from being a mere fringe movement, the diversity agenda, as education historian Diane Ravitch has written, is spreading like wildfire through the education system. State educational departments, university faculties, elected officials, minority groups and mainstream media have all jumped on the diversity bandwagon, while its opponents within the academy are a besieged and intimidated minority.

On the arts front, the multicultural agenda has been adopted by the chief sources of arts funding in the U.S.: the National Endowment for the Arts and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. According to Samuel Lipman writing in the May 1990 Commentary, these establishment organizations intend to “downgrade and even eliminate support for art based on traditional European sources, and instead will encourage activity by certain approved minorities in the United States and abroad”—the approval being based, of course, on the minorities’ oppressed history and status.

A clue to the deeper implications of the cultural diversity movement can be found in a recent essay by communications professor Neil Postman of New York University. Postman speaks of the “stories, narratives, tales, theories” that serve as moral and intellectual frameworks for individuals and societies.

Human beings require stories to give meaning to the facts of their existence. I am not talking here about those specialized stories that we call novels, plays, and epic poems. I am talking about the more profound stories that people, nations, religions, and disciplines unfold in order to make sense out of the world. For example, ever since we can remember, all of us have been telling ourselves stories about ourselves, composing life-giving autobiographies of which we are the heroes and heroines. . . .

Nations, as well as people, require stories and may die for lack of a believable one. In America we have told ourselves for two hundred years that our experiment in government is part of God’s own plan. That has been a marvelous story, and it accounts for much of the success America has had.(30)

Over a century ago, the French historian Ernest Renan touched on the same idea. Nationhood, Renan tells us, is not a matter of ethnicity (what he calls “race”), nor of religion, nor of the physical and psychological effects of geography and soil.

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things . . . constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the common possession of a rich legacy of memories; the other is the present consensus, the desire to live together, the will to continue to value the heritage that has been received undivided. . . . To have shared glories in the past, a common will in the present, to have done great things together, to want to do them still, these are the essential conditions of a people.(31)

In other words, it is the story shared, from generation to generation, and the will to continue sharing it, that makes a people. It is not the ethnic tie in itself that matters, but the will to go on sharing the national idea—an insight that makes Renan’s thought particularly relevant to Americans. The Columbia History of the World speaks eloquently of the importance of such a common heritage:

“History” means the conscious and intentional remembrance of things past, in a living tradition transmitted from one generation to another. For this there must be some continuous organization, be it the family of the chieftain in the beginning, or the school today, which has reason to care for the Past of the group and has the capacity for transmitting the historical tradition to future generations. History exists only in a persisting society which needs history to persist.(32)

Here we have a key to the fateful significance of the diversity movement. The American people have had a “story” which, despite gradual modifications over the past two centuries, has provided them with a coherent sense of who they are and what their place in history is. Multiculturalism should be understood as an attempt, undertaken in our own schools, to tear down, discredit and destroy the shared story that has made us a people and impose on us a different story which tells us our civilization and past history are essentially evil. The goal, to put it brutally, is the creation of compliant citizens of a new social order, whose feelings toward the pre-1965 America and its heroes (to the extent they know anything about them at all) will be contempt, guilt or indifference.

As for the other problem mentioned above, the connection be-tween multiculturalism and immigration, it is important to understand that the cultural reformers openly describe their movement as a response to the nation’s changing ethnic make-up. In a speech given in October 1989, the godfather of “A Curriculum of Inclusion,” New York State Education Commissioner Thomas Sobol, had this to say:

We are becoming a different people. Our country is becoming more ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse. By the year 2000, one out of every three New Yorkers will be an ethnic minority. By the year 2020, one of every two New Yorkers will be an ethnic minority. In New York City today, one child in every four is the offspring of a non-English speaking parent.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing well with this diversity. . . . The old idea was that it didn’t matter where you came from, that what mattered was being an American. Decent people didn’t talk about race. This was to be truly a new world. The purpose of the schools was the promotion of assimilation, implanting in children the Anglo-Saxon conceptions of righteousness, law, order and popular government, and awakening in them a reverence for our institutions. This prevented the U.S. from becoming an ethnically Balkanized nation. The assimilationist ideal worked for ethnic peoples who were white but is not working nearly as well for ethnic peoples of color. Replacing the old, assimilationist view is a competing ethic—cultural pluralism. Today we must accommodate not only a diversity of origins but a diversity of views. [Emphases added.](33)

In making this remarkable admission, that it is the race and ethnicity of the new immigrants, in combination with their numbers, that is forcing us to abandon the assimilationist ideal, Mr. Sobol seems unaware that he is calling for the very Balkanization which, he acknowledges, the old assimilationism prevented. The diversity of views that the American people are now called upon to accommodate really means a diversity of cultural identities, stories and value systems which are self-defined as being adversarial to America’s historic culture. The irony is that while the multiculturalists fully acknowledge the importance of rapid ethnic change in legitimizing this revolution, those who would defend Western culture have been loath to make that connection, out of fear of being called racist or of admitting that liberal progressivism—including open immigration—must have rational limits.

The absence of rationality, even the contemptuous dismissal of it as a Western bias, is characteristic of the multiculturalist agenda. In a proposal for a huge expansion of bilingual education, the New York State Regents approvingly quote this messianic passage by writer Vincent Harding:

Now, some of us who have been here for thousands of years, as well as some of us who came from Europe and from Asia, from Mexico and India, from Puerto Rico and the wide ranges of Latin America, may join with those children of Africa in the United States . . . together we may stand in the river, transformed and transforming, listening to its laughter and burning with its tears, recognizing in that ancient flow the indelible marks of human blood, yet grounded and buoyed by hope, courage and unfathomable, amazing grace. Keeping the faith, creating new faith, we may enter the terrible and magnificent struggle for the re-creation of America.(34)

Note how in this fantasy all cultures (including the European, which is now just one minority culture among others) are thrown violently together, mystically transformed. One would hardly know that the United States had ever had a distinct polity and society related to Western civilization. All that is now to be cast aside in a Dionysian trance.

Does American Culture Have a Core?

That establishment institutions could approve these visions of cultural suicide shows how profoundly the rhetoric of diversity has already altered our understanding of ourselves as a nation. Indeed, the exclusive emphasis on our diversity in recent years seems to have blinded us to the principles of our commonality. To help restore a more balanced perspective, we turn to sociologist Milton M. Gordon’s Assimilation in American Life. A liberal mainstream view of assimilation written on the very eve of the 1965 immigration reforms, Gordon’s study provides a much-needed counterpoise to the Orwellian myth of diversity that has arisen in the years since those reforms.

Gordon examines the three main theories of assimilation—Anglo conformity, the Melting Pot and cultural pluralism—and he concludes that cultural assimilation along Anglo-conformity lines is the most important thread in the historic pattern of assimilation. But cultural assimilation is only one part of the picture; the other is what Gordon calls “structural” assimilation. Cultural assimilation, in an Anglo-conformity context, is the adoption by an ethnic group of the habits, mores, behavior models and values of the “core” white Protestant culture and the partial or complete abandonment of the ethnic group’s old cultural identity; structural assimilation is a social blending at the level of primary associations such as family, church, community, clubs and so on.

Of course, today’s pluralists, both radical and mainstream, dismiss the very idea of a core culture into which immigrants assimilate; the reputed core, they say, is nothing but the product of successive immigrations. Much depends on how we understand this issue. Does America have a more-or-less persisting historical identity, or is it, as the pluralists insist, a blank slate—to be wiped off and written over afresh by each new generation? What Gordon has to say on this matter is illuminating:

In suggesting the answer to this question, I must once again point to the distinction between the impact of the members of minority groups as individuals making their various contributions to agriculture, industry, the arts, and science in the context of the Anglo-Saxon version (as modified by peculiarly American factors) of the combination of Hebraic, Christian, and Classical influences which constitutes Western civilization, and the specific impact on the American culture of the minority cultures themselves. The impact of individuals has been so considerable that it is impossible to conceive of what American society or American life would have been like without it. The impact of minority group culture has been of modest dimensions, I would argue, in most areas, and significantly extensive in only one—the area of institutional religion. From a nation overwhelmingly and characteristically Protestant in the late eighteenth century, America has become a national entity of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. . . . For the rest, there have been minor modifications in cuisine, recreational patterns, place names, speech, residential architecture, sources of artistic inspiration, and perhaps a few other areas—all of which add flavor and piquancy to the totality of the American culture configuration but have scarcely obscured its essential English outlines and content.

Over the generations, then, the triumph of acculturation in America has been, if not complete, at least numerically and functionally overwhelming. It is with regard to [structural assimilation] that the assimilation process has refused to take the path which the Anglo-conformists, at least by implication, laid out for it. . . . [The picture is of] an American society in which each racial and religious (and to a lesser extent, national origins) group has its own network of cliques, clubs, organizations, and institutions which tend to confine the primary group contacts of its members within the ethnic enclave, while interethnic contacts take place in considerable part only at the secondary group level of employment and the political and civic processes. . . . To understand, then, that acculturation without massive structural intermingling at primary group levels has been the dominant motif in the American experience of creating and developing a nation out of diverse peoples is to comprehend the most essential sociological fact of that experience. [Emphases added.](35)

The key idea, which I cannot stress too strongly, is Gordon’s distinction between structural pluralism and cultural pluralism—a distinction that Americans quite understandably have failed to grasp, since the historic diversity of ethnicity and community in America can be easily confused with the altogether different concept of cultural diversity.

In his analysis of the second model of assimilation, the Melting Pot, Gordon continues to stress the importance of Anglo-conformity. In its fullest articulation, the Melting Pot signified an amalgamation of all the European groups through intermarriage, and a consequent blending of all their cultural forms into a completely new form. This, says Gordon, has not occurred; “what has actually taken place has been more of transforming of the later immigrants’ specific cultural contributions into the Anglo-Saxon mould.”(36) Gordon quotes theologian Will Herberg:

The enthusiasts of the ‘melting pot’ . . . were wrong . . . in regard to the cultural aspect of the assimilative process. They looked forward to a genuine blending of cultures, to which every ethnic strain would make its own contribution and out of which would emerge a new cultural synthesis, no more English than German or Italian and yet in some sense transcending and embracing them all. In certain respects, this has indeed become the case: our American cuisine includes antipasto and spaghetti, frankfurters and pumpernickel, filet mignon and french fried potatoes, borsch, sour cream, and gefullte fish, on a perfect equality with fried chicken, ham and eggs, and pork and beans. But it would be a mistake to infer from this that the American’s image of himself—and that means the ethnic group member’s image of himself as he becomes American—is a composite or synthesis of the ethnic elements that have gone into the making of the American. It is nothing of the kind: The American’s image of himself is still the Anglo-American ideal it was at the beginning of our independent existence. The “national type” as ideal has always been, and remains, pretty well fixed. It is the Mayflower, John Smith, Davy Crockett, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln that define the American’s self-image, and this is true whether the American in question is a descendant of the Pilgrims or the grandson of an immigrant from southeastern Europe.(37)

If this last remark sounds quaint today, that only proves the extent to which we have lost, in the space of a few decades, the myths (and the political and moral principles those myths represent) that helped make us a nation. Anyone whose personal memory extends back before 1970 or 1960 will acknowledge the truth of Herberg’s observation.

Finally, returning to Gordon’s analysis, there is cultural pluralism, the vision of a society in which each ethnic group fully maintains its cultural as well as its structural identity. Horace Kallen compared the pluralistic society to an orchestra, in which “the different instruments, each with its own characteristic timbre and theme, contribute distinct and recognizable parts to the composition. . . .” The various groups would have the same relation that “the Constitution establishes between the States of the Union.”(38) Despite these attractive sentiments, says Gordon, Kallen failed to show “the specific nature of the communication and interaction which is to exist between the various ethnic communities and between the individuals who compose them in the ‘ideal’ cultural pluralistic society. . . .”(39) (We might add that this incoherency still marks the pluralistic slogans of the 1980s.) Gordon concludes that cultural pluralism is only a rhetorical ideal and not a description of, nor serious proposal for, the organization of society. The historical actuality has been “the maintenance of the structurally separate subsocieties of the three major religious and the racial and quasi racial groups, and even vestiges of the nationality groupings, along with a massive trend toward acculturation of all groups—particularly their native-born—to American culture patterns. In our view, then, a more accurate term for the American situation is structural pluralism rather than cultural pluralism, although some of the latter also remains.”(40)

Two conclusions emerge from Gordon’s analysis that will seem heretical in today’s climate. The first is that the United States has always been an Anglo-Saxon civilization; the successive waves of immigrants became Americans in the very act of adopting that civilization (even after people of Anglo-Saxon descent had started to become a minority). The second conclusion, a corollary of the first, is that the cultural diversity myth is historically and conceptually vacuous. As currently used, stock phrases like “This country was built by diversity” and “All cultures are of equal value to our society” imply that America has been primarily built, not by individuals from various backgrounds making their contributions as individuals to an existing if gradually modified American culture, but by minority cultures as such, all joining together in some kind of “equal” mix. As Gordon has shown, this opinion is mistaken. Yet the entire rhetoric of pluralism is based on it. The same goes for the current notion that throughout our history there has been a “constant flux” in America’s cultural identity. “The Ministry of Truth says that American culture was always in flux, which is true,” comments writer John Ney, “but the Ministry does not add that the flux was contained within a general form.(41) [emphasis added]. We should remember, when we hear conservatives as well as liberals saying that diversity is the very essence of this country, that they are embracing a dangerously one-sided view of our history; by disregarding the central importance in the American experience of assimilation to Anglo-American cultural forms, they are, whether they realize it or not, sanctioning any and all demands made in the name of diversity.

A key to this confusion can be found in Thomas Sobol’s comment, quoted earlier, that “Today we must accommodate not only a diversity of origins but a diversity of views.” As we have said, there is little awareness of the fact that “diversity” has these two quite distinct meanings. When most Americans say, “We must respect diversity,” they are really thinking of a diversity of people, i.e., the assimilation of people of different national and ethnic backgrounds into a shared American culture. But what the cultural radicals and their mainstream apologists mean by diversity is a diversity of “views.” What this signifies is not simply the historical experiences and contributions of various ethnic groups in this country (an interesting area of study which, as we have seen, the radicals reject because it leaves America’s national culture in place), nor simply an appreciation of the variety of ethnic manners, tastes and talents; it means the legitimization and official sponsorship of entirely different, even incommensurable concepts of cultural identity, civilizational norms and history.* In other words, it is no longer through knowledge and love of a common heritage that we come to enjoy a viable unity as a people, but rather, as Thomas Sobol has declared (after giving lip service to the importance of Western culture), it is “only through understanding our diverse roots and branches . . . only by accommodating our differences . . . only by exploring our human variations” that we can “become one society.”(42) [emphases added]. To paraphrase the 1920s critic Irving Babbitt, the difference between the two doctrines described above is of a primary nature and so not subject to mediation. Between the view that unity is achieved by a primary emphasis on our diversity and the view that unity is achieved through a primary emphasis on our cultural commonality, the opposition is one of first principles.(43) In any case, the present discussion ought to warn us against these careless testimonials to diversity; we should realize that by prefacing every comment on this subject with obligatory phrases like “We must respect different cultures,” etc., we have already granted the cultural radicals their major premise. Perhaps more than any other factor, it is this imprecision of thought and speech, by liberals and conservatives alike, that has made an ideological time bomb like “A Curriculum of Inclusion” possible.

Beyond these considerations, Gordon’s and Herberg’s insights begin to fill the void in our self-knowledge that has been created by the propaganda and bad education of recent years; they help restore an almost vanished memory of the cultural roots we as Americans share in common—whatever our ancestry may be. In the words of Hungarian-born historian John Lukacs:

This writer, an historian, has no Anglo-Saxon blood in his veins, and he professes no blind admiration for some mythical virtues of the Anglo-Saxon race and its peoples. He must, however, insist on the obvious matter . . . that the English-speaking character of the United States must not be taken for granted. . . . The still extant freedoms of Americans—of all Americans—are inseparable from their English-speaking roots. . . . the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution—and the consequent prosperity and relative stability of the country flowing therefrom—were not abstract liberties but English liberties, dependent on practical as well as sentimental attachments and habits of English laws.(44)

To avoid being too abstract ourselves, it might be useful to try to specify these Anglo-American liberties and traditions to which Lukacs refers. A few examples come to mind:

The remarkable degree of freedom from external controls—made possible by the Protestant ideal of moral autonomy and self-restraint. Even Michael Novak, a Catholic critic of the WASP “monoculture,” acknowledges the supreme importance of this value in American life. “America is a Protestant country,” he writes. “Its lack of external restraints is one of the blessings for which Catholics are genuinely grateful.”(45)

The habits of self-reliance and local government, which, as Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming writes, “are largely absent from Eastern Europe, as they have been largely absent from Western European countries, including Sweden.”(46)

The belief in natural rights, deriving from the classic liberalism of Locke and the Declaration of Independence. The traditional view, says Allan Bloom, is that it is the belief in natural rights that makes one an American:

The old view was that, by recognizing and accepting man’s natural rights, men found a fundamental basis of unity and sameness. Class, race, religion, national origin or culture all disappear or become dim when bathed in the light of natural rights, which give men common interests and make them truly brothers. The immigrant had to put behind him the claims of the Old World in favor of a new and easily acquired education. This did not necessarily mean abandoning old daily habits or religions, but it did mean subordinating them to new principles.(47)

By contrast, the current view, that cultural diversity (and therefore group rights) is the very essence of America, undermines the shared faith in individual rights that historically has been the basis of assimilation and common citizenship.

The common law tradition and due process of law.

The principle against self-incrimination. It is no coincidence that the U.S. and Canada are virtually the only countries in the Americas with clean records on judicial torture.

The tradition of the loyal opposition and the right to dissent, which stands in such sharp contrast to the power-group warfare that obtains in African, Asian and Arab societies. Lawrence Harrison, a close observer of Latin America, has pointed out that Latin Americans have no apt word for the idea of dissent; disagreement with the powers that be is seen as treason or heresy.(48)

Freedom of speech and the appeal to reason in public discourse. Even the emerging capitalist nations of Asia, such as Singapore, have little understanding of freedom of speech.

The traditions of honesty and fair dealing. The sense of fair play.

The high degree of trust and social cooperation made possible by the above, especially as compared with the expectation of dishonesty—and the mistrust of those beyond the family circle—that obtains in Latin American societies.(49)

And finally, as the result of high moral standards, cooperativeness, trust and freedom—America’s extraordinarily rich tradition of voluntary associations and institutions, ranging from pioneer communities to churches to business enterprises to philanthropies to political and scientific societies, operating within the law but otherwise free of the state. In particular, the liberal university that embodies the ideal of the pursuit of truth. (Ironically, veritas—truth—is the motto of Harvard University, where professors and students are now being pressured to avoid discussing any idea that may be construed to offend specially designated ethnic groups—a further indication that the official pursuit of cultural diversity is incompatible with a liberal social order.)

As I hope these few examples may suggest, the facts of our Anglo-American common heritage should have a far deeper resonance in the American mind than the bromides of cultural pluralism that now fill the air. Yes, there have been modest alterations in the national culture due to minority group influence, as Milton Gordon acknowledges; but that does not alter the main insight that this country has a persisting, historically defined culture into which its immigrants and ethnic minorities—notwithstanding their enduring structural affiliations—have traditionally assimilated And here we come to the most significant fact of our recent cultural/ethnic history: It is only since the 1960s, with the great increase in the numbers of people from non-European backgrounds, that the battle cry of cultural relativism has become ideologically dominant. In demanding that non-European cultures, as cultures, be given the same importance as the European-American national culture, the multiculturalists are declaring that the non-European groups are unable or unwilling to assimilate as European immigrants have in the past, and that for the sake of these non-assimilating groups American society must be radically transformed. This ethnically and racially based rejection of the common American culture should lead thoughtful Americans to re-evaluate some contemporary assumptions about ethnicity and assimilation.

The Problem of Cultural Identity

The history of assimilation has not been, as our mythology now tells us, a simple, glorious progress. Each wave of immigrants, especially the “new” immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, brought dislocation and conflict as well as new vitality; loss as well as gain. But the important thing was that the “new” immigrants still had much in common with the earlier Americans; the fact that they were of European descent and came from related cultures within Western civilization made it relatively easy for them to assimilate into the common sphere of civic habits and cultural identity that Milton Gordon has described. Americans thus remained a people—though obviously not (because of persisting ethnic distinctions) in the same sense that the Japanese, the English or even the French are a people, The relative degree of similarity helped make it possible to stretch America’s cultural fabric without ripping it. For example, it was eastern and southern European immigrants— men like Irving Berlin, George Gershwin, Frederick Loewe, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Frank Capra, Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder, Michael Curtiz, Ben Hecht—who gave us many of the songs, plays and movies that are our twentieth century popular classics; who, in fact, created Hollywood. There was no insurmountable obstacle preventing these individuals from identifying with, and giving artistic expression to, the Anglo-American archetypes of our common culture; they so deeply identified with the American ideal that they created new and powerful forms of that ideal.

But it is not immediately apparent that people from radically diverse backgrounds and cultural identities—a Central American indio, a Cambodian peasant, a Shi’ite Muslim—can feel the same sort of ready identification with American myths and ideal figures. David M. Hwang, author of the racial morality play “M. Butterfly,” pinpoints the psychological dimension of this problem: “Growing up as a person of color, you’re always ambivalent to a certain degree about your own ethnicity. You think it’s great, but there is necessarily a certain amount of self-hatred or confusion at least, which results from the fact that there’s a role model in this society which is basically a Caucasian man, and you don’t measure up to that.”(50)

To the extent that David Hwang’s views on the wounded self-image of racial minorities in predominantly white America are representative (and such views have indeed become commonplace), he may have pointed out a human dilemma that the ideal of cultural assimilation can no longer fully obscure. Generally speaking, human beings most readily identify and feel comfortable with people (and cultural figures) similar to themselves, a fact that explains the successful assimilation of European immigrants into Anglo-American culture. It follows that if the new Americans from Asia and the Third World are to feel truly comfortable as Americans (and if white Americans are to be cured of their own race-consciousness and not experience the massively increasing numbers of Asians and other minorities as a disturbingly alien presence in this society), then America’s role model, its ideal figures and unifying myths, must change, diversify, embrace all the races, ethnic types and cultures on earth. This implies a metamorphosis in our art, our drama, our popular entertainment, our literature, our teaching of history—a mutation of our very identity as a people. And the force that creates the irresistible demand for this cultural change is—it must be emphasized again—the sea-change in America’s ethnic and racial character. In David Hwang’s words: “Sophisticated American whites realize their group is in the process of changing from an outright majority to just a plurality in the U.S., and are beginning to be ready to hear what the rest of us think”—i.e., admit Asian values, images and cultural idiom into the heart of American culture.(51) Paradoxically, while he admits that “M. Butterfly” is anti-Western, Hwang insists: “But it’s very pro-American, too.” Translation: Hwang is “pro” a future, multicultural America—an America that has become “good” by surrendering its historic identity.

Ironically, even as the new pluralism is transforming America’s cultural landscape, there has been a sort of sentimental persistence of the old assimilationist ideal, updated to include all the peoples of the world and not just those of Europe, which continues to deny that ethnic and racial pluralism poses any kind of problem. According to this “post-1965 assimilationism,”—subscribed to by progressive conservatives as well as liberals—it is not just that ethnicity and race are of little importance to a person’s cultural self-identification; they are absolutely irrelevant; hence America’s capacity for the cultural assimilation of peoples of widely diverse races and cultures must be infinite; somehow (this wildly hopeful vision tells us), the U.S. population will become ethnically Asian and Latin American indio, but America will go on being the same Western society it has always been. To doubt the likelihood of this scenario is not to argue that “race determines culture,” nor is it to deny that cultural adaptation has occurred in a myriad of individual cases, thus demonstrating a certain permeability in ethnic/cultural identities; but surely it is unrealistic to expect such adaptation to continue when (1) the U.S. is receiving a never-ending mass immigration of non-Western peoples, leading inexorably to white-minority status in the coming decades; (2) a race-based cultural diversity movement is attacking, with almost effortless success, the legitimacy of our Western culture; and (3) American society has lost its intellectual moorings, is no longer passing its cultural tradition and historical memory on to its children, let alone to immigrants, and as a practical matter has given up on the assimilationist ideal.

This last point should make it clear that uncontrolled immigration is not the only factor in the suicidal trend I have been describing. Even if there were no immigration at all, America would still be experiencing what can only be called a terrifying social and moral decline. Concerns over mediocrity are hardly a new thing in this country, but surely the attack on the intellect, the decay of family and individual character that have occurred over the past 25 years are phenomena of an entirely different order, posing a very real threat to the freedoms and the high level of civilization this country has enjoyed. The combination of both factors—progressive degeneracy and divisiveness of the existing society on one hand and perpetual mass immigration on the other—must be fatal. History offers many examples of nations that have recovered from overwhelming catastrophe; Ancient Israel recovered more than once from spiritual decadence and conquest; Europe recovered from the death of a third of its population in the Black Plague; the French recovered from the ravages of the French Revolution. Renewal was possible in such cases not least because the national identity of those peoples, and the spiritual spark of their civilizations, remained intact. But if America continues “the slide into apathy, hedonism and moral chaos,” as Christopher Lasch has called it,(52) and at the same time its present population is replaced by a chaotic mix of peoples from radically diverse, non-European cultures, then there will be no basis for continuation or renewal. Like ancient Greece after the classical Hellenes had dwindled away and the land was repopulated by Slavonic and Turkic peoples, America will have become literally a different country. There will be no American Renaissance—except perhaps as some faceless subdivision of the global shopping mall.

The decisive factor, ignored by almost everyone in our sentimental land, is the sheer force of numbers. The United States has shown that it has the capacity to absorb a certain number of ethnic minorities into its existing cultural forms. The minorities, so long as there remains a majority culture that believes in itself, have powerful incentives to accept the legitimacy of the prevailing culture even as they add their own variety to it. But as they continue to grow in numbers relative to the whole population, a point of critical mass is reached. The new groups begin to assert an independent peoplehood, and the existing society comes to be seen as illegitimate and oppressive; what was once (granting its flaws) applauded as the most beneficent society in the history of the world, is suddenly, as though by a magician’s curse, transformed into an evil racist power. That the point has already been reached can be seen from the following comment which appeared, not in some organ of the far left, but in the New York Times:

How can teachers blindly continue to preach the virtues of “our” cultural tradition in classrooms where, in regions such as California, most students are now African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans, whose families’ main experience of Western civilization has been victimization?(53)

If it is the sheer number of non-Europeans in places like California that obligates us to abandon “our” cultural tradition, is it not an inescapable conclusion that the white majority in this country, if it wishes to preserve that tradition, must place a rational limit on the number of immigrants?

Black Separatism as a Warning

The potential for the breakdown of cultural assimilation can be seen in the increasing ambivalence of black Americans toward the majority culture. It is one of the saddest ironies of recent history that many black people, rather than drawing closer to the mainstream culture now that the legal obstacles to participation in American life have been removed, are increasingly defining themselves in opposition to it. Blacks are among the most vocal members of the multicultural movement. Many have adopted the fantastic racial myth that Greco-Roman and Western culture were really descended from black Africa, that such figures as Socrates, Hannibal and Cleopatra were really black, and that there has been a conspiracy by white historians to cover up these facts. Ironically, far from whetting the interest of blacks in Western culture as a putative close relative of ancient African civilization, these notions merely serve as a pretext for dismissing Western civilization as illegitimate and oppressive. Black educators speak of the psychological harm done to black children when they are taught Western culture. Never mind that the greatest black leaders have been shining products of that culture. In The Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DuBois wrote of his education in white, northern schools that “changed the child of Emancipation to the youth with dawning self-consciousness, self-realization, self-respect.”(54) But today, Jesse Jackson leads the mindless chant, “Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture has got to go,” while Louis Farrakhan urges his followers to find their true identity by rejecting white people and overturning their “evil” society.§ A recent television documentary on the 1960s civil rights movement showed a young black man speaking at a rally. “We love this country,” he said, “and we want to be part of it.” But today, in their values and political ideology, even in the names they give their children, more and more black people seem like inhabitants of some new Third World nation. The adoption of the title “African-American” clearly denotes a withdrawal from membership in this society. As one black writer has commented: “‘African-American’ announces a global context for black identity, no longer confined to simply ‘minority’ status in the United States. Most important, this different world view places African heritage at the center rather than at the margin of experience.(55) [emphasis added]. Now if a significant number of black Americans, who have been (albeit oppressed) members of this Christian, Western society for hundreds of years—who are part of the historical soul of this country—now feel compelled to reject America’s common culture and assert a separate racial/cultural identity with a Third World perspective, is it not reasonable to fear the same thing in the case of many Third World immigrants who have no cultural links with Western civilization? Thomas Fleming has remarked:

As a nation, we have barely survived the existence of two separate populations, black and white, and we have a long way to go in working out better relations between those two groups. What shall we do when the whole of America becomes a multiracial Alexandria?(56)

Cultural Reductionism

As suggested earlier, pro-immigration conservatives and liberals deal with the looming threat to national cohesion by imagining that it doesn’t exist; America, they believe, has an infinite capacity for the assimilation of diverse peoples. This astounding conceit can be made credible only at a great cost—that is, by flattening our idea of American society to the most superficial image of consumerism and pop culture. American culture is thus made equally accessible to all—and equally meaningless. “The process of assimilation is inexorable,” writes Time. “As these students become Americanized, they want to eat hot dogs and hamburgers and pizza. . . . They want designer jeans and bicycles and calculators and digital watches.”(57) By reducing American culture to the idea of its material accoutrements, Time makes the acquisition of that culture seem as quick and easy as an over-the-counter purchase. Similarly, Wall Street “conservatives” and free-market economists reduce America’s essence to the pursuit of maximum activity in the global marketplace. From this point of view it makes no difference whether a person can participate in the culture of this country or even if he speaks English; holding a job and paying taxes become the sole criterion of being a good and useful citizen. The strictures of contemporary debate force even cultural conservatives into the materialist fallacy; thus the lobbying group U.S. English bases its defense of our common language on utilitarian grounds, rather than on the ground of the survival of a distinctive American civilization. What all these reductionisms have in common is that they disregard the intangible and affective dimensions of human society. Participation in commerce or science only requires the appropriate human activity and talents, which are, modern thought tells us, equal among all the peoples of the earth. But participation in a particular culture requires a degree of identification with that culture, the potential or desire for which is manifestly not equal among all men and nations. “It is the easiest thing in the world,” wrote Arnold Toynbee in a slightly different context, “for commerce to export a new Western technique. It is infinitely harder for a Western poet or saint to kindle in a non-Western soul the spiritual flame that is alight in his own.”(58) If America is to survive its present decline, it needs to rediscover, and learn to articulate, this spiritual flame of which Toynbee speaks. The answers to our current problems lie within the still-living but neglected roots of our own civilization—not in giving up that civilization for the sake of some utopian global order.

This brings us to yet another kind of reductionism we ought to beware of: the tendency to see our society as a mere abstraction of freedom and human rights. Yes, America stands for, and is based on, certain universal principles; but we must insist that America also happens to be a country. Surely the Founding Fathers saw no contradiction between being devoted as philosophers to universal principles of republicanism and the rights of man, and as patriots to a particular nation, a particular people. To ignore our national individuality—in an effort to make America seem instantly accessible to every person and culture on the planet—is to turn our country into the blank slate of which we spoke earlier, on which the social engineers and all the migrating masses of the world can write whatever they please. In other words, America needs to revive the original name and meaning of the Statue of Liberty (now quite forgotten): “Liberty Enlightening the World”—a shining example for other nations to achieve in their own lands and in their own ways what we have achieved here, not a simply a mindless invitation for the whole world to move here.

Summing Up

The argument presented in these pages is that the combined forces of open immigration and multiculturalism constitute a mortal threat to American civilization. At a time when unprecedented ethnic diversity makes the affirmation of a common American culture more important than ever, we are, under the pressure of that diversity, abandoning the very idea of a common culture. “We are asking America to open its linguistic frontiers,” one multiculturalist spokesman has said, “and to accept an expanded idea of what it means to be an American”—a standard that, in terms of immigration and language policies, seem to include everyone in the universe.(59) Whether we consider America’s porous borders; or the disappearing standards for naturalization; or the growth of official multilingualism; or the new “diversity” curricula aimed at destroying the basis of common citizenship; or the extension of virtually all the rights and protections of citizenship to legal and illegal aliens; or the automatic granting of citizenship to children of illegals; the tendency is clear: we have in effect redefined the nation to the point where there is no remaining criterion of American identity other than the physical fact of one’s being here. It is, to quote Alexander Hamilton, “an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.”(60)

The irony is that most Americans support immigration as “liberal” policy. That is, they want America to remain open and to help people, and they also expect that the new immigrants will assimilate into our existing society. It was on this basis that the opening of America’s doors to every country on earth was approved in 1965 and continues to enjoy unassailable political support. But we are beginning to see, simply as a practical, human matter, that the successful assimilation of such huge numbers of widely diverse peoples into a single people and viable polity is a pipe dream. It is at this point that multiculturalism comes along and says: “That’s not a problem. We don’t want to assimilate into this oppressive, Eurocentered mold. We want to reconstruct America as a multicultural society.” And this radical pluralist view gains acceptance by retaining the moral legitimacy, the patina of humanitarianism, that properly belonged to the older liberalism which it has supplanted. We have thus observed the progress, largely unperceived by the American people, from the liberal assimilationist view, which endorses open immigration because it naively believes that our civilization can survive unlimited diversity, to radical multiculturalism, which endorses open immigration because it wants our civilization to end.

Diversity—or Imperialism?

What has been said so far will doubtless offend those who see unlimited diversity not as a threat to our society, but as a glorious enhancement of it. I do not deny that there are many apparently positive things associated with our expanding demographic character: the stimulus of the boundless human variety in our big cities; the satisfaction of welcoming people from every country in the world and seeing them do well here; the heady sense that we are moving into a New Age in which all barriers between people will disappear and humanity will truly be one. But the question must be asked: is all this excitement about a New Age, this fascination with the incredible changes occurring before our eyes, a sound basis for determining our national destiny? Is all this idealism without its dark side? Is it not to be feared—if the lessons of history are any guide—that the “terrible and magnificent struggle” to recreate America is leading us, not to the post-imperialist age of peace and love the cultural pluralists dream of, but to a new and more terrible age of ethnic imperialism?

Americans are being told that to redeem themselves from their past sins, they must give way to, and even merge with, the cultures they have oppressed or excluded in the past. But for a culture to deny its own “false” legitimacy, as America is now called upon to do, does not create a society free of false legitimacy; it simply means creating a vacuum of legitimacy—and thus a vacuum of power—into which other cultures, replete with their own “imperialistic lies,” will move. Training Hispanic and other immigrant children in American public schools to have their primary loyalty to their native cultures is not to create a new kind of bicultural, cosmopolitan citizenry; it is to systematically downgrade our national culture while raising the status and power of other cultures. As James Burnham has shown in The Machiavellians, we need to see the real meaning (a concern with power) that is concealed behind the formal meaning of various idealistic slogans. The formal meaning of “diversity,” “cultural equity,” “gorgeous mosaic” and so on is a society in which many different cultures will live together in perfect equality and peace (i.e., a society that has never existed and never will exist); the real meaning of these slogans is that the power of the existing mainstream society to determine its own destiny shall be drastically reduced while the power of other groups, formerly marginal or external to that society, will be increased. In other words the U.S. must, in the name of diversity, abandon its particularity while the very groups making that demand shall hold on to theirs.

Thus understood, cultural pluralism is not the innocent expansion of our human sympathies it pretends to be, but a kind of inverse colonialism. Time, in a special issue put together by its Hispanic staff writers, speaks buoyantly of the coming “convergence” of American and Hispanic cultures, a convergence that Americans should welcome “unconditionally” as an enrichment of their own society and as an opening up of their “restricted” identity. “We come bearing gifts,” Time says on behalf of the growing Hispanic presence in the United States.(61) But, stripped of its sentimentality, isn’t this what colonial powers have always said? The only difference is that, in the Age of Imperialism, it was the strong powers that took over the weak; in today’s Age of Diversity, it is the weak who are taking over the strong, with the strong’s invitation and blessing.

An additional irony is that the call for cultural pluralism is often accompanied by a call for globalism—which would obviously tend to weaken national diversity. If diversity has a true and positive meaning (as distinguished from its Burnhamite meaning), it is that each nation maintains its own identity. If different societies blend together, or if one of them, through mass migration or cultural imperialism, imposes its identity on another, the result is a loss of national identity and therefore a loss of diversity. As John Ney has observed: “In any objective study of cultural dynamics, is not cultural co-existence a myth? Does not one culture or the other triumph, or merge in a synthesis in which neither (or none) survives intact?”(62) If it is diversity we really want, we should preserve our own and each other’s distinct national identities. But if the relationship we desire between foreign cultures and our own is “convergence” (Time’s upbeat motto for the Latin American invasion), then we should recognize that this means the end of American civilization as we know it.||

The Loss of Cultural Identity

To picture the spiritual impact that the multicultural revolution will have on our society would require an act of historical imagination that is frankly beyond the power of this writer. Indeed, it is this inability to “imagine” our own cultural heritage and what its loss would mean to us—largely a result of several generations of relativist education and the triumph of pop culture—that makes it hard for us to articulate or defend that heritage. As John Lukacs has written: “It is a problem of existing cultural essences and assets that cannot be quantified or computerized. . . . What is threatened is not just our nation’s body, but its soul.”(63) Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean through the example of art. When we look at an ancient Greek sculpture, or a Renaissance painting showing a group of people gathered around the Christ child, or, for that matter, a Hollywood classic from the thirties, we are seeing profoundly resonant images of our own civilization and culture, images that have made us what we are. Looking at the Renaissance painting or the Greek sculpture, we realize that we are partakers of the same Classical, Judeo-Christian, Western heritage, actors in the same drama. This vital communication of one generation, one age with another is the soul of civilization. From it we derive the sense of being part of a continuum which stretches back to the ancient past and forward to the future. From that vital intercourse with the past each generation renews itself.

But now this continuum, which is the body of our civilization extending through time, is about to be broken forever. Under the pressure of multiculturalism, Americans will be denied their own heritage and prevented from handing it on to succeeding generations. Because that entire cultural heritage, which (before the opening up of massive Third-World immigration) was taken for granted as “our” heritage, is now considered to be merely an exclusive, “white” heritage and therefore illegitimate. Deprived of its good conscience, American/Western culture will lose the ability to defend itself and will be progressively downgraded to accommodate a bewildering array of other cultures. “In its Third Century,” Kotkin and Kishimoto write, “American culture may no longer be based predominantly on European themes. Its motifs may be as much Latin or Asian as traditional Anglo-American.”(64) As the image of our civilization, as expressed in the arts and literature, changes to a multiracial, multicultural image, what kind of art will result? Movies and plays, instead of portraying the relationships of individuals within a community or family, as drama has done time out of mind, must focus self-consciously on race relations. Established literary works that have formed a living bridge between one generation of Americans and the next will fall into oblivion, to be replaced by works on minority, Hispanic and Asian issues. The religious paintings of the multiculturalist society, instead of portraying a group of individuals chosen from the artists’ imagination, would follow a statistical formula; the figures gathered around the Christ child would have to be x percent brown, x percent black, yellow, white and so on, all chosen on the basis of racial balance rather than their individual character. Diversity would so overwhelm unity that the idea of diversity within unity would be lost. If you think this is an absurd prediction about the future of art and of society, just look at any television show or advertisement. The formulaic racial balance imposes itself everywhere, even to the point of inventing multiracial families on television that don’t exist in the real world. It is the new image of America, popularized by Time covers and ABC News graphics—a brown, mixed people, painted in a heroic, proletarian style that might be called Multiracialist Realism.

The Political Consequences


(1) Homogeneity and Assimilation
Apart from the spiritual dislocation—the catastrophe—implied in such profound changes in art, literature and drama, we have barely begun to think about the effects that a radically diverse population will have on our political institutions. The first of these is a loss of that social cohesion, that practicable homogeneity without which, history teaches us, a free society based on individual rights cannot survive. The Founding Fathers understood this danger very well. Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

The opinion . . . is correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. . . . The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.(65)

Thomas Jefferson also worried about the impact of non-assimilable immigrants:

In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. . . . Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we believe that the addition of half a million foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.(66)

During the anti-immigration movement in the early twentieth century, the president of Harvard University, A. Lawrence Lowell, wrote:

It is, indeed, largely a perception of the need of homogeneity, as a basis for popular government and the public opinion on which it rests, that justifies democracies in resisting the influx of great numbers of a widely different race.(67)

Of course, it is commonly believed today that the anti-immigration sentiment in the past, particularly in the post-World War I years, discredits similar concerns in the present; that is, just as the earlier fears of an unassimilable mass of immigrants proved to be unwarranted, so will the present fears. But this argument ignores the fact that the great wave of the “new” immigration was brought to a halt in 1922. This reduction in immigration vastly eased the assimilation process in the following decades and led to a dramatic decrease in the nativist fears that had been the prime motive for the 1920s legislation. “Somewhere, in the mid-1930’s,” writes immigration historian Oscar Handlin, “there was a turn. Americans ceased to believe in race, the hate movements [against the European immigrants] began to disintegrate, and discrimination increasingly took on the aspect of an anachronistic survival from the past, rather than a pattern valid for the future. . . . In the face of those changes, it might well have been asked: ‘What happened to race?’”(68) It is revealing that, among the explanations Handlin offers for this sudden and welcome drop in the nativist fever, he says nothing about the most obvious cause: the fact that immigration had been drastically lowered by the 1920s legislation (and later completely stopped by the Depression); such acknowledgement would undercut Handlin’s own moralistic criticism of the restrictive 1920s laws. Whatever we may think of those restrictions from a humanitarian point of view, their importance in advancing the assimilation of white ethnics in the mid-twentieth century cannot be denied. Certainly, the United States would not have been nearly so strong and united a society as it was from the beginning of the Second World War until the 1960s if the country had received, as had been feared, two million immigrants per year during the 1920s and beyond.

It ought also to be mentioned, in light of the present habit of blaming everything on racism, that the Founders were concerned about the divisive effect of white Europeans from monarchical societies, who they feared would resist American republican principles. Similarly, the anti-Irish feeling in the mid-nineteenth century had nothing to do with race.(69) It was only with the rise of the new immigration from southern and eastern Europe in the 1880s, along with the Chinese and Japanese immigrations, that the fear of unassimilability began to focus on race. The concern common to all the historical stages of anti-immigrant sentiment was not race as such but the need for a harmonious citizenry holding to the same values and political principles and having something of the same spirit. Now, certainly, our experience with cultural assimilation in the twentieth century has widened our sense of the ethnic parameters of a viable polity far beyond what either the Founding Fathers or the 20th century nativists thought possible; but the question we forget at our peril is, how far can those parameters be expanded while still maintaining a viable cultural and political homogeneity? The importance of harmony, of a “radius of identification and trust,” is still paramount for a free society.(70)

(2) Unlimited Diversity—A Threat to Equality
As diversity continues to expand beyond the point where genuine assimilation is possible, the ideal of equality will also recede. “Iceland’s population of 240,000 is a notably homogeneous society,” writes the New York Times. “Like these other well-off homogeneous nations [i.e., Scandinavia and Japan] Iceland’s wealth is evenly distributed and its society is remarkably egalitarian.”(71) Even liberals seem to recognize the correlation between homogeneity and equality—for every country that is, except the United States, where we have conceived the fantastic notion that we can achieve equality and unlimited diversity at the same time. A far more likely result is a devolution of society into permanent class divisions based on ethnicity, a weakening of the sense of common citizenship, and a growing disparity between islands of private wealth and oceans of public squalor. America’s effort to create a society that is both multicultural and equal may end by destroying forever the age-old hope of equality.

(3) Unlimited Diversity—A Threat to Liberty
Finally, unlimited diversity threatens liberty itself. The inequality, the absence of common norms and loyalties, and the social conflict stemming from increased diversity require a growing state apparatus to mediate the conflict. The disappearance of voluntary social harmony requires that harmony be imposed by force. As historian Robert Nisbet has argued, the demand in this century for ever more innovative forms of equality has already resulted in a vast enlargement of the state.(72) Radical pluralism raises to a new level this threat to our liberty, since now the state will be called upon to overcome, not just the inequality of individuals, but the inequality of cultures. The inherent vastness and endlessness of such an enterprise matches the intrusiveness of the state power that must be exercised to achieve it. The signs of this new despotism are all around us:

the de jure and de facto repression of speech dealing with racially sensitive subjects;(73)

the official classification and extension of privileges to people according to ethnic affiliation;

the expansion of judicial and bureaucratic power to enforce racial quotas in more and more areas of society;

the subjection of the American people to an unceasing barrage of propaganda telling us we are all brothers, that we must “respect all cultures,” etc., even while government policies are unleashing a wave of cultural diversity and ethnic chauvinism that is making spontaneous brotherly feeling a receding dream. In other words, the “family” that Governor Mario Cuomo keeps telling us we all belong to is really—the state.

The End of American Civilization

I have been attempting in these pages to suggest a few of the myriad potential effects of mass immigration and multiculturalism on this country’s future. There are darker scenarios I have not explored—the spread of Third-World conditions in parts of our country; the collapse of civic order (nightmarishly portrayed in Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities), or the disintegration of the United States along regional and ethnic lines. Whatever the future America may look like, it will not be a country that we—or our forebears whose legacy we are so carelessly throwing away—would be able to recognize.

In the years and decades to come, as the present American people and their descendants begin to understand what is happening to their country; as they see their civilization disappearing piece by piece, city by city, state by state, from before their eyes, and that nothing can be done to stop it, they will suffer the same collapse of spirit that occurs to any people when its way of life, its historical identity, is taken away from it. Beneath all the hopeful names they will try to find for these changes—diversity, world-nation, global oneness—there will be the repressed knowledge that America is becoming an utterly different country from what it has been, and that this means the end of their world. But the pain will not last for long. As the clerics of diversity indoctrinate new generations into the Orwellian official history, even the memory of what America once was will be lost.

Finally, if we want to consider “cultural equity,” there seems to be an extraordinary kind of inequity in the proposition that the United States must lose its identity, must become the “speechless, meaningless country” that Allan Bloom has foreseen, while the countries that the new immigrants are coming from are free to preserve their identities. In a hundred years, the United States will have become in large part an Hispanic nation, while Latin America will still be what it has always been; Mexico has strict immigration laws even against other Latin Americans. China, Korea, the Philippines and India will still have their historic cultures intact after having exported millions of their people to America, while America’s historic culture will have vanished. If the situation were reversed and North Americans were colonizing Latin America and Asia, it would be denounced as racist imperialism. Why, then, does every other country in the world have the right to preserve its identity but the United States has not? The answer, as I’ve tried to show, is that the end of multiculturalism is not some utopian, “equal” society, but simply the end of American civilization.

So much for America; if other Western nations continue their openness to Third World immigration, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Western civilization as a whole. And this defeat of the West will have been accomplished, not by the superior strength or civilization of the newcomers, not by the “forces of history,” but simply by the feckless generosity and moral cowardice of the West itself. In the prophetic words of social psychologist William McDougall:

As I watch the American nation speeding gaily, with invincible optimism down the road to destruction, I seem to be contemplating the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind.(74)


‘Cult of diversity’ a blueprint for national suicide

Mr.Ed IversonEd Iverson has a column in today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

I’ve included the text of Dick Lamm’s speech I Have A Plan To Destroy America in a separate post.

Dick Lamm is a Democrat. He served as governor of Colorado from 1975 to 1987. Several years ago he gave a short speech that became widely circulated and somewhat famous. It was never circulated by our tamed media, mind you. Our castrated journalists make a great fuss about a free press; but you only have to be about half clever to see this is strictly limited to a very narrow range of acceptable “news.” Were it not for the Internet and the bloggers, this little 5-minute speech would have gone down the memory hole designed for such heresies.

The ideas expressed by Lamm are so blasphemous that detractors have resorted to claiming a highly placed elected official of national stature never made such a speech. The speech has been the subject of numerous “urban legend” investigations and fraud-alert Web sites. The inconvenient truth is that a prominent Democrat did indeed affirm such heresy. Furthermore, when questioned today, he stands by its content.

Recent attempts by both Democrats and Republicans to institutionalize our open borders and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants has given this “blueprint for national suicide” fresh legs. Lamm gave his speech shortly after Victor Davis Hanson wrote “Mexifornia.” That book describes how free-wheeling immigration is destroying the entire state of California. Hanson warns that this unregulated process will march across the country until it destroys all vestiges of the American Dream. With that scenario in mind, Lamm outlined the following checklist for destroying America:

Richard Lamm’s interview with Ed Sardella — Part 1

“First, turn America into a bilingual or multi lingual and bicultural country.” History cannot be more clear. National unity is threatened and eventually destroyed by competing loyalties of language. For confirmation, one has only to look at modern bilingual experiments. Pakistan and Cyprus are two examples of nations that were unable to survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of competing languages. Beginning with Latin, we should teach languages in our schools. But we must not subject America to the curse of two or more “official” languages.

Next on Lamm’s list was “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.” Multiculturalism and the bilingual (or multilingual) cult are joined at the hip. The former serves as the fertile growing medium for the latter. Multiculturalism claims to celebrate differences. That is a smokescreen. An overwhelming effect of multiculturalism is the functional denial of central differences. If you want to be a modern heretic, quietly suggest that some cultures are superior to others. The cult of multiculturalism explains every difficulty experienced by blacks or Hispanics by prejudice and discrimination. Failures of the American civilization explain the murderous intent of every radical Muslim. Lamm charges that “every other explanation is out of bounds.”

Gov. Lamm went on to say, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture.” He criticized those who insist upon championing a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. England and France are high-profile examples of nations that are already in the process of self-destruction because they embrace the salad bowl metaphor. It is indeed true that our nation has profited greatly by past immigration. But it cannot be emphasized too strongly that prior generations of immigrants arrived at a rate that allowed for assimilation. In addition to that, they really wanted to immerse themselves in American society. We are now experiencing a reversal of all that and it does not bode well for our future. The former governor also criticized an education establishment intent on reinforcing the reigning folly. He decried government and corporate efforts aimed at getting minorities to see themselves as victims. He deplored the expanding discipline of “victimology.” He denounced any plans for dual citizenship and extolled the virtues of a national unity that promotes cultural peace and stability.

Finally, Lamm lamented the political correctness that places “all subjects off limits – making it taboo to question the cult of ‘diversity.’ “ He scolded those who manipulate words like “racist” or “xenophobe” to end discussion and paralyze thinking – just as the word ‘heretic’ did in former ages.

This Democrat has my vote.

Ed Iverson is the head librarian at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow.
He earned a master’s of library science at the University of Southern Mississippi
and studied theology at Regent College in Vancouver, BC.
In 1990, he ran for the Idaho Senate as a Republican from Mullan.
He lives with his wife at Viola.
They have two children and six grandchildren.




By Frosty Wooldridge
November 2, 2004

This article examines seven destructive points being injected into America by over 10 million illegal immigrants already in this country and 3 million arriving annually. This massive ‘unarmed Army’ manifests at an ever increasing speed—the undoing of America.

For the first time in history, the United States suffered a crippling attack inside its borders on 9/11. Three years later, because our government leaders refuse to protect our southern flank, we are being attacked by an ‘unarmed army’ of millions who have invaded our country by crossing our borders.

Time Magazine, September 12, 2004, “Who Left The Door Open?” documented 4,000 illegal aliens crossing nightly and over three million intruders will cross in 2004. It’s an invasion unprecedented in the history of the United States. Worse, it’s being facilitated by our elected leaders to the highest levels in the White House.

Even more distressing is a concerted push by both major parties to assist this army to not only enter our country against our laws, but also to gain access to everything we have built with the blood, sweat and tears of American citizens.

Today, millions of illegal aliens are causing accelerating damage to our schools, hospitals, social programs, highways, language, sprawl, standard of living and our way of life. Should illegal aliens enjoy driver’s licenses, amnesty, welfare and schooling of their children on our tax dollars? Just because they came here to work for a better life?

The sobering reality is that two billion people would move to America if given a ticket today. However, it’s impossible. We are a nation of laws and we have horrific problems of unemployment at 18 million people, $7.4 trillion debt, collapsing hospitals, diseases and growing language conflicts.

Somehow, the media and the ‘elite’ of this country have forced us into this accelerating crisis. Polls show 70% of Americans want illegal immigration stopped and serious reductions in legal immigration down to fewer than 100,000 per year.

Astoundingly, 10% of Mexico now lives in our country. Fully 75% of all drugs cross over from Mexico. We pay $68 billion in expenses for immigrants annually. They send home hard currency of $10.5 billion to Mexico, $25 billion to Latin America, $16 billion to Asia thus draining our country. In short, illegal immigration is killing this country.

We MUST create a dialog on the future prospects of our nation by addressing seven major points: If you own a home, you maintain a door. You welcome guests after they knock and you lock it to keep out unwanted incursions. Just as every house needs a door, every country needs a border to maintain its right to privacy, self-maintenance and personal freedom. Our nation’s door has been invaded by over 10 million people who broke the latch and marched in as if they had the right to such a crime. They continue at 1 million per year.

However, this is a nation where the ‘rule of law’ is the most important brick in the foundation of our constitution. The ‘rule of law’ allows our freedom, our integrity and our right to choose what and whom we want or don’t want in our nation. We don’t want terrorists. We don’t want border crashers who bring drugs. We don’t want illegal aliens who suppress wages, over run our schools, usurp our language and overwhelm our social services.

Illegal immigration hurts America’s poor. In a recent account in the New York Times, black children suffered 50% greater poverty in the past 10 years due to immigration. Illegal immigrants compete for jobs normally done by America’s poor. A study by the Center For Immigration Studies wrote, “Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled and it’s hard to find an economic argument for unskilled immigration because it tends to reduce wages for U.S. workers.”

Cheap labor from illegal immigration is not ‘cheap.’ It’s subsidized by all of us in the form of our tax dollars paying for their services. It makes a few employers wealthy at the expense of all of us. The National Academy of Sciences found “…a significant fiscal drain of $7,000 per student per year paid for by U.S. tax dollars.”

These newcomers do not respect our English language. Adding more salt into our national wound of this invasion, there is not a single bilingual country in the world that is at peace with itself. Dozens of languages cause educational confusion, conflict and violence. When people move to this country, but maintain their language, their culture and their old loyalties, it’s a recipe for the undoing of our nation.

With that demise, our cohesive national fabric shreds as ethnic ghettoes advance across our nation with rituals such as female genital mutilation, cock fighting and violent groups espousing clashing cultures. Too many unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking people living in too much poverty will not advance our nation. The Center for Immigration Studies points out; “The lower educational attainment of immigrants persists across generations as two thirds of immigrant workers lack a high school diploma.” Democracy is a delicate form of government that demands an educated populace with similar moral and ethical standards and a single language.

And finally, illegal immigrants crossing our borders without being health screened have brought us 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the past three years. Additionally, they brought 16,000 cases of incurable (multiple drug resistant) tuberculosis, thousands of cases of hepatitis, head lice, Chagas Disease and Exotic New Castle. Since 1.1 million illegal alien children attend U.S. schools, our children are at risk.

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” — President Teddy Roosevelt, 1902.

Without a national debate on illegal immigration, our country will continue its downward spiral into conditions resembling the Third World.

Their numbers will burgeon from 10 million to 20 million and beyond. If we don’t take action today, we won’t be able to take action tomorrow.





By Frosty Wooldridge
July 31, 2008

Anyone may look across the world landscape over the last 1,000 years to witness that racial conflict injects itself into every aspect of human life.

Such and such a group hates some other collection of people. Religious groups bomb other religious groups such as the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland. Muslims hate the Jews in the Middle East with thousands of killings.

You never hear about racism in mono-ethnic societies like China or Japan. Why? Everyone enjoys a similar background of values and cultural cohesion.

In America, with hundreds of different ethnic groups, especially black, white, brown, red and yellow, we exist in a tenuous but tolerant dance guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It’s not been easy with Jim Crow Laws, the KKK, Watts Riots, separate but equal, anger of Malcolm X, white flight to the suburbs, smoldering and seething ghettoes and Pastor Jeremiah Wright in Chicago with “God D*** America….”

In 1965, Senator Teddy Kennedy created an even more tense society by immigrating millions from incompatible cultures that now call America home: Muslims, Hmongs, Koreans, Somalians, Ethiopians, etc. Additionally, he created even greater racial tension from competing and growing cultures that fail to assimilate into America as Americans.

We now designate Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Russian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, while our national identity drains into confusion and tension.

This week, in D Magazine, Texas journalist Trey Garrison wrote a piece titled: “Why I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.”

“When I made the hard decision to forgo buying a house in Dallas, I knew I was gonna’ get it,” Garrison wrote. “The thing is, I really wanted to live in Dallas, but we just couldn’t do it. So we chose Plano.

“Once we pulled the trigger, the judgments came a-flyin’. Mainly it was from friends who are, well, urban yokels. You know the kind – hipper-than-thou provincialists, for whom where you reside in relation to a municipal taxing boundary defines you. This was fine. Friends tease you like that. But then I started getting comments from readers at one of my other publications about “diversity,” whatever that means. Apparently, in choosing a house in one of the top school districts in the country, in a suburb where the poverty rate is low and the median income is high, I was guilty of the high crime of ‘white flight.’

“My humbled, guilty reaction consisted of two words: “So what?”

“I mean, what the heck does diversity mean? Some of my new neighbors in Plano include people from Thailand, Armenia, India, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Colombia and the Ukraine, but apparently that doesn’t count. And when a school is 85 percent white, it’s not diverse, but when it’s 85 percent Hispanic, it is?

“I was scolded that my daughter, by being in a Plano school, would be sheltered from – nay, ill-equipped for – life in the real world.

“Well, yeah. Probably. The real world is a lot bigger than Dallas, bigger than Texas, and bigger than the United States. The majority of the real world is dirty, violent, poor and absent indoor plumbing and two-ply toilet paper. More than half the world’s people live on something like $1 a day.

“I don’t think attending Woodrow Wilson High equips you any better for that kind of outdoorsy, back-to-nature lifestyle than Plano West, but I admit I don’t know much about Woodrow’s elective courses. I want a school that will prepare her for living in a professional, high-paying world so daddy won’t have to pound out columns in his dotage.

“I was also told, most oddly, that by subjecting my kid to suburban life and suburban schools, she’d get no exposure to people from other cultures. That’s when it got silly. So I’d harrumph in my best Ted Baxter voice that’s crazy – why, the lady who does her nails is Vietnamese, and our lawn guy is a Mexican from Costa Rica or Panama.

“Seriously, if the only exposure to other people your kid gets is when she’s sitting in a place where you move about like cattle at the sound of a bell and have to ask permission to go to the bathroom (i.e. school), what kind of sheltered life are you giving your kid?

“We’ve made “diversity” into some kind of totem, an end to itself, and we haven’t even defined what it is. Do I learn more about a different perspective chatting with my Ukrainian neighbor, or from a guy brought up five miles from me who happens to be black? I’m not entirely sold that diversity is automatically good.

“Look, diversity is great when it comes to nightclubs, workplaces, cultural experiences, restaurants and all that. But I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.

“Now, put down the pitchfork. I don’t mean the superficial diversity of skin color. I mean diversity of values. That’s what I don’t want in my neighborhood, or my neighborhood school.


“I want uniformly boring neighbors with uniformly boring, middle-class values who spend Saturdays working on their lawns and whose kids know to stay off mine. I want neighbors with Home Depot on speed dial. That’s how I choose to live. Your mileage may vary. And isn’t that diversity, too?”

I agree with Garrison since I grew up in America with shared values, with love of country, with investment in my culture, language and neighbors. I refuse the moniker of hyphenated-American.

Hyphenated-Americans cannot pretend to be Americans because of their former countries take a position in front of this country. Iraqi-American? What’s that? Indonesian-American? Who’s that?

Do any of them know who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Joe DiMaggio, Susan B. Anthony and Mickey Mantle are? Doubtful most of them can even speak and read English.

Most do not share American values because their former cultures indented them with other loyalties counter to American society. We Americans, and soon, must stop unrelenting, massive and unending legal and illegal immigration before we fracture our culture into a seething, tenuous and incompatible ‘diverse’ mustard/strawberry/squash soup. Sounds terrible? Tastes worse!

We inject ourselves with more and unworkable ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, which doesn’t work, won’t work, and given enough time and population overload, degrades into civil confrontation. You can see it in race riots in Los Angeles schools today. You can see it with Americans moving out of Mexican strongholds in major cities. You can see it in daily rapes of 12 year old girls by Mexican immigrants (it’s normal in their culture), honor killings by Muslims here in America (two in the last week) and a dozen other examples. It proved unfair and unworkable to the Native Americans whom we invaded, it proves unfair and unworkable to the French who now stand in the crosshairs of cultural/linguistic destruction, and most other first world countries that allow unending incompatible immigration.

Finally, the world grows by 77 million annually. Most of those third world humans arrive into horribly miserable circumstances. Endless millions line up to immigrate into America. We cannot sustain unending millions of people added our country—environmentally or culturally, as well as food and water! If we do continue–out of the next added 100 million people into America in three decades—over 70 million will be from third world countries. Do you want that for your children?

At some point, those people, those cultures and those nations must be responsible to their citizens, their populations and their futures. They must value their lives, their families, their countries and their personal responsibilities—more than accelerating birth rates.

We cannot save the world, but we’re on a path that most assuredly will destroy the United States of America. Cultural suicide leads to national suicide. We’re well on our way!


Do liberals think they won’t be harmed by national suicide?

(Note: this long discussion moves beyond its opening topic to the question of the future of the West and the purpose of traditionalism.)Alex M. writes:


Thank you for this thought provoking thread, “Is it wrong for me to talk about race?” I’m relatively new to your site so you may have addressed this question before.Given the scenario you paint of a vanishing Western white race/culture–the cynical rationale of those on the left, and the state of denial of those on the right–what’s in it for leftists? Why would a people willingly, knowingly wish to commit suicide? Do the Clintons, Bushes, Blairs, and Wall Street Journal types, i.e. the elites of the world really think that their families will be spared the deluge in the long run?


LA replies:


This is one of the great mysteries, which we’ve discussed a lot: what is the left actually thinking? While I can’t put my hand on any previous posts on this subject at the moment (if anyone can, please point me to it), the short answer is that people on the left, including many “conservatives,” define society AS openness and tolerance, and place no value on the historic society as a society. As a result, they cannot even conceptualize the idea that excessive diversity can harm society.For a liberal, there are no frames of reference outside liberalism and its assumption of complete human equality. Therefore liberalism cannot be wrong, just as, for a Muslim, Islam cannot be wrong. I gave an example of this yesterday regarding Duke President Brodhead: even when he was apologizing for having been part of an ultra-liberal lynch mob, he could only conceive of the wrong he had done as a failure to be sufficiently liberal. In the same way, liberals can only conceive of any problem resulting from liberal immigration and diversity policies as resulting from a failure to be sufficiently liberal. If Muslims in the UK are increasing pro-terrorist, it’s because Britain is not being inclusive enough of Muslim concerns. If there are ethnic tensions resulting from mass immigration, it’s because of majority prejudice. If white and black co-workers are distant from each other, then (according to the NY Times in a notorious series on race relations a few years ago), it’s because of whites’ self-centered refusal to be honest with blacks about their feelings about race (not because the whites know that if they did speak frankly to their black co-workers about their feelings about race, particularly race preferences and racial double standards, they would lose their jobs).

The underlying idea is that the more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are. I first worked out this idea in my speech at the 1994 AR conference. Another way of expressing this idea is my First Law of Majority-Minority Relations. Also, here is a blog discussion from last July, “What would happen if liberals admitted that Muslims are unassimilable?”, that is relevant to this topic.

However, I haven’t yet addressed Alex’s real question: what happens when the social deterioration resulting from diversity continues and starts to harm the liberals themselves, and the liberals can no longer deny that this is happening or that it is going to happen? I invite readers to jump into the breach.

–end of initial entry–A flood of comments has arrived.

Simon N. writes from England:


To committed cultural Marxists, “saving us from Western civilisation” is presumably going to require the equivalent of economic Marxism’s “dictatorship of the Proletariat,” i.e. a period when the victim groups finally take power and purge us oppressors, prior to the eventual arrival of utopia. Another way of looking at this is that cultural Marxism actively seeks civilizational annihilation and harm to cultural Marxists themselves is necessary. If you consider the reaction of e.g. feminists to black on white rape, you see that harm to left-liberal (C-Mers) does not deter them.A more interesting question perhaps is how right-liberals like the editors of The Economist, neocons, “usual suspects” and others who do not avowedly seek the Death of the West will react as things progressively worsen. A few, like myself, may move into the paleoconservative camp–I know I’ve been pretty much forced to abandon my right-liberal mindset over the past couple of years. Others may gravitate towards cultural Marxism–I see this happening in the UK Conservative party currently. The Rockefeller Republicans like Bush seem to be looking forward to a sort of neo-feudalism where they, the white plutocratic elite, rule over a “browned” global society.


Mencius writes:


South Africa is an excellent case of this syndrome, because it is so advanced.See, for example, this article by Rian Malan. Or this one. Malan, at least for a liberal, seems to have an unusual attachment to reality. It’s probably worth rereading his excellent book on apartheid from the ’80s, My Traitor’s Heart. I guess he really was a traitor after all!

You’ve probably also read this by Anne Paton, Alan Paton’s widow. The message is: no matter how much destruction they cause, or even suffer personally, liberals will accept their fate as predestined. Of course this is because liberalism is a mutant version of Calvinism, but that’s another discussion.


Mike Berman writes:


The more liberal an individual is on the subject of race usually involves an inverse relationship to The Problem on a geographical basis. Residents of Great Neck will tell you they moved out there because they love to be surrounded by trees. They proudly proclaim that blacks are welcome to move into their community so long as they can afford a house there. In the cities liberals typically insulate themselves with doormen, chauffeurs and private schools. Wealth goes a long way in buying protection from the banana republic which they are creating as they benefit from the cheap labor.


Gintas J. writes:


After 40-plus years of liberalism in the face of social disintegration, the answer seems to be yes.Then you ask,

“What happens when the social deterioration resulting from diversity continues and starts to harm the liberals themselves, and the liberals can no longer deny that this is happening or that it is going to happen?”

What happens, and this is seen over the last 40 plus years, is that we get more liberalism, not less.



N. writes:


Short answer: “No, they don’t, because they don’t think.”Long answer: To the extent that liberals give any thought at all to long-term social/cultural issues (which appears to be a very rare thing), it is likely that they do not expect to suffer any harm from such an event. From the multiculturalist point of view, as you note, any bad outcomes from unlimited immigration must, must, be due to white racism. Since liberals do not believe themselves to be racist, they don’t expect to suffer from the evils of racism. Therefore they don’t expect to suffer any ill effects from, to pick one policy, mass immigration.

There is also an elitist angle. Rather a lot of modern liberals are above average in income, even wealthy. Thus they can afford to not live in neighborhoods crammed with people from, say, Chiapas. Also they can afford to live in places that are not even close to such neighborhoods. Therefore, they can feel they are safe from the ill effects of mass immigration (which, remember, are only the result of lingering white racism) by segregating not by race, but by income level. Since poor white people are by definition racist, when mass immigration displaces them from jobs, from neighborhoods, even from towns, liberals need not feel any sympathy for them, as they deserve what they got.

There is also a logical fallacy that all humans are prone to, but liberals in my experience perhaps more so than others, and that is “confirmation bias.” They expect mass immigration to lead to certain good things, such as more racial integration. So when, for example, a school goes from 90 percent white to 40 percent white, that is a “trend,” and liberals recognize & celebrate it. When a liberal is carjacked, or has their home invaded in a “hot” burglary by a gang of illegal aliens, that is an “isolated incident.” No matter how many bad things happen, they are always “isolated incidents.” Eventually, as we have seen in parts of California, the number of “isolated incidents” may rise so high as to cause liberals to move out of their house and go somewhere else. But based on conversations with emigres from California, this move is never, never because of the effects of mass immigration. It’s always something else, such as “pollution,” or “crowding,” or “to get to a better school for the kids.” The fact that every excuse really ties back to mass immigration cannot be even considered, because to the liberal mass immigration is always a good thing, a good “trend.”

I once asked a liberal friend of mine this question: “How many “isolated incidents” does it take to make a trend?.” He never really answered, and the question troubled him a bit, perhaps because it pointed to logical errors in his thinking. But it didn’t change his mind, or his way of thinking. I find this to be typical of liberals; for all their blather about “challenging premises” and “reconsidering ideas,” they do not want to actually reconsider their own fundamental notions. No, they want all the rest of us to “challenge ourselves” until we agree with them.

In conclusion, I expect liberals to engage in denial as long as possible, because they don’t expect to suffer any ill effects from the policies they are forcing on the rest of us. Why? Because those policies are liberal, and thus by definition “good things” that can only result in more “good things.” Of course, viewed this way, one finds liberalism is less of a political or philosophical point of view, and more like a religion, or cult …


Richard W. writes:


Here is my take:First off, for many of the real elite, the editors at the NY Times and TV network pundits, high priced consultants in Washington and captive Congress-kids, that day is very, very far off.

While even upper middle class professionals might notice things like more crime in their neighborhood, or realize they need to send their kids to a private school to avoid the multicultural crime factory that is the formerly nice public high school down the block, the real elite don’t suffer these problems.

I’m reminded that John and Theresa Heinz Kerry owned five or six houses, many estates on large pieces of land (far larger than even a successful professional can buy in most places where the liberal zoning czars they support have fully take control). With those types of “options,” living in those neighborhoods (or countries, not the popularity of Tuscany, Italy with the Hollywood and Washington axis), flying on private planes–it’s not likely that they are going to encounter diversity’s downside, unless they get a bad Thai meal at that cute place in town.

And if some of them do wake up they are likely to make big mistakes. I’m reminded that the entire neo-conservative movement owes its existence to the terrible wake up call that Communist true believers had when the full horror of Stalin was revealed.

Say what you will about the Neocons, the most amazing fact is that there are so few of them! That is that many liberals went on (and go on) ignoring the nose on their face. A close friend of my teenage daughter gave me this reply when I asked him about socialism: “well, it’s the best system invented, but it’s never been properly implemented.” This was in 2006, not 1976, though I heard the same exact answer in my high school, I am sure.

This, of course, was straight from his 11th grade Social Studies teacher. That this level of denial is an everyday occurrence on the left says that most will not admit what is happening when they are literally choking on it. It’s hard to believe. Rightists just won’t ignore all available facts forever, even if we’d like to.

But getting back to the neo-cons, they have made some simple correct observations (Communism is bad and must be defeated) (Islam is scary) but lacking the ability or desire to re-examine some of their basic axioms (state power can fix everything, smart guys know best and need to run things) take actions that are either ineffective or harmful.

Finally if it gets really bad the left will snap all the way to fascist ideology.

Of course all the historic fascists were exactly that: leftists and socialists who had become disenchanted as socialism failed to meet the excessive hopes and dreams they held for it. They jumped full bore into complete support for a visionary leader, one who was great at communicating to the people, and had a plan to fix things. They plan involved a lot of vilification of a minority that was easy to identify and punish. (That will be “corporations” , conservatives, and white men this time.)

I think they will follow this pattern again. More reasonable and thoughtful (real conservatives) might just say: the world is a hard place and not everyone can have a perfect life. It’s probably better that we don’t create an all powerful state to try. That never works out. Libs will never make this simple inference, and will harness the every-more-powerful state to deliver the updated, now-we’ve-got-it-right plan.

Essentially that is how Spain got Franco and Italy got Mussolini. Maybe Hillary really can make the trains run on time. What else do you want?


Ralph P. writes:


That’s easy. They will do what Brodhead did in his “apology.” They will act as if they were on the right side of the issue all along. They will chastise those that were for not having done enough and they will forget their own opposition.If they are among minorities, uh, majorities they will appease and bow their head and go headlong into Stockholm Syndrome, at least as long as they last, which won’t be much. A few will confront what they’d done and find their spine.

More will commit suicide, as it will all be too much for their poorly developed personalities. They will all be deeply shocked. The whole bunch of them will go through the five stages of grief:

Denial. The stage they’re in now.

Anger. First reflexively towards their own but when reality hits them then at themselves and finally at the people responsible and last of all at non whites.

Bargaining. Dhimmitude, either towards the newly vitalized whites if they live with us or towards their non-white captors if they don’t.

Depression: They will not take part in the defense but go sulk in their rooms until it’s all over. Perhaps they will develop some form of gratitude for those that took part but more likely they will be silently resentful of them for revealing to them their own cowardice.

Acceptance: Probably only a few will come to true adult realization. The rest will fake it.


John Savage writes:


The short answer to Alex’s question is: Most likely the elites, at least in America, won’t particularly suffer, and that’s because the future generations of their families won’t be white.Alex might want to read this article from VDare about the way that Bush already conceives of his family as largely Mexican.

Whether the British leaders can do the same thing, given the nature of Islam, is more doubtful, but I’d guess they imagine they can. (Since they have not the slightest understanding of the “Religion of Peace,” of course!)


SR writes from England:


In an article entitled “Secularism and Islam” which appeared on the New English Review website in February 2006 and again in April of 2007 Rebecca Bynum put forth the idea that it is the refusal to countenance anything transcendent that made the Liberal/Left mindset impervious to danger and therefore the need to defend civilization. She had this to say:According to modern secularism however, man himself has become the measure of all things and his reasoning power alone is thought to be sufficient in determining good and evil. Religion, when it is considered at all is assumed to consist of interchangeable, comforting fairy tales essentially based on man’s own “inherent” goodness. The transcendental, far from being independent, is though to be completely dependent upon man’s own sensibilities and judgement … …The only comfort derived from religion is the thought that no one really believes it anyway. All believers are the enemy. Morality is thought, at best, to be the expression as some underlying hypocrisy. By the light of this secularist viewpoint too, we draw comfort by imagining ourselves at the pinnacle of human striving and also by imagining that progress is inevitable. Thus we feel under no obligation to protect civilization, much less to define it in terms of transcendent value.

Later on in the article she comments that:

For as moderate Muslims and secularists learn the truth about Islam’s bloody doctrine and history, they must each individually make a moral decision concerning their status as Muslims or secularists, and this they wish to avoid at all costs. Secularists mistakenly view division itself as evil and so they work to minimize difference with a smooth coat of “we are the world” sentimentality. In the absence of truth there is no necessity for division; therefore truth itself becomes the enemy and secularists unwittingly become the emotional defenders of lies.

Because the left/liberal mindset regards division itself as evil, and because their very identity is based on the idea of themselves as “good” people–(in my experience the inability to believe consciously in any kind of transcendent reality doesn’t negate the need to believe in some kind of transcendent reality–they unconsciously find some kind of substitute religiousity, in things like in environmentalism or art) . Therefore they don’t even know that they are behaving suicidily.

In my experience, and I work with such people, they are usually not really very intelligent –even if they have reasonably high IQ–they lack the organs of perception when it comes to any kind of transcendent truth. And even when they do good things, they do them for the wrong reasons but are stunningly unaware of it.

They will only wake up when the Islamists are at the door brandishing cutlasses and then it will be too late.


David B. writes:


Some years ago, I had a co-worker from the Boston area named Steve. Steve was a right-winger. Like most people I have met from Massachusetts, he was rather politically minded. The others were liberals, however.I asked him this very question. Steve answered, “They think it will never touch them.” He said that Massachusetts liberals will continue to be for “integration” and “diversity,” while keeping themselves and their families insulated from it. Steve insisted that liberals are oblivious to the danger they would face in the long run from their own policies.


Kristor L. writes:


You know what they say: a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Only when they begin to feel pain will people begin to question their fantasies, which have been allowed to perdure for so long by the enormous surpluses of wealth and security conferred upon us by the civilization we have inherited. Those surpluses have made it a lot easier to live life while pretending that things are nicer than they really are.Paradoxically, the softness of Western middle class existence has also made us more tentative and fearful; scared of alar, market corrections, global warming. That’s why the popular magazines always have an item on the cover about health scares.

What will happen? People are shocked when tragedy strikes, but it brings out their nobility. Once the West finally awoke to the dangers of the Nazis and the Japanese, we were terrible adversaries. I feel sure that we will again be able thus to rise to the demands of the historical moment. Fortunately, our adversaries this time are quite weak, as compared with those we faced in the last three world wars (who all shared most of the virtues of our civilization). The first, easiest and most efficacious thing we need to do, in order to quash our adversaries this time, is stop writing them checks (nothing like income you didn’t earn to accommodate insane fantasy). Once that happens, they’ll start to collapse from within pretty fast.

The thing to remember is that both liberalism and Islam are based on propositions about reality that are simply false. Take away the cushion provided by money, and their illusory world view will quickly collapse, and they will flip quickly to something else. Look then for Muslims to consider apostasy, and liberals too. Our job right now is to provide the philosophical framework that will make Christianity and traditionalism, respectively, seem like the most reasonable course for them. Once they convert to a truly reality-based paradigm, their fervor will outmatch ours; this is what generally happens with converts. That’s why this moment of great danger for the West is also a chance to rejuvenate it, and open an even greater chapter in its history.


Terry Morris writes:


Wow! What a great thread on “Do liberals think they won’t be harmed by national suicide.” I have to put some reflection to the question, but it seems that the unprincipled exception might give us a little insight into what might be the final result. Speaking of which, have you ever heard of a phobia called “truthophobia?” Perhaps I coined the term this morning in my blog post.


Michael B. writes from Sweden:


The reason liberals appear so clueless is that they don’t care. They don’t have to care. They have never been taught to care. Or take responsibility for their actions or ideas. The silent, understated understanding between liberals, is the fact that words don’t have to be factual or reality-based. Slogans, proper cliches, and proper posing is far more important. Because liberalism is not about facts. It’s about emotions. It’s about feeling something, anything. One of the basic paradigms of the modern liberal mindset is “it’s always someone else’s fault.” We are watching the mentality of never, ever, having to take responsibility for one’s own ideas, values, actions, and ultimately, life. That also explains one of the basic motivations behind what is happening to modern society and why were are increasingly living in an age of irrationality. An age of unaccountability.Much in the same manner as the stereotypical global capitalist “robber baron” who moves from country to country when the going gets tough, so does the liberal move to another neighborhood, another town, or another part of the country when faced with uncomfortable consequences of his or her own ideas. The liberal never owns up to his own delusions. If that were to happen, he would of course cease to be a modern liberal. Unaccountability is an integral part of modern liberalism and multiculturalism–the two ideologies make up the state-sponsored religion of our time: cultural Marxism.

What is driving all those relativistic notions and delusions about culture, races, nations and religions is the liberals’ own ignorance of, and distance to, these topics. What is the cause of this ignorance? It is the liberals themselves: Well-off, middle-class Westerners ridden with guilt and noblesse oblige, sheltered in cozy white neighborhood areas, far removed from the shadier parts of town. Young liberal middle class girl with fantasies of noble savages coming to rescue her from herself and all her inherited self-loathing. This is probably where the theatrical and disingenuous part of modern liberalism takes hold. Everything around this little girl, from TV to news papers feeds and reinforces this cultural psychosis. An environment such as this is the perfect petri dish for cultivating modern liberalism–high flying ideals, far removed from reality, far removed from her own experience. Because that is part of the paradigm: hypocrisy is an integral, unstated part of the liberal experience–you say one thing and do another. The liberal never has to interact with these cultures, races, nations and religions for any length of time, in their own environment, free from the liberal shelter of white majority. Had they faced these different variables in their own natural environment why would, of course, not have these liberal notions, but would instead have a much more realistic, and critical stance, towards non-Western cultural and racial manifestations. Statistics seem to bear this out: The more a working class white is exposed to non-white, non-Western majority cultures, they quickly stop being cultural relativists and start espousing Western values and cultures. We see this over and over again, when well-meaning liberals move into minority neighborhoods. They either get the hell out quickly or, if self-hating and clueless enough, actually assimilate into the minority culture. The ones who actually face the reality of the ghettos quickly become conscious of the need for Western cultural homogeneity in Western societies.

So hypocrisy is the engine that drives the psychological need for overcompensating, by striving even harder for ever more insane ideas. It’s a never-ending attempt to escape one’s own guilt of what the liberal is truly feeling. One could therefore view the modern liberals’ frenetic defense of vague, non-specific concepts and buzzwords such as “pluralism,” “openness” and “tolerance” as psychological reactions to their biggest underlying fears–fears of their own inherent biases towards their own culture and race. The more they sense this creeping bias, the more they will try to overreact, overcompensate, reach out. Anything to avoid admitting the truth, to the outside and to oneself. That is the big taboo. In other words, we are watching a typical totalitarian reaction to the foundations of human nature. In that sense, part of the liberals’ psychological makeup is fear and hatred towards one’s own humanity.

At the heart of it all, the modern liberal is based on never having to say you’re sorry, never having to take responsibility. The ideological core of modern left-liberalism is a deeply contrarian behaviour: Whereas traditional conservatism is a fight FOR something, the liberal finds his of her raison d’être in the fight AGAINST something–against anything and everything. Against anything that gives the majority culture pride and tradition. And this is why facts and arguments don’t matter. This is why liberals are never happy. Their world-view is simply based on pure, unadulterated, emotion-based contrarianism. Logic has no place in that kind of environment. This is where we start to see the silhouette of the metaphorical child in liberalism: it reveals a deep distrust, if not actual hate, of adulthood, maturity, and ultimately–knowledge itself. I refer to this as the great contrarian trap of liberalism: not only is the liberal fighting against his own nation and culture, ultimately the liberal is fighting against himself.

John B. writes:

This discussion has reminded me of the little-remarked fact that the ex-wife of F.W. de Klerk was murdered in 2001 by a black security guard at her Cape-Town-area apartment building. When informed of the killing, de Klerk himself was in Stockholm, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he and Nelson Mandela shared in 1993 for ending apartheid.


“Ex-Wife of De Klerk Murdered: S. African Police” (Includes spokesman’s statement that South African President Thabo Mbeki learned with “great shock” of the “untimely death.”);

“Guard confesses to de Klerk murder” (includes de Klerk’s statement that, “We, as a country, are being damaged by every murder. No one murder is more serious than the other. The one on my former wife, Marika [sic], however … sends out such a negative, damaging message.” Also includes pathologist’s report that Marike de Klerk had been hit in the face at least twice, stabbed in the back, and strangled to death.);

“Security guard guilty of killing De Klerk’s ex-wife”;

“Marike killer may face life behind bars” (Includes photo of the killer, Luyanda Mboniswa.);

“De Klerk’s Ex-Wife Found Slain in Apartment Near Cape Town”.

Nobel Peace Prize, 1993.


Alan Levine writes:


I think your explanation that present-day liberals can no longer even conceptualize outside the liberal framework has much to be said for it. Many do not see the deluge, or rather think that it is not a deluge, or at most there are some unfortunate temporary byproducts of what is Basically A Good Thing. The way in which many Communists and Nazis brushed off various aspects of their respective new orders is not dissimilar.However, you have omitted a point to which you have frequently adverted to in the past, namely, the disarming effects of the inculcation of a general guilt complex, which leaves them feeling (I do not think this is formulated on a conscious level) that they have no right to defend themselves or their society and perhaps more clearly experienced, thinking that the past and even the “reformed” present of Western society are not worth defending. Another point which helps explain their inability to think “outside the box” is simply the overwhelming bias of the MSM, which is pretty good at fulfilling Dr. Goebbels’ ideal of propaganda, i.e., keep things simple and never allow anything like an actual argument with the adversary..

Re the comments of Simon and Mike: the problem is not explaining the liberal views of the elite (or rather, that is a problem but a specialized one) but explaining the verifiable fact that most liberals and leftists are not elite and are not insulated by distance or money.

Further, my own observations are that, at least in NYC, it is questionable whether non-elite liberals actually LIKE immigration, or for that matter, affirmative action, truckling to ethnic group whiners like al Sharpton, etc. Rather, they think (I am using the word loosely), again, that they really have no right to oppose these things, or doing so will cause them to fall into the hands of agents of darkness, etc.

I think it is true, as N. says, that most of these people cannot think, but then, as a teacher and historian I have increasingly wondered whether many people think.

Re Kristor’s remarks: Most fascist leaders were not ex-Communists or socialists. Mussolini, Moseley and Doriot were, but most were men of the right–not conservatives to be sure, but men of the hard right.


Alan Roebuck writes:


You asked… what happens when the social deterioration resulting from diversity continues and starts to harm the liberals themselves, and the liberals can no longer deny that this is happening or that it is going to happen?

It is useful here to distinguish between leftists (i.e., consistent liberals) and ordinary liberals. The leftists are aware that the goal of liberalism is the destruction of America as it has been, and its replacement by something radically different. They have faith that the process of change they have unleashed will result in an improvement so when they observe something bad that their liberalism has caused, they attribute it to other factors, chiefly conservatism. They have confidence that when conservatism is finally eliminated as a significant force, then all problems will be manageable. And since conservatism (i.e., the correct view of reality) will never be entirely eliminated as a significant force in public life, they will always be able to deflect blame for any catastrophe away from their worldview.

The (moderate) liberals are different. Although they understand things generally through the lens of liberalism, they are usually not aware of exactly what liberalism is, so they fail to grasp how radical it really is. They think that their position is nothing but common sense and common decency. They probably have a vague sense that somewhere, wise people have validated the liberal program, but in their ordinary thinking they simply take it for granted that their positions are true and good.

Therefore a significant number of non-leftist liberals can be reached with the gospel of traditionalism, if we can articulate a persuasive alternative to their liberalism, and if some sort of undeniable catastrophe gives them reason to doubt their worldview. But as social deterioration worsens, non-leftist liberals (and an occasional leftist with integrity) will begin to doubt liberalism only if they hear people articulate a persuasive non-leftist worldview. Otherwise they will blame society’s troubles on those who do not share their liberal worldview, or, in the best case, they will simply see a mysterious catastrophe about which nothing can be done.

This is not to say that all, or even most, liberals will begin to doubt liberalism under the above conditions. When challenged to clarify their worldview, some liberals will decide to become consistent leftists and some will refuse to think at all, continuing in their soft-headed liberalism.


LA writes:


I realize the open-ended nature of my question invited long-ish replies, so I’ve posted a bunch of comments that are a bit longer than I would normally prefer. However, I ask commenters to remember that this is a discussion, and those extra few minutes of effort that it takes to condense a comment to fewer words will greatly improve its readability for others.


Ian writes:


From my socializing within alternative circles in the San Francisco Bay Area, I have met a number of Chomsky-reading, androgynous-acting, degree-in-the-humanities-having uber-left-wingers who do indeed live among violent minorities, for example in artists’ warehouses in the black parts of Oakland. And many of these folks indeed have been mugged, otherwise violently attacked, or at least verbally harassed for being white.A few seem to have a level of self-respect where such incidents bring anger to them. These folks will resist their attackers, and speak ill of them later. Most victims, however, seem to empathize with their attackers. These crime victims view the wallet they gave over as a sort of privilege tax (while wishing, of course, that a more wealthy white, one more “deserving” of a mugging, would have been the one attacked). I’ve heard such people say concerning their mugging and beating, “I’d feel that way, and do the same thing, if I was black.”

It’s like the wounds of their childhood, such as stern admonishments from a Republican father, or getting beat up in junior high school by the football player who later went on to run the local Hummer dealership, or simply being unpopular or different in school, still live on as a seething anger towards mainstream society. Their childhood created an emotionally-fueled world-view of right and wrong (and white, male, capitalist, Christian, heterosexual society is always wrong) that no adult experience can overturn.

This of course leads to bizarre twists of logic, as Lawrence has pointed out for years, where minority attacks on whites are evidence not of the moral wrongness of minorities’ actions, but somehow for the moral wrongness of whites, for of course having done “something” to deserve these attacks. The 9/11 attacks, Robert Fisk getting beaten along the road in Pakistan, black gangsters firing at rescue helicopters post-Katrina, the Jenna Six beatings–one would think that these ugly acts of violence would wake folks up, and be a challenge to the simple narrative of minority victims and white villains. But, no, even those event get bizarrely twisted by lefties to torturously fit the simple narrative of the race-Marxism catechism.

I also think that plenty of white people benefit from, and perhaps enjoy, the practice of minority physical violence on other whites. It is my impression for example that the elite Government/corporate/media power structure uses minority violence to keep mainstream whites in line. The unspoken warning is, don’t commit a felony, or you’ll end up in jail, and don’t skip out on your office job, or you’ll end up living near the projects. Keep in line and do what we tell you, or you’re gonna get it.

Similarly, the culture-hating left has plenty of their own uses for minority violence. Many angry, revolutionary types enjoy black and brown thugs as bringing the muscle against police, businessmen, etc, which is muscle that spectacle-wearing, book-reading white radicals lack. The thinking seems to be: if a few Marxists get mugged in the process, it can’t be helped, but at least those thug-muggers are “on the same side” in a bifurcated, polarized society.


John Hagan writes:


I always liked Steve Sailer’s take on this issue He has often remarked on the toxic mix of irrational liberal hatred of conservatives, and the moral preening liberals engage in concerning how much better “they” supposedly treat minorities. I don’t think that it’s too far-fetched to say that many liberals hate George W. Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden !Liberals are fixated on exposing the racism that they are sure dwells deep in the hearts of all conservatives. Of course in real life…. they live as far away from minorities as they can possibly get. The liberal kingdom of Vermont comes to mind off-hand.

The liberal elite are playing a perverted game of social status, or one-upmanship with conservatives using minorities, and immigrants as status symbols, moving them around like chess pieces to try and humiliate, and destroy their fellow citizens. The fact that they will perish too seems to be a price that they are willing to pay.


Mark J. writes:


This is a long comment but take it for what it’s worth, if you have time.As “Mencius” said, we can look at the behavior of white South African liberals to see how our own will react as liberalism destroys society.

They’ll be increasingly depressed by events that run counter to their hopes for a peaceful multiracial society, just as South African author Rian Malah was “cast into abject gloom” by news that the UN selected Zimbabwe to be in charge of “Sustainable Development.” Time and again they will be disappointed by the actions of the non-white leaders with whom they had envisioned building a mulitracial society.

Their prescriptions will increasingly be only limp platitudes like Anne Paton’s: “I see only one hope for our country, and that is when white men and black men, desiring neither power nor money, but desiring only the good of their country, come together to work for it.” Liberals will sense that more government spending and more exhortations for people to “come together” don’t work, but lacking any other ideas, like Paton, they’ll retreat into vagueness.

Their attitude towards their own race will be contemptuous. Like Malah, white liberals will dismiss White people’s complaints as “whining” and “groaning” and say that “whites are finished.”

They’ll become increasingly cynical, defeatist, and apathetic when they realize that their vision of the Good is unworkable or mistaken. They’ll withdraw and won’t want to talk about it, like the South African anti-apartheid writer (I’ve forgotten his name) who not long ago abandoned the country to move to Australia, and when asked why responded that it was a private matter and no one else’s business.

And like the South African, they will move somewhere else as long as they can.

When they can no longer leave many will be willing to work as white cogs in the non-white governing machine. Demoralized, their hopes for a multiracial utopia now dashed, they will be like the East Germans under communism: resigned, morosely going along to try to survive. There will be abundant alcoholism, drug use, and other forms of destructive escapism. They will be the ones willing to keep the dysfunctional society creaking along by working as lickspittle second-class citizens in key skilled positions that non-whites just can’t fill in sufficient numbers. And some will do their quisling work with relish, persecuting whites like ourselves out of a sense of misdirected anger and hopelessness.

Before a liberal could come over to our side and begin to feel hopeful and strong and able to fight for his survival again, he would have to realize that it is not immoral to identify with one’s own people and want to see them flourish. That is the watershed realization, and it is the opposite of liberals’ core belief in “inclusiveness.” I believe that means that only people who are still intellectually flexible will be able to abandon their liberalism; mainly, younger people.

I pointed out recently to an elderly, life-long Democrat that if the trend continues, whites will become a minority and be victimized by a non-white government. She acknowledged that she doesn’t want to see whites become the minority, but said that she just can’t vote for a Republican because they want to make abortions illegal and jam their fundamentalist religion down everyone’s throats. I pointed out that compared to becoming a minority in our own country these things were trivial. She didn’t have an answer to that, but I could see she wasn’t convinced. She has despised Republicans for so long–60 or 70 years–for what she perceives as their Holy Roller, big-business immorality that she can’t yet bring herself to prefer Republicans over anything, even non-white rule.

Older liberals like her will probably never get past cynicism and resignation. Our hopes will lie largely with the younger half of the white population who are not yet cemented by long habit into liberalism and who have their lives ahead of them and want to raise children and make their dreams come true. They will come to see that they can’t afford liberalism if they want those things. I think it’s already happening among a growing share of young whites. I know someone who has mestizo children in an Arizona school district who says that the level of racial tension between whites and mestizos in those schools is incredible and that the white children are quite vocal and assertive in their racial identities despite the efforts of the school district to brainwash them otherwise. Her mestizo children prefer to live in the Great Plains among an almost entirely white population rather than live in the mixed-race SouthWest where the tensions are so high. So I think that while the 60’s generation of liberals is mostly never going to change, we will be pleasantly surprised by the gumption of the young who aren’t resigned to losing their identities and being persecuted in their own country.


Sean R. writes:


I think I have a few insights into this.First of all, liberals simply refuse to think about the consequences of their policies. If you read their blogs and news outlets, they never talk about where this country will be in ten, twenty, fifty years. If you ask them directly, they will usually either call you a racist or try to change the subject. Either way, they show extreme distaste for the issue.

Second, this begs the question–will they, in fact, be harmed by national suicide? Probably not. Liberal policies will lead to a white and Asian elite, maybe mixed together, maybe parallel to each other, ruling over a mostly brown underclass (although there will still be a significant non-elite white minority). That’s the same situation that every Latin American country has had since the Spanish conquest, and it’s been pretty stable there. Occasionally a mostly-white upper class gets its comeuppance, like the Cubans after the revolution, but the majority of elite whites south of the border have done well. As for the non-financially-elite liberals, they aren’t very vulnerable to the depredations of diversity. Children are the most vulnerable segment of society, since they’re forced to interact other children they wouldn’t otherwise associate with, they don’t have cars, and they tend to be more violent with each other than adults. Since non-elite liberals tend to be childless, that’s not their problem. Crime will increase as society transforms, but we have a long way to go before it doesn’t seem like some horrible thing that always happens to other people to they typical childless hipster. Probably such a long time that today’s adults won’t live to see it. And since they are childless, they don’t have much of a reason to care about the future beyond their own lifespan.

The importance of the divide between parents and childless adults is probably much bigger than you would think, based on how little attention is paid to it. I was a typical liberal before my son was born. The first shocker that helped wake me up was realizing that my son was the only white baby in the neonatal unit. Within a couple of years, I had made a 180 degree turn. I doubt that would of happened if my son hadn’t been born.


LA writes to Alex M.:


Do you see what your innocent question has triggered? My gosh, it’s too much even for me to take in.


Alex M. replies:


Thank you for indulging my query, and thank you for permitting all the well thought out, if longish replies.Here’s another twist: As a naturalized American who came here from Ecuador at age four, did all my schooling here, married a lovely WASP girl, and produced two gorgeous kids, I see myself as culturally white and Western. I detest hyphenated Americans and think back longingly on those days of my childhood on Long Island when we referred to each other as “Italians” “Irish” “Germans” without the need to iterate our common identities as Americans. It irritates me no end that the liberal reductionism formula is now that I’m either an “assimilated” Hispanic (bad) or a card-carrying Ecuadorian-American (double plus good). My parents left the s__thole of Guayaquil for a good reason, and I’ve no desire to return to the lawlessness, shiftlessness, and hopelessness of that environment. As Mark J. relates, I too am much more comfortable among God-fearing white people of the Great Plains than in any Latino neighborhood.

I am invested in the survival of Western civilization and by extension the survival of the white race which made it possible. I wholeheartedly agree with your thesis that the two are inseparable.


LA replies:


Thank you for seeing this. You’ve made my day.


Hannon writes:


Another great thread. You are fortunate to have attracted so many brilliant minds who freely give of their thoughts and time. I appreciate their efforts and yours.Having adopted your view that thought and clever analysis are not enough, that we must improvise modes of action, I found this excerpt from Alan Roebuck to be especially cogent:

“But as social deterioration worsens, non-leftist liberals (and an occasional leftist with integrity) will begin to doubt liberalism only if they hear people articulate a persuasive non-leftist worldview. Otherwise they will blame society’s troubles on those who do not share their liberal worldview, or, in the best case, they will simply see a mysterious catastrophe about which nothing can be done.” [emphasis mine.]

There can be no doubt that having a conservative foundation, something more unified than what we have now, in place to counter social decline is of paramount importance. It is likewise essential to have a known, traditional philosophy established during any period of history. For me this brings a new and heartening dimension to conservatism–working to establish its ready usefulness and giving it a greater purpose, beyond seeing it only as the defining ingredients of a particular worldview.


LA replies:


Hannon, following up on Alan Roebuck’s point, has articulated something very important here. What is the purpose of traditionalism? It is not just to provide a critique of liberalism, though it is that. It is not just to provide us with a basis for personal and spiritual resistance to the prevailing liberal order, though it is that. It is to provide the governing philosophy for a post-liberal Western social order. Therefore the long-term task of traditionalists is to build up such a philosophy and make it an active and living part of society.Quite a tall order, for a bunch of bloggers and essayists with no institutions, influence, political skills, or anything. But we have no choice but to start from where we are. There are certain things that we know to be true. We know that the reign of liberalism is destroying the West, and we know that the reign of liberalism cannot survive. Something must ultimately replace it. What will that something be? Multicultural distintegration? Leftist tyranny? Muslim tyanny? Neocon global democratism? Some combination of the above? Don’t like any of those choices? How about a renewed Western/Christian social order? That’s something worth striving for–both for us and for those who come after us.


Kristor L. writes:


Chiming in again to second Alan Roebuck. The key thing for us to do right now–and also, unfortunately, almost the only thing we can do–is to articulate an adequate, compelling and attractive traditionalist philosophical perspective that is ready and waiting for disillusioned non-leftist liberals to slide into, once they begin to second-guess their native liberal dogmas. Given how hard it has been for me to arrive at traditionalism myself, given how much work I have had to do, how many basic assumptions I have had so painfully and fearfully to question, I think our work is cut out for us. So also for Christianity. I thought for the longest time that Christianity was the boring old normal religion, and stuff like Buddhism was so much more sophisticated and cool. And I was raised a reflective Christian! It was such an amazing thing to discover that Christianity is the weirdest, most magical, philosophically sophisticated thing out there. It was like the scales falling from my eyes to understand at last that the “sophisticated” critics of Christianity I once so much admired were really only ignorant Sophists. We have a lot of work to do, refining our polemic, and making it available to the wider culture.To second also Michael B. from Sweden’s profound analysis: He says, “This is where we start to see the … metaphorical child in liberalism: it reveals a deep distrust, if not actual hate, of adulthood, maturity, and ultimately–knowledge itself. I refer to this as the great contrarian trap of liberalism: not only is the liberal fighting against his own nation and culture, ultimately the liberal is fighting against himself.” Amen. This prompted a recollection of something that occurred to me the other day while ruminating over a VFR item in which Lawrence talked about the liberal rejection of the European People, of the Western physiological inheritance: The liberal attempt to deracinate the liberal idea is in effect to disembody it. No idea–no idea whatsoever–can exist sui generis. This is a metaphysical, a necessary truth. Ideas can’t have themselves. The only way ideas can exist in any way at all is if they are embodied in concrete entities. The West, including the nexus of memes known as liberalism, is the product of millennia of work performed by, and suffering endured by, particular human bodies, with particular characteristics, and coping with particular environmental challenges and historical inheritances. The West is the fruit of a titanic struggle for survival undertaken by a particular group of peoples. It survives only in and through the bodies of their children. The West is as much a physiological inheritance of Europeans as it is a cultural inheritance. NB that cultures cannot exist sui generis any more than ideas can, but exist at all only insofar as they are expressed in particular concrete human bodies and their experiences. Thus if there are someday no more Europeans, there will then be no more West. Not as we have known it, anyway. So Michael B is onto something important when he notes that “ultimately the liberal is fighting against himself.” Indeed: he is at war with his own body, and with those of his children. So infanticide seems to him not unreasonable.

But note also that this war of the liberal with the facts of his own body, and with his love for his children, is liberalism’s great weakness.


Kristor L. continues:


A further thought: the liberal war with the body, and with the evil and tragedy inherent in creaturely existence, is essentially Gnostic. It involves a rejection of the world as it actually is, in favor of an imagined perfect existence. So liberals such as I once was are repelled by Christianity, and attracted to religions that abhor the body and the material world, such as Buddhism, etc.And, finally, the body of the liberal, and his love for his children, are the last redoubt of his sanity. They are the source of the exceptions he makes to his principles, such as living in gated communities and sending his kids to private school.


Kristor writes:


Man, what a fantastic thread. It is so, so right that we need to start building a positive, attractive, thrilling vision of a post-post-modern traditionalist society, with a coherent, elegant philosophical underpinning. It’s not enough to carp about Liberalism. That can only be the prolegomena to the real work.


George writes:


I agree with Alan Roebuck.We must distinguish between ordinary, middle class white liberals, and the 200 proof, die hard left leadership, in the same way we should distinguish between right liberal leaders like Limbaugh and the Republican rank and file. The left middle class and the hard left are two linked, but distinct, entities.

Most ordinary white liberals support liberalism without having a deep understanding of what the true implications of their ideology are. These are potential recruits to traditionalism as our crisis deepens, and perhaps reaches a climax.

Re the true hard left, most of them are like Lenin, evil but still operating under the assumption that what they are doing is good. Like Lenin, they can’t believe that they are wrong, just as you said, they assume liberalism is true in the same way Muslims take it for granted that Islam is true. They cannot imagine a different world view, and so they don’t.


Mark P. writes:


I loved the particular thread on liberals and national suicide. Most of the entries are good summaries of the psychological/fantastical/hypocritical elements of liberals that portray them as either retarded, naive, stupid or evil. While I agree with all of these assessments, here’s my own. Liberals are the way they are because conservatives made them that way. The conservative took the role of the proverbial liberal parent and adopted a laissez-faire, over-indulgent approach to child-rearing (yes, liberals are children). The liberal, now matured into a head-strong teenager, is more incorrigible than ever and considerably more dangerous.Much is written about the liberal never understanding consequences. But how will the liberal ever understand consequences if he is constantly bailed out? Lawrence, you write extensively about the magical moment when, one day, the liberal turns on the “unprincipled exception” to extricate himself from the mess he creates. I got news for you … that will never happen because the “unprincipled exception” is the very conservative establishment that happens to exist today. It is they who enable the liberals. [LA replies: Yes, this is right out of Atlas Shrugged. It's the heros of the story, Dagny and Rearden, the productive ones, who, in their loyalty to the society, keep bailing out the statist parasites, and it's the heros' finally realizing that this is what they have been doing that is the key turning point in the novel.]

9/11 is the perfect example of the conservative liberal-enabling phenomenon. In the cyclical, national-security “off-season” before 9/11, the liberal was in full force with his various projects. We got the usual hyphenated Americanism, the anti-white bias, the “diversity” nonsense, the popular propaganda about conspiracies and cover-ups, and the never-ending lambasting of the Southerner as the in-bred, ignorant redneck. Heck, a vibrant, conservative literature (really, the proverbial parenting cry sessions about why Johnny is what he is) coolly documented all of this.

When 9/11 came along, an important teaching opportunity was lost. In its place, the liberal parents swept in to clean things up. The hyphenated Americanism project was cast aside for the brand-spanking new “We are all Americans” coloring book. The alien abduction/JFK conspiracy DVD’s were put away and replaced with the Al Qaeda learning tapes. And the redneck was picked up off the ground, dusted off and repackaged as The Greatest American since the Greatest Generation, to be cannon fodder in a “Make America Safe for Liberalism” war.

Had I been president in 2001, with my sense of pride and my knowledge of history intact, I would’ve given New York City the finger, told them that they should learn to appreciate “diversity,” and sternly remind them that if they don’t like it, they can leave … preferably to Canada, like many of them promised.

In exchange for being vilified by the Pravda on the Hudson or ending up on one of David Letterman’s top ten lists, I would’ve gladly spent the next 100 days at Fort Bening educating American soldiers about the liberal portrayal of their people and communities since Deliverance.

As long as conservatives keep bailing the liberals out, these problems will continue.


Ben W. writes:


Quite a few excellent posts and analysis regarding this question.So now that history has taken this leftward turn, is it possible that certain societies and governments that are now disparaged were in fact right? E.g. the pre-civil war American south, the colonial imperialist British administrations of the 19th century, the apartheid government of South Africa. Is it possible these administrations knew something about tribal social reality and acted in a way to ensure civilized order and contain the reversion to violence and savagery? Gone with the wind, eh?


Ralph P. writes:


To second (or third, by now) what Hannon has said about the primary role of traditionalism it has been my personal experience that the distortions of these times has actually strengthened and refined my understanding and identity with my Western roots. I was never a liberal except on a very few issues like environmentalism, in which case it was because I had not been forced to think the thing out. I basically took my heritage for granted and, not being a professional scholar would have been content to just live in it peacefully. But when my Queens neighborhood was destroyed by third-worlders it snapped me into actually considering in detail what was being lost. A side effect, for example, was that I began rereading and relistening to the classics, which I might not have done otherwise. If we survive this (and I am hopeful) then it will be salutary long term.Kristol L.’s experience with Christianity has also been mine. He writes: “A further thought: the liberal war with the body, and with the evil and tragedy inherent in creaturely existence, is essentially Gnostic.” This is absolutely correct and I could only appreciate this after I had dated a white woman who was a disciple of a Hindu guru, been repulsed by it, had gone onto read much about Buddhism, was not repulsed but unconvinced and finally onto reading Christian history and philosophy. Then I understood that there were profound reasons for Gnosticism and Manicheanism having been declared heresy. The fact that modern liberalism is both Gnostic and Manichean in nature only points up for me the truth of my own faith, having had to suffer as I did the consequences of these ancient errors. My Catholic upbringing had stood up after all.


Alan Levine writes:


A further comment on why liberals think they won’t be harmed by national suicide:I was particularly impressed by Ian’s and Sean R’s comments. I believe they brought out something I failed to do, namely the psychopathic elements in liberalism, though Sean R. did not, I think, quite absorb the implications of what he himself said, as though he could not appreciate how irrational the impulses of liberals are.

After all, what could be more insane than wanting to turn the United States into a society like those of Latin America?


Kristor L. writes:


Alan Roebuck has been talking about this for some time now, and I just haven’t been getting it, until last night when I read his comment shortly after writing my first of the thread, which must have put me in the right frame of mind to understand him. He’s absolutely right. If all we do is whine about liberalism, how attractive can we possibly be as exponents of traditionalism? Don’t get me wrong, I learn a lot from dissecting liberalism–after all, in doing so, I’m dissecting myself. Tricky, no? But taking apart the broken machine is just the first step to putting it back together again, so that it works properly.You note that articulating this happy, hopeful aspect of the traditionalist polemic–its positive proposal, as distinguished from its withering critique–is an ambitious project for a gaggle of bloggers and essayists. True. But that’s what Paine, Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson were, when they got started. So it can be done.


[This web page has reached its maximum size. Discussion continues here.]



Fort Hood jihad shooter from by Robert Locust: its Us or them, pick a side.

November 5, 2009

CAIR has been working overtime (they’re quoted in this article also), and the “Muslims fear backlash” victimhood machine is in high gear. No one, of course, is questioning whether there might be any connection between this man’s devoutly held Islam and the massacre today. After all, how could there be any such connection? Islam is a Religion of Peace™!

“Massacre Leaves 12 Dead At Fort Hood,” by Kevin Whitelaw for NPR, November 5 (thanks to Axel):

[...] The motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said….

Nothing can be made clear to those who do not wish to see.

A source tells NPR’s Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.

And the talking heads are saying how good it is that he is alive, as it will provide an opportunity for him to be questioned about why he did this. Jihad? Pah! “Army: Ft. Hood suspect still alive,” from WISH, November 5:

KILLEEN, Texas (KXAN/AP/MSNBC) – Major Malik Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 12 and wounding 31 in an attack at Fort Hood on Thursday, is alive and in stable condition, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said at an 8:30 p.m. news conference.Counter to initial reports, the 39-year-old psychiatrist – who was thought to be killed by local police – is hospitalized and not expected to die of gunshots sustained during the 1:30 p.m. attack. The local police officer who allegedly shot Hasan and injured him is in the hospital also in stable condition.

Cone also told reporters that Hasan was carrying one handgun and one semi-automatic weapon. But the fact that there were so many injured, apparently by one man, “counter-intuitively is concern,” Cone said – spurring officials to continue their investigation to make sure they haven’t missed any other shooters. Two soldiers were questioned earlier in the day and then released, determined not to have been involved, officials said….

Evidently he was not a convert to Islam, but was a lifelong — and observant — Muslim. “At least 12 killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.,” by William Branigin and Carrie Johnson for the Washington Post, November 5 (thanks to Peter Collier):

[...] Hasan was a psychiatrist, according to acquaintances of his in Washington, and a Pentagon source said he was recently reassigned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington to work with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood.Hasan was a U.S. citizen, according to Virginia voting records, and his parents are Palestinians from the West Bank, according to his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church. He was born at Arlington Hospital Center.

Hasan, 39, had lived in Montgomery County, Md., and Arlington, Va., in addition to Roanoke and nearby Vinton, Va. He graduated from Virginia Tech and earned his medical degree at Bethesda’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, records show.

Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring and was “very devout,” according to Faizul Khan, a former imam at the center. Khan said Hasan attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week, often in his Army fatigues.

Khan also said Hasan applied to an annual matrimonial seminar that matches Muslims looking for spouses. “I don’t think he ever had a match, because he had too many conditions,” Khan said.

“We never got into details of worldly affairs or politics,” the former imam said of his conversations with Hasan. “Mostly religious questions. But there was nothing extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration. . . . He never showed any . . . wish for vengeance on anybody.”

However, a fellow Army officer who worked with Hasan told Fox News Channel that Hasan had expressed strong opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“He would make comments to other individuals about how we should not be in the war in the first place,” Col. Terry Lee told the network. “He made those comments, and he stuck strongly to his faith, but as soldiers we have a duty to follow orders from our commander in chief, and our political views are set aside.”

They should have been shadowing this guy at every step. Or would that have been “Islamophobic”? “AP source: Authorities had concerns about suspected shooter, reviewed Internet postings,” by Lara Jakes for Associated Press, November 5 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

WASHINGTON – Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.The officials say the postings appeared to have been made by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was killed during the shooting incident that left least 11 others dead and 31 wounded. The officials say they are still trying to confirm that he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened….

“To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause,” said the Internet posting. “Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”

Misunderstanders of Islam abound on this thread at Islamic Awakening, discussing the jihad shooting at Fort Hood today.

mujahid_moonsighter Junior Member Muslim Male Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Riyadh, Saudia ArabiaRe: As many as 9 killed in Fort Hood shootings, officials say
reports now are saying that the shooter was a convert(revert) to Islam, a Major(officer) in the army

Allahu akbar insha Allah he be shaheed, what a brave mujahid

Read the others also.

Nidal Malik Hasan

Fort Hood Jihad Update: “Local soldier: Fort Hood shooting ‘a bloody mess,'” by T.J. Aulds for The Galveston Daily News, November 5 (thanks to Constantine):

“They were telling him that one guy was shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting,” Tom Hunt said. “He couldn’t say much more than that.”

There is also this from Pamela:

“Malik Nadal Hasan, the jihadi that led the attack on Fort Hood, was quoted as saying “Muslims have the right to rise up against the US military” “The Malik Nadal Hasan Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors” “maybe we should have more of these where people strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square” – this according to Col Terry Lee who worked with Muslim convert.

The mainstream media, of course, is still searching for a motive.

Nidal Malik Hasan

Lots of predictable mainstream media dissembling going on about Malik Nadal Hasan, the one murderer who has been identified in the attacks at Fort Hood today that left 12 dead and 31 wounded. One AP story says that his religion is not known. The CBS story below is a bit better, actually identifying him as a Muslim. But no one, no one at all, in the mainstream media is discussing jihad as a motivation. It’s all about “snapping,” “not wanting to go to war” (then why join the Army), etc.

“Soldier Opens Fire at Ft. Hood; 12 Dead,” from CBS News, November 5 (thanks to Joe):

[...] A law enforcement official identified the shooting suspect as Army Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan. The official said Hasan, believed to be in his late 30s, was killed after opening fire at the base. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly.The official says investigators are trying to determine if Hasan was his birth name, or if he changed his name and converted to Islam at some point in his life.

CBS News investigative producer Len Tepper reports that Hasan, 39, is a licensed psychiatrist from Silver Spring, Md….

Evidently a convert to Islam, and an apparent jihad attack has taken place at Ft. Hood.

[Robert here:] Twelve dead, thirty wounded in what was apparently an attack coordinated between two or three gunmen — belying the post-traumatic stress syndrome spin playing out in the mainstream media.

If this turns out to be a jihad attack, watch for the President to caution against “backlash” and “Islamophobia.”

Not all were willing to oblige, however. “Brave Iranians ruin hate-U.S. fest,” by Amir Taheri in the New York Post, November 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Yesterday marked the 30th anniversary of the capture by Khomeinist “students” of the US Embassy in Tehran, triggering the 444-day hostage crisis.The Iranian public seized the chance to reject the regime — even as the surviving hostage-takers have largely come to regret their actions.

For months, Iran’s state-controlled media had tried to build up the day as a “turning point” for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s troubled second term.

The occasion was supposed to highlight Ahmadinejad’s “victory over the American Great Satan” and Washington’s implicit acceptance of Iran’s nuclear project in recent talks in Geneva and Vienna.

In a message on the eve of the anniversary, “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei called on “true Muslims” to show “unquenchable anger against the Great Satan.” The newspaper Kayhan promised “the largest crowds in Iran’s history.”

But events defied the official script.

Weeks of “mass mobilization” failed to produce “the largest crowds in history.”

The official news agency, IRNA, which habitually reports “the marches of the millions,” had to lower its rhetoric to “tens of thousands.” More, its reports indicated that, in most cases, the authorities had to press-gang schoolchildren into marching.

The largest rally, in front of the former US Embassy, attracted no more than 5,000 professional militants, eyewitnesses said.

And the opposition seized the chance to show its strength once again. The official media reported that “the enemies of the revolution” held rallies in more than 100 cites. In cities such as Ahvaz and Yazd, opposition marches pushed official processions to the sidelines.

That anti-Americanism is no longer in vogue (if it ever was) was further underlined by the fact that regime grandees stayed away from the anti-US marches.

In some cases, senior officials were advised not to appear — for fear of facing hostile crowds. For the first time in 30 years, no major regime figure was there to address the rallies.

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad stayed in their bunkers — dispatching Ghulam Haddad-Adel, a former speaker of Iran’s ersatz parliament, to deliver the main address in front of the former embassy. Even then, he had to make a quick getaway when advised that an opposition crowd was approaching.

In some cases, the opposition’s chants of “Death to the dictator!” and “Death to Russia!” were louder than the slogan “Death to America!” chanted by official demonstrators, often with little enthusiasm.

In some gatherings, non-Iranian militants, including members of the Lebanese Hezbollah and students from Africa and elsewhere in Asia, provided the core of the crowds.

State-owned TV showed a group of Spanish converts to Shiism whose leader, a certain Jaafar Gonzales, claimed he’d come to Iran to underline “my people’s deep hatred of America.”…


Big surprise here. “Afghan National Police penetrated by Taliban at ‘every level,'” by Thomas Harding and James Kirkup from the Telegraph, November 4 (thanks to Axel):

The Afghan National Police have been penetrated by the Taliban “at every level” with officers poorly trained, corrupt and some addicted to drugs, a former Army officer has said. Capt Doug Beattie, who served two tours in Afghanistan working with the ANP, said many police officers are in the paid [sic] of insurgents and were more loyal to their tribes than the Afghan government.British officers say that among low-ranking Afghan police, and particularly in more rural areas away from central control, there is widespread corruption and disloyalty….

Capt Beattie, who has retired from the Army, said: “It is absolutely right to say that the Afghan police are infiltrated by the Taliban at every level, from the very lowest to the very highest.”

The police officer who killed five British soldiers on Tuesday is understood to have been in the police for at least two years. That raises the possibility that he was paid to switch sides….

Anti-Anglo Racist Tripe

Anti-Anglo Racist Tripe

More news stories on Real Hate Speech

Phil Elmore, WorldNetDaily, November 5, 2009


{snip} When you immerse yourself in racist hate literature, it creates a sensation akin to dipping your head in a bucket of garbage. It is cloying, smothering, fetid and unpleasant; you can’t wait to remove yourself from it. All of this came flooding back to me when I happened across a copy of “America Libre” by Raul Ramos y Sanchez.

On his website, the author claims he wrote the book “as a wake-up call to the dangers of extremism—on both sides of this explosive issue. Illegal immigration is a hotly debated topic. Yet it is only the tip of the iceberg.” The first portion of this statement is a blatant lie. “America Libre” is nothing less than a Chicano nationalist “Turner Diaries,” a racist, hate-filled screed that gins up anti-Anglo resentment by painting a fantasy landscape in which all Hispanics are rounded up and put in camps. Ramos’ heroes revolt, hoping to create a U.N.-recognized “Hispanic Republic of North America.”

{snip} Specifically, his book is concerned primarily with depicting, transparently, all non-Hispanics as racist, ignorant, incompetent fools driven only by hatred and given only to brutality. There are no complex characters; there are only Hispanics to varying degrees of purity {snip} and Anglos exhibiting varying degrees of racism. To the extent that military veteran and bodybuilder Mano at first loves America, then becomes only too eager to commit cold-blooded murder in seeking revenge for the injustices perpetrated against Hispanics, his character could be considered dynamic. He is, however, only a convenient water boy carrying the author’s racist hate.

The Anglos against whom Mano pits himself with only token reluctance are, almost to a man, racist monsters who spit words like “Beaner,” “Greaser” and “Pancho” with every breath. When they’re not attempting to rape Hispanic women or killing Mano’s children with their incompetence {snip}, they’re nervously firing into crowds of understandably angry protesters because they’re nothing but ill-trained glory hounds suffering delusions of action-hero greatness.

Two things disturb me about “America Libre.” The first is that this book won an International Latino Book Award when it is clearly only a mediocre novel in terms of its writing. (It was also one of USA Today’s picks for “Summer Reads” and was similarly lauded in Latina magazine.) The second is that Ramos’ depiction of evil, Hispanic-hating Anglos, only too eager to deny Social Security benefits to illegal aliens (when they’re not cruelly deporting them outright), is obviously what he truly thinks of non-Hispanics. “America Libre” exists for one reason only: to foment hatred and revolutionary sentiment among a Hispanic population that has already become volatile in the southwest United States.

This is most evident in that Ramos absolves from blame another of his protagonists, a wealthy instigator who pays gang members to stir up trouble to help along the inevitable revolution. (These gang members shoot down police officers.) By the novel’s end, protagonist Mano no longer considers himself an American. He is committed to the revolution and vows to go on fighting.

This is a thoroughly evil book. I do not understand how the Hachette Book Group justifies mass-producing this racist tripe. This is not literature; this is a La Raza fantasy of the “reconquista”—a Chicano nationalist movement that seeks to retake portions of the United States in the name of Hispanic racial and social justice. {snip}


Original article

(Posted on November 5, 2009)


1 — dutchman wrote at 6:44 PM on November 5: This guy’s novel sounds prophetic. Racial hate directed at Whites has been going on for a long time. Seriouly, I welcome such attitudes from our enemies. The sooner that something like this happens, the better. It will be a wake up call.

2 — sbuffalonative wrote at 7:00 PM on November 5:
Let’s not forget this classic from Kamau Kambon:

3 — John McNeill wrote at 7:18 PM on November 5: A weak, feeble response from a civic nationalist who bleats about “hate”, not understanding that that’s what differing ethnic groups do when they reach a large enough portion of the population. I’m sure Mr. Elmore thinks this book is a greater evil than the immigration policies that allowed all these Hispanics into the country in the first place.

4 — Anonymous wrote at 8:03 PM on November 5: So, Hispanics come to this country, degrade it with graffiti, garbage and murder, and then claim anyone who might object to more immigration – threatens to make things really bad for folks on the way to winning an award for this ‘observation’.

I do agree with one thing. It’s not so far-fetched as to be a fantasy-landscape. Switch the races of the protagonists and it’s not such an inaccurate picture.

5 — Anonymous wrote at 8:38 PM on November 5: “The second is that Ramos’ depiction of evil, Hispanic-hating Anglos, only too eager to deny Social Security benefits to illegal aliens (when they’re not cruelly deporting them outright)”

American citizens should not have to give social security benefits to illegal aliens and have every right to deport them. Neither Mexico or any other Latin American country gives benefits to foreigners in the country illegally and they don’t hesitate to deport them. What is “evil” are Mexicans who think they are above another nation’s laws and have the right to illegally invade at will!!!!

6 — Anonymous wrote at 8:49 PM on November 5: Have Hispanics originated anything of current use? According to this author, they even lifted the spine of the ‘Turner Diaries’. Not very original thinking at all.

How can you be a ‘Chicano Nationalist’ when there is no such thing as a Chicano Nation?

Do not feel threatened by this development as the greatest form of flattery is emulation.

From Richmond to Radicalism from American Dissident Voices Broadcast

From Richmond to Radicalism
by Erich Gliebe


American Dissident Voices Broadcast of
October 31st, 2009

Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

You know, the average American looks at our society today and wonders how we got to the point at which a 15-year-old girl can be beaten, robbed, and gang-raped outside her high school on Homecoming Night. That, of course, is what happened outside Richmond High School in Richmond, California on the night of Friday, October 23. Despite there being three teachers and four police officers in attendance to chaperone the dance, the assault went on for more than two hours before a passerby called the police and gave them a tip. Interestingly, none of the more than dozen people who witnessed the assault-without participating in the crime, I might add-felt the need to notify authorities. Neither, of course, did the suspected seven others who joined in on the action.

Two of the attackers are now under arrest: 19-year-old former Richmond High student Manual Ortega-who faces charges of rape, robbery, and kidnapping-and an unnamed 15-year-old, who faces one count of sexual assault. As of this writing, police are still searching for perhaps five other attackers. The name of the 15-year-old victim has not been disclosed, although she is reported to be in stable condition after being taken for medical treatment unconscious on the night of the attack.

The Jewish media moguls, of course, are reluctant to report any news that might portray non-Whites in a negative light, not because they necessarily care all that much about the so-called rights and welfare of non-Whites – because they DON’T – but because they are VERY interested in running down the spirits and morale of the White American population. This behavior, I and other White racialists contend, is part of the Jewish plan to weaken the main competitor of the Jewish race – namely, the White race – and, if possible, to exterminate the White race completely over time. But the slow extermination of the White race by the Jewish power players isn’t the main subject for today.

The main topic today relates to what happened outside Richmond High School a little more than a week ago. Because of that relative media blackout about racial matters, there are a lot of things we haven’t been told about the Homecoming night gang-rape in Richmond, California, which – in case you were wondering – has a population of around 100,000 and is part of the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley mega-city on the coast in northern California. In other words, there are a lot of questions that, to this point, haven’t been answered. The biggest question that I and many other concerned Whites have – even Whites who don’t think of themselves as racialists – is: What are the races of the attackers and the victim?

Because the victim is a minor and because of the Jewish media’s reluctance to give accurate and up-to-date information on racial matters, I’m not sure we are going to get a definitive answer to that question anytime soon. But let’s pull a few facts together and see if we can come up with some reasonable guesses about the racial implications of this case.

For one thing, I am going to guess that most, if not all, of the attackers were Latinos. I base this on a few things. For starters, the one youth that the police have in custody, 19-year-old Manual Ortega, is a Latino. In addition, according to a school report card for Richmond High School that is available online, the racial makeup of the school back in 2005-2006 was about 72% Latino, 14% Black, 10% Asian, and 2% White. Unfortunately, I could not find a more recent report card, but I assume that the racial percentages have not changed much in four years; if anything, Richmond High School is probably MORE Hispanic now than it was in 2005, which makes it likely that most if not all of the attackers were Latinos, since perhaps three-fourths of Richmond’s current students and former students over the last, say, five years are Latinos.

And for another thing, let’s be practical here:With whom do you think Manual Ortega hangs out? A bunch of thugs who are White? A bunch of thugs who are Black? A bunch of thugs who are Asian? It’s possible, to be sure, but it is very unlikely. Odds are, Manual Ortega hangs out with other Latinos, bumming around looking for mischief and speaking Spanish when they are in the presence of White adults, just to piss them off. I’d be very surprised if we found out that Ortega’s accomplices in the gang-rape of a 15-year-old California high schooler WEREN’T his fellow Latinos.

This program, American Dissident Voices, is – as most of you know – rooted in race and racial issues. Anything that relates to racial issues or to the possible future of the White race around the world is a topic of interest for this program and to our listeners. This means that a gang rape in California that took place over more than a two-hour period before someone had the decency to try to put a stop to it is fair game for this program. After all, law and order is a key feature of any flourishing civilization, and if there isn’t law and order in California, then we need to know about it and address it, no matter what the race of the criminals and victims. The idea for White racialists, of course, particularly for the men and women of the National Alliance, is to found a new nation based on race at some point in the near future, and we are going to want to establish and maintain a nation in which White citizens will never have to worry about going outside after dark. So, no matter what the racial facts in this specific instance in northern California turn out to be, it still relates to the purpose and intent of these American Dissident Voices broadcasts.

But, for now, we are under the thumb of Jewish media power, and where the Jewish media don’t provide information, we are left to speculate. If we are eventually shown to be wrong on this or that detail, we readily admit that we are wrong. Such errors, if any, would of course be minimized if the Jewish media were upfront in disseminating the facts right from the outset of events. And while the Jews are very good at certain things – making money by financial speculation, passing off lies as truth, that kind of thing – passing along facts about race through their media machine isn’t one of them.

With all of that said, I’m going to make the tentative prediction that the victim of the Richmond High School assault on October 23rd WASN’T a Latino. Of course, if we at some point find out that the victim is White, then that makes our discussing the crime on this program all the more relevant. But no matter the race of the victim, the crime is heinous in and of itself. However, I think there is an excellent chance that the victim was NOT a Latino. Let me give you my reasoning behind that hypothesis.

It is known that the crime that took place on the grounds – but outside the halls – of Richmond High School on October 23rd was in progress for at least two hours; police estimate that it may have lasted as long as two and a half hours – and WOULD have gone on longer had not law enforcement officers arrived to break it up. When police arrived, the attackers split like cockroaches in a frat-house kitchen when the light is turned on in the middle of the night. After ignobly pursuing the attackers on foot, police were able to nab the aforementioned Latino, Manual Ortega. Also, as mentioned above, we have good reason to assume that all of the attackers were Latinos.

Now, as to the race of the victim: Would a gang of Latino males have beaten, robbed, and gang-raped a female of Latino descent for more than two hours? If the victim HAD been a Latino female, wouldn’t the racial instincts of at least ONE of the attackers come to the surface after ten or fifteen minutes of fun and caused that attacker to say (in Spanish, of course): “Wait a minute, guys. Sure, this chick’s a bitch, but she’s still one of our kind. Let’s knock it off and get the hell out of here”? My contention is that if the victim were a Latino, the crime wouldn’t have gone on for perhaps 150 minutes. Whoever said that young people can’t concentrate for extended lengths of time these days failed to realize that a lot depends on WHAT IT IS the youths are concentrating on. In the case of Manual Ortega and his friends, two and a half hours of beating and gang raping passed in the twinkling of an eye. As the saying goes, time flies when you’re having fun, even if it is sick and demented fun, as was apparently the case with Ortega and his amigos.

Do you remember the last time you watched a two and a half hour movie? Can you imagine a bunch of Latino youths participating for that length of time in the beating, robbery, and rape of a female of their own race? I can’t, which just further reinforces my hunch that the victim of the assault on the night of October 23rd wasn’t a Latino.

I’ve already given the rationale behind why I think the 15-year-old victim of the assault on October 23rd WASN’T Latino. Now, I’m going to voice my gut-feeling that the victim was White. Again, if I turn out to be wrong on this assumption, I’ll be happy to admit my mistake. Of course, none of my guessing would be necessary if the Jewish media would simply report the facts and let the chips fall where they may. But, as we’ve discussed many times on these broadcasts, the Jews DON’T WANT the chips to fall where they may, which is why they don’t report the facts.

But anyway, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the victim of the crime outside Richmond High School is a black female. In 2005, the black population of the school was about 14%, so for a Black to be the victim of a Latino gang rape is certainly a possibility. Or, for that matter, let’s suppose the victim is Asian. In either case, wouldn’t the Jewish media have reported the case as being a hate crime? That is, if a Latino gang beats and robs and rapes a black or an Asian female over a two-hour time span, wouldn’t the excitement of being able to report a hate crime have gotten the best of the media Jews and caused them to reveal what was known about the races of the attackers and the victim? When are the Jews able to hold their tongues in the case of hate crimes?

I’ll tell you when: When the victim is White. That’s when. If the crime involves Whites committing crimes against non-Whites, the Jews are all over it. Even in the Richmond High School case, with the attackers most likely being Latinos, if the victim were black or Asian or Jewish, the Jewish media would have leaked the facts. Only when the victim is White and the criminals are non-White is the media very careful NOT to mention anyone’s race. That leads me to venture to guess that the victim of the attack on October 23rd was a White female.

And finally, what would cause a gang of Latinos to assault a female without letup for more than two hours? The Jews have a word for that: hate. Hate is what is behind such an attack. And whom, we might ask, do some Latino youths hate more than anyone else?

Look in the mirror.

You are a member of the race that is being targeted by Latino gangs and Jewish power players, among others.

It’s time to get radical. There isn’t going to be an easy solution to the racial mess we are in. I’m not advocating violence; that isn’t going to get us anywhere.

I’m advocating decisions, by you. I’m advocating hard choices, by you. I’m advocating commitment, by you. No matter what the facts of the Richmond High School case turn out to be – whether I’m right or wrong about all of the conjectures I’ve made in this broadcast – it doesn’t change the fact that our society and civilization are in need of a vast and complete overhaul, and that you need to be an active participant in that overhaul.


One Knoxville Horror Perp Sentenced To Death—But The Time-Bomb Is Ticking

One Knoxville Horror Perp Sentenced To Death—But The Time-Bomb Is Ticking

By Nicholas Stix

In the second Knoxville Horror murder trial, only one penalty could spell justice for the victims of Lemaricus Davidson, the man who with an indeterminate number of accomplices carjacked, kidnapped, gang-raped, beat, sexually tortured and murdered Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23: Death.

And death was indeed the sentence finally meted out to Davidson on Friday afternoon, by seven male and five female jurors.

Two days earlier, the jury had convicted Davidson on 35 out of 38 state felony charges.

The trial was a defeat for Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard H. Baumgartner, who had again sought to subvert justice and save Davidson from the executioner’s needle, as he had earlier saved Davidson’s convicted accomplice and half-brother, Letalvis Cobbins.

In Cobbins’ August trial, Judge Baumgartner had abused the jury selection process, in order to rig the sentencing options. Although the victims were both white, and the assailants had committed the atrocity in a jurisdiction that is 88 percent white and only 8.8 percent black, Baumgartner went to 27.5 percent black Davidson County, to fetch a majority-black jury, which he bused in to Knox County. That jury convicted Cobbins of 33 out of 38 felony charges, but sentenced him only to “life without parole”.

In Gomer Pyle’s immortal words, Surprise, surprise, surprise!”

But in Davidson’s trial, Judge Baumgartner was confounded by the defendant himself, who insisted on being tried before a Knox County jury. (Davidson’s defense attorneys wouldn’t say why.)Hence, only one juror was black.

But the judge had a last trick left up his sleeve.

Baumgartner made “Knox County judicial history”, in the words of Knoxville News Sentinel reporter Jamie Satterfield, when he instructed the jury that it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than to keep him in jail for life. (Reporter Satterfield noted that the very study [PDF] Baumgartner had cited showed that an execution in fact saves taxpayers $770,000 over a life sentence without parole.)

That a death penalty-eligible prosecution is more expensive than one in which the worst potential sentence is life without parole is no secret in the Volunteer State. Tennessee law decrees that each defendant have not one but two death penalty-certified defense attorneys, and that there be an automatic appeal in the event of a death sentence.

But the key to the sentence in each trial, as Judge Baumgartner well knew, was the racial composition of the jury. A substantial proportion of blacks refuse, out of racial loyalty, to condemn a black convicted of capital murder to death, the statute be damned. Thus, Baumgartner’s failure to racially stack the Davidson jury determined the outcome, and Davidson was sentenced to death.

Davidson’s lawyers, David Eldridge and Doug Trant, in seeking to either get him off altogether or at least save his neck, trod three separate paths in diversity law.

Proceduralist scams:

Prior to and during the trial, the defense filed numerous motions, including:

(Note that many of these procedural protections, while on paper race-neutral, were instituted from the 1960s onward to help minority felons escape justice. Leftists condemned the search for justice for the victims of black predators as “racist”, and an exercise in “blaming the victim”, i.e., the racist black predator was the real “victim”. Prior to the 1960s’ explosion in black crime, some infamous white criminals had been romanticized, but there had never been a massive, influential movement, found even within criminal justice institutions, that sought to help heinous criminals escape punishment.)

Judge Baumgartner rejected all of the above motions. He wasn’t looking to get Davidson off altogether, he simply opposed giving him proper punishment.

Bizarro World Defense:

In Davidson’s January, 2007 police statement (summary; video; transcript), amid countless, mutually contradictory revisions, he consistently held that he had never seen Christian or Newsom before January 7, 2007; never laid a hand on or had sex with Christian; that Christian had not come to the house seeking to buy “dope”; blamed the other suspects for the kidnapping and killing; and sought to present himself as a would-be hero who had promised Christian that he would save her life, but who had tragically come up short.

But Davidson’s defense team proceeded as if his police statement had been thrown out—whether out of laziness, incompetence, a desire to sow confusion among the jurors, or the hope that the one black juror would hang the jury, the facts be damned.

They repeatedly implied that the victims had been in East Knoxville to buy drugs, and that Christian had had consensual vaginal sex with Davidson. (They suggested that Davidson’s sperm had dripped out of Christian’s vagina, and into her rectum.)

A friend of Davidson’s, Ethel Lynn Freeman, testified that on the night of the crime, she saw them panhandling for gas money at an East Knoxville gas station in a notorious drug area. But there were at least three problems with Freeman’s testimony:

  • It contradicted her previous testimony, as a prosecution witness, in the Eric Boyd and Letalvis Cobbins trials, respectively;
  • Based on what we know from other sources about the victims and about that night, it was utterly lacking in credibility (e.g., the victims weren’t short of money);
  • At the time of her death, Channon Christian had only a small amount of alcohol, and no drugs, in her system.

The defense team also scrounged up convicted thief Jeffrey Bradley, who now claimed to have seen Christian get out of a car with Davidson and another woman that weekend. The prosecution was able to show that the car was in a different state.

The Slut Defense:

Via a new DNA test, the defense team was able to show that sperm from two additional, unidentified men was in Christian’s underwear. However, since there was no sperm on or in her from her boyfriend, far from suggesting that Channon Christian was promiscuous, the DNA test suggested that at least two additional rapist-murderers are still at large.

Note that defense lawyers Eldridge and Trant perpetrated their unscrupulous smears of the characters of the victims in court in the presence of their grieving families.

For the sentencing phase, Eldridge and Trant switched to the standard pity play: “Hey, I’m depraved on account I’m deprived”.

Davidson supposedly suffered horrific abuse as a child. “Expert” witnesses insisted that when Davidson was a wee lad, the violent die was already cast. He was the victim, after all. (Then why prosecute him. Why not just give him the keys to the city?)

Some of the same weepy, pathetic relatives who had testified in Cobbins’ defense reprised their performances.

However, Davidson had spent some of his teen years with loving group home and foster parents, during which time he had shown none of the violence that the “experts” had testified was unavoidable.

The jury was unimpressed.

Davidson’s defense counsel will surely maintain that they were simply giving him a vigorous defense, and that they would be guilty of providing inadequate counsel, had they failed to do so.

I don’t buy that. Defense attorneys for black defendants, whether black or white, increasingly spew nonsense indistinguishable from that of paranoid black supremacists, and even outside of court, typically talk as if their trial antics were justified by the facts.

Lawyers, like judges, are officers of the court, sworn to uphold the rule of law.

They should not be indulging fantasies that they know to be untrue, and are barred from suborning perjury.

Unfortunately, “diversity” has rotted the criminal justice system, just as it has rotted all other American institutions.

The explosion in black violent crime—much of it consisting in racially motivated attacks on whites—was part and parcel of the so-called civil rights movement, i.e., “diversity”, whose leaders (including Martin Luther King Jr.) mixed racism with communism, and taught blacks that they were not obliged to obey America’s “racist” laws. The elite media and academe increasingly identified with black criminals—to the point of lying not only about black felons’ motives, but even about the extent of the crime. They insisted, the facts be damned, that innocent black males were routinely “racially profiled”, rounded up and imprisoned, and even murdered by racist police. The same race-baiting “civil rights” ideology was behind both the black-on-white crime wave, and the lies about it.

Police and prosecutors, sometimes grudgingly, sometimes enthusiastically, went along.

Thus, in black-on-white racial atrocities, police and prosecutors have developed tortuous methods of interrogation and courtroom questioning of suspects and victims, attempting to get (self-incriminating) statements adequate to achieve convictions, while at the same time avoiding the bringing of “hate facts” to light.

Detectives must also interrogate each suspect, while tiptoeing through the latter’s own minefield of lies, contradictions, and omissions, anticipating possibly three future minefields:

  • Defense attorney objections and motions to suppress the suspect’s police statement;
  • The search by jurors who support black and Hispanic felons for pretexts to ignore incriminating and self-incriminating statements, and acquit the defendants;
  • Similar behavior by appeals court judges.

Specifically, in the interest of political correctness, the law enforcement authorities bar themselves from asking suspects (and later, in court, defendants and victims) obvious questions about motive.

For instance, in the December 2000 Wichita Massacre, Sedgwick County (Kansas) DA Nola Foulston’s cross-examination of the two survivors of black brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr’s mass murder-rape-robbery spree followed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. She asked no questions to which answers might show that the Carrs had said politically incorrect things to their exclusively white victims, possibly constituting evidence of a “hate crime”.

In the Knoxville case, kidnapper-rapist-torturer-murderer Letalvis Cobbins offered a Grand Canyon-wide opening to ask such questions.

“In his statement to [Knoxville Police Department Investigator Steve] Still, Cobbins conceded he knew Davidson had evil on his mind before the fatal carjacking.

“‘He was already making suggestions like he wanted to go—he never said he was going to go and do it,’ Cobbins said, though he didn’t elaborate.”

[Carjack/slaying trial, Day 4: 'They were crazy man': suspect defends inaction by Jamie Satterfield, Knoxville News Sentinel, August 20, 2009.]

“Do it”? Do what?

Amazingly, neither investigators nor prosecutors ever asked Cobbins what “it” was. (See my concluding comments).

Of course, when politically correct law enforcement officials seek to deny the racial motivation of a transparently racially-motivated black-on-white crime, any old pretext—or its opposite—will do.

Thus, we have the Knox County authorities and Main Stream Media describing “as a carjacking gone wrong” an act in which there is no evidence of any carjacking motive (since the vehicle was almost immediately dumped, rather than being kept or sold), or kidnapping (since the abductors never showed any interest in ransom).

This MO by authorities and the media is the equivalent to their practice, when confronted with a black stranger murdering a white without any attempt to rob him or evidence of any other conventional motive, of calling the crime “a botched robbery”. But the motive often isn’t the one for which there is no evidence, namely robbery, but the obvious one—racial murder.

Thus, notoriously, when California authorities were confronted in the early 1970s, with anywhere from 70-270 black-on-white stranger murders in which no conventional motive played a role, they initially employed the euphemism “motiveless murders”, and ignored what was really happening: the Nation of Islam’s anti-white mass murder campaign.

Authorities later adopted secondary euphemisms, such as “botched robberies”.

But in the Knoxville case, rather than avoid the race issue, as Wichita Massacre DA Foulston had done, the authorities aggressively misrepresented the facts. Acting as if they were working for the various defense teams, Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols’ office and sheriffs Sterling Owen IV and his successor, Jimmy Jones, cited the fact that Lemaricus Davidson had been sleeping with a white female as grounds for denying that the crime was racially motivated.

In variously handcuffing themselves from seeking the truth, lying about the killers’ motive, and misrepresenting the known facts from the get-go, the Knoxville authorities opened the door to defense attorneys to lie with abandon. The police and prosecutors’ lie, that the Knoxville Horror was “a carjacking gone wrong”, opened the door for the defense to substitute its own lie. As Jamie Satterfield reported in the October 20 Knoxville News Sentinel, “The defense is continuing, via cross-examination, to label the slayings the result not of a carjacking gone bad but a drug deal gone bad.”

The defense further asserted that that it was the “the gang from Kentucky” (i.e., every defendant except Davidson), who had raped, beaten, tortured and murdered Christian and Newsom.

How about we use the known facts, for a change?

The blogger A Race Against Time has formulated a theory regarding Davidson’s motive based on the recent release of the police transcript of the January, 2007 interrogation of Lemaricus Davidson’s white former girlfriend, Daphne Sutton. It has the virtues of both evidence-based plausibility and simplicity:

“The Knoxville torture slayings in a nutshell: Naive white girl falls for black boy. Black boy beats white girl. White girl finally leaves black boy. Black boy and his black friends take out their anger by raping, torturing, and killing the first white couple they come across….

“Sutton revealed to police that she had only known Davidson for two weeks when she moved in with him at 2316 Chipman Street [the murder house]. She said she had never dated a black man before, and her mind was clouded by drugs:

‘I’ve been living with my parents for like a year and a half, and I really can’t stand it. You know how it is, living with your parents. So I met him, and he was getting this house and asked me to move in with him, and I guess just the first person to take care of me I jumped into.

I don’t even date black guys, my kids are white, so I don’t know what the hell I was thinking. I really don’t. Maybe, I don’t know, the drugs, the weed.’

[NS: According to Cobbins, Davidson was a drug dealer.]

“Davidson regularly beat Sutton, and eventually she left him and moved out. The very next night, Davidson and some of his black friends carjacked a white couple that was out on a date. Letalvis Cobbins, Davidson’s brother, testified that Christian and Newsom ‘was uh kissing in the car or whatever’ when Davidson carjacked them and drove them back to his Chipman Street home….”

“There’s no question these crimes were racially motivated. Davidson was angry his white girlfriend had left him, and when he saw a young white couple kissing he snapped and decided to take his anger out on them. The Knoxville authorities didn’t quite see things this way.

“Astonishingly, the authorities considered the fact Davidson’s white girlfriend had just left him to be a mitigating factor in their decision not to seek hate crimes charges…

“Imagine a white male trying to claim he can’t be charged with a hate crime because he has socialized with black people in the past. People would just laugh. In fact, a 14-year-old white boy in suburban Chicago was charged with a hate crime last year for using a racial epithet toward his black girlfriend after she broke up with him.

[Why White Girls Go Black and What Happens When They Go Back, A Race Against Time, October 14, 2009.]

My conclusion: Since the 1960s, America’s white elites have repeatedly sought to make what Peggy Noonan has called—though without addressing the racial subtext—“a separate peace” for themselves with non-Asian-minority (NAM) elites. The deal entails racially sacrificing qualified white university and job applicants, and candidates for promotions, on behalf of unqualified NAMs through affirmative action; racially sacrificing whites to NAM criminals of all ages; lying about the sacrifices; and, of course, inventing the Orwellian category of “hate crimes” which—as the Wichita and Knoxville cases suggest, and Attorney General Holder recently made clear—cannot be committed against ordinary American whites.

Each time, black and Hispanic elites humor the white elites, cut the deal, generously sacrifice more non-elite whites—and soon thereafter, tear up and re-negotiate the deal.

At each re-negotiation, there are more NAMs making wilder demands, and fewer non-elite whites to sacrifice.

Noonan quotes an anecdote from Christopher Lawford’s book lawford Symptoms Of Withdrawal about his uncle Teddy Kennedy (of all people) in his old age:

[Kennedy] took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. ‘I’m glad I’m not going to be around when you guys are my age.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.’ “

“The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of ‘maybe we shouldn’t go there.’ Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on.”

The time-bomb is ticking.

(I wish to thank reader “D”, who served as my unofficial research assistant, for his invaluable help during this trial.)

Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men’s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.


Attacks by immigrants and foreigners on indigenous White population a concern for many.

Attacks by immigrants and foreigners on indigenous White population a concern for many.
(Illustration: Blacks gang-up on White students during France’s protest march on March 8, 2005.)

by David Mullenax

French students attackedA professor at Ecole Nationale d’Administration in Paris made the startling revelation that France is becoming “a new Lebanon.” He followed up his observations by stating that social upheaval was only a few years away. As evidence for his prophetic announcement is the anti-White phenomenon that is plaguing the European country, which is causing sharp divides between native White-Frenchmen and ethnic minorities.

In early March, thousands of predominately White students marched in the streets protesting reforms in France’s educational system. The demonstrators, filled with a spirit of non-violence, believed that peaceful assembly was the best way to show disappointment in the governments decision to drastically cut funds for schools. Unfortunately, non-White opposition groups felt differently.

Gangs of Black and Arab youths, numbering over 1,000, attacked the student demonstrators, according to police reports. The victims and teachers bore testimony to the violent deeds performed against them, and they were unanimous that the cause of the attacks was vicious anti-White hatred. Also, the attackers themselves bragged about their accomplishments to any media outlet that reported the event.

Repeatedly, the criminal attackers expressed their hatred by calling their victims “little French people.” Heikel, an 18-year-old participant in the attack — who holds citizenship in Tunisia — was immensely proud of his activities. In an interview with reporters, Heikel explained that he gleefully joined in on the violence so he could beat up White students, and that he still has “pleasant memories” of the event.

Rachid, another non-White attacker, stated that “little Whites” are easy prey and deserving of attacks because “they don’t know how to fight.” When asked by reporters why minorities ganged-up on the student victims he said that their desire was to “take revenge on Whites.”

Petty theft, however, was also a motivation. Working in teams, the anti-White haters would approach students and ask them for money or their cell-phones. Regardless of how the victim responded, whether students complied to their demands or refused, the attackers would start beating them up, and would take their cell-phones or possessions and smash them on the street.

Scores of victims were taken to area hospitals as a result of the attacks, and due to the unwillingness of French police to protect the innocent.


Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.

Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.

by Hanna Rosin

American Murder Mystery


Photographs by Robert King/Polaris Images
Video footage shot by Hanna Rosin

memphis police
THE THIN BLUE LINE: Doug Barnes of the Memphis Police Department inside the Old Allen Station armory

To get to the Old Allen police station in North Memphis, you have to drive all the way to the end of a quiet suburban road until it turns country. Hidden by six acres of woods, the station seems to be the kind of place that might concern itself mainly with lost dogs, or maybe the misuse of hunting licenses. But it isn’t. Not anymore. As Lieutenant Doug Barnes waited for me to arrive one night for a tour of his beat, he had a smoke and listened for shots. He counted eight, none meant for buck. “Nothing unusual for a Tuesday,” he told me.

Also see:

Flashback: Cities and Crime

Jacob Riis, Robert Moses, Nicholas Lemann and others weigh in on the problematic relationship between inner-city poverty and crime

Barnes is white, middle-aged, and, like many veteran cops, looks powerful without being fit. He grew up four miles from the station during the 1960s, he said, back when middle-class whites lived peacefully alongside both city elites and working-class African Americans. After the 1968 riots, Barnes’s father taught him the word curfew and reminded him to lock the doors. Still, the place remained, until about 10 years ago, a pretty safe neighborhood where you could play outside with a ball or a dog. But as he considered more-recent times, his nostalgia gave way to something darker. “I have never been so disheartened,” he said.

He remembers when the ground began to shift beneath him. He was working as an investigator throughout the city, looking into homicides and major crimes. Most of his work was downtown. One day in 1997, he got a call to check out a dead car that someone had rolled up onto the side of the interstate, on the way to the northern suburbs. The car “looked like Swiss cheese,” he said, with 40 or 50 bullet holes in it and blood all over the seats. Barnes started investigating. He located one corpse in the woods nearby and another, which had been shoved out a car door, in the parking lot of a hospital a few miles away. He found a neighborhood witness, who gave up everything but the killers’ names. Two weeks later, he got another call about an abandoned car. This time the body was inside. “It was my witness,” he recalled, “deader than a mackerel.”

At this point, he still thought of the stretch of Memphis where he’d grown up as “quiet as all get-out”; the only place you’d see cruisers congregated was in the Safeway parking lot, where churchgoing cops held choir practice before going out for drinks. But by 2000, all of that had changed. Once-quiet apartment complexes full of young families “suddenly started turning hot on us.” Instead of the occasional break-in, Barnes was getting calls about armed robberies, gunshots in the hallways, drug dealers roughing up their neighbors. A gang war ripped through the neighborhood. “We thought, What the hell is going on here?” A gang war! In North Memphis! “All of a sudden it was a damn war zone,” he said.

As we drove around his beat, this new suburban warfare was not so easy to make out. We passed by the city zoo and Rhodes College, a serene-looking campus on a hill. We passed by plenty of quiet streets lined with ranch houses, not fancy but not falling down, either. Then Barnes began to narrate, street by street, getting more animated and bitter by the block.

Here was the perfectly pleasant-looking Maplewood Avenue, where the old azaleas were just starting to bloom and the local cops were trying to weed out the Chicago drug connection. Farther down the avenue, two households flew American flags, and a third was known for manufacturing “cheese,” a particularly potent form of powdered heroin. The Hollywood branch of the local library, long famous for its children’s room, was now also renowned for the time thugs stole $1,800 there from a Girl Scout who’d been collecting cookie funds. Finally we came to a tidy brick complex called Goodwill Village, where Barnes had recently chased down some gang members who’d been taking turns having sex with a new female recruit. As we closed in on midnight, Barnes’s beat began to feel like the setting of a David Lynch movie, where every backyard and cul-de-sac could double as a place to hide a body. Or like a suburban remake of Taxi Driver, with Barnes as the new Travis Bickle. “I’m like a zookeeper now,” said Barnes. “I hold the key, and my job right now is to protect the people from all the animals.”

On September 27, 2007, a headline in The Commercial Appeal, the city’s biggest newspaper, announced a dubious honor: “Memphis Leads U.S. in Violent Crime.” Local precincts had been seeing their internal numbers for homicide, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery tick up since the late 1990s, starting around the time Barnes saw the first dead car. By 2005, a criminologist closely tracking those numbers was describing the pattern as a crime explosion. In May of 2007, a woman from upscale Chickasaw Gardens was raped by two men, at gunpoint; the assailants had followed her and her son home one afternoon. Outraged residents formed Citizens Against Crime and lobbied the statehouse for tougher gun laws. “People are concerned for their lives, frankly,” said one county commissioner, summarizing the city’s mood. This March, a man murdered six people, including two young children, in a house a few miles south of Old Allen Station.

Falling crime rates have been one of the great American success stories of the past 15 years. New York and Los Angeles, once the twin capitals of violent crime, have calmed down significantly, as have most other big cities. Criminologists still debate why: the crack war petered out, new policing tactics worked, the economy improved for a long spell. Whatever the alchemy, crime in New York, for instance, is now so low that local prison guards are worried about unemployment.

Lately, though, a new and unexpected pattern has emerged, taking criminologists by surprise. While crime rates in large cities stayed flat, homicide rates in many midsize cities (with populations of between 500,000 and 1 million) began increasing, sometimes by as much as 20percent a year. In 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum, a national police group surveying cities from coast to coast, concluded in a report called “A Gathering Storm” that this might represent “the front end … of an epidemic of violence not seen for years.” The leaders of the group, which is made up of police chiefs and sheriffs, theorized about what might be spurring the latest crime wave: the spread of gangs, the masses of offenders coming out of prison, methamphetamines. But mostly they puzzled over the bleak new landscape. According to FBI data, America’s most dangerous spots are now places where Martin Scorsese would never think of staging a shoot-out—Florence, South Carolina; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Reading, Pennsylvania; Orlando, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee.

Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.

Early every Thursday, Richard Janikowski drives to Memphis’s Airways Station for the morning meeting of police precinct commanders. Janikowski used to teach law and semiotics, and he still sometimes floats on a higher plane; he walks slowly, speaks in a nasal voice, and quotes from policy books. But at this point in his career, he is basically an honorary cop. A criminologist with the University of Memphis, Janikowski has established an unusually close relationship with the city police department. From the police chief to the beat cop, everyone knows him as “Dr. J,” or “GQ” if he’s wearing his nice suit. When his researchers are looking for him, they can often find him outside the building, having a smoke with someone in uniform.

One Thursday in March, I sat in on the morning meeting. About 100 people—commanders, beat cops, researchers, and a city councilman—gathered in a sterile conference room with a projector up front. The session had none of the raucous air of precinct meetings you see on cop shows. Nobody was making crude jokes or bragging about the latest run-in with the hood rats.

One by one, the precinct commanders presented crime and arrest statistics in their wards. They broke the information down into neat bar graphs—type of crime, four-week comparison, shifting hot spots. Thanks to Janikowski’s influence, the commanders sounded more like policy wonks than police. “It used to be the criminal element was more confined,” said Larry Godwin, the police chief. “Now it’s all spread out. They might hit one area today and another tomorrow. We have to take a sophisticated look on a daily, hourly basis, or we might never get leverage on it.” For a police department facing a volatile situation, the bar graphs imposed some semblance of order.

Janikowski began working with the police department in 1997, the same year that Barnes saw the car with the bullet holes. He initially consulted on a program to reduce sexual assaults citywide and quickly made himself useful. He mapped all the incidents and noticed a pattern: many assaults happened outside convenience stores, to women using pay phones that were hidden from view. The police asked store owners to move the phones inside, and the number of assaults fell significantly.

About five years ago, Janikowski embarked on a more ambitious project. He’d built up enough trust with the police to get them to send him daily crime and arrest reports, including addresses and types of crime. He began mapping all violent and property crimes, block by block, across the city. “These cops on the streets were saying that crime patterns are changing,” he said, so he wanted to look into it.

When his map was complete, a clear if strangely shaped pattern emerged: Wait a minute, he recalled thinking. I see this bunny rabbit coming up. People are going to accuse me of being on shrooms! The inner city, where crime used to be concentrated, was now clean. But everywhere else looked much worse: arrests had skyrocketed along two corridors north and west of the central city (the bunny rabbit’s ears) and along one in the southeast (the tail). Hot spots had proliferated since the mid-1990s, and little islands of crime had sprung up where none had existed before, dotting the map all around the city.

Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

If police departments are usually stingy with their information, housing departments are even more so. Getting addresses of Section 8 holders is difficult, because the departments want to protect the residents’ privacy. Betts, however, helps the city track where the former residents of public housing have moved. Over time, she and Janikowski realized that they were doing their fieldwork in the same neighborhoods.

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country. Eventually, they thought, they’d find other researchers who connected the dots the way they had, and then maybe they could get city leaders, and even national leaders, to listen.

VIDEO: Phyllis Betts explains why the major politicians are ignoring rising crime in Memphis

Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

In 1976, letters went out to 200 randomly selected families among the 44,000 living in Chicago public housing, asking whether they wanted to move out to the suburbs. A counselor went around the projects explaining the new Section8 program, in which tenants would pay 25percent of their income for rent and the government would pay the rest, up to a certain limit. Many residents seemed dubious. They asked how far away these places were, how they would get there, whether the white people would let them in.

But the counselors persevered and eventually got people excited about the idea. The flyers they mailed out featured a few stanzas of a Gwendolyn Brooks poem, “The Ballad of Rudolph Reed.”

I am not hungry for berries
I am not hungry for bread
But hungry hungry for a house
Where at night a man in bed
May never hear the plaster
Stir as if in pain.
May never hear the roaches
Falling like fat rain.

(This was a risky decision. One later stanza, omitted from the flyers, reads:

By the time he had hurt his fourth white man
Rudolph Reed was dead.
His neighbors gathered and kicked his corpse
“Nigger—” his neighbors said.)

Starting in 1977, in what became known as the Gautreaux program, hundreds of families relocated to suburban neighborhoods—most of them about 25miles from the ghetto, with very low poverty rates and good public schools. The authorities had screened the families carefully, inspecting their apartments and checking for good credit histories. They didn’t offer the vouchers to families with more than five children, or to those that were indifferent to leaving the projects. They were looking for families “seeking a healthy environment, good schools and an opportunity to live in a safe and decent home.”

A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”

HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was receptive to the idea. He spent a few nights in Chicago’s infamous Robert Taylor Homes and subsequently spoke about “these enclaves of poverty,” where “drug dealers control the stairwells, where children can’t go outside to play, where mothers put their infants to bed in bathtubs.” If people could see beyond the graffitied hallways of these projects, they could get above that way of life, argued the researchers, and learn to live like their middle-class brothers and sisters. Cisneros floated the idea of knocking down the projects and moving the residents out into the metro area.

The federal government encouraged the demolitions with a $6.3billion program to redevelop the old project sites, called HOPE VI, or “Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere.” The program was launched in the same spirit as Bill Clinton’s national service initiative—communities working together to “rebuild lives.” One Chicago housing official mused about “architects and lawyers and bus drivers and people on welfare living together.” Wrecking balls began hitting the Chicago high-rises in the mid-1990s. Within a few years, tens of thousands of public-housing residents all over the country were leaving their apartments. In place of the projects, new developments arose, with fanciful names like “Jazz on the Boulevard” or “Centennial Place.” In Memphis, the Hurt Village project was razed to make way for “Uptown Square,” which the local developer Henry Turley declared would be proof that you could turn the inner city into a “nice place for poor people” to live. Robert Lipscomb, the dynamic director of the Memphis Housing Authority, announced, “Memphis is on the move.”

memphis housing project
NEW RESIDENT: Leslie Shaw outside her Springdale Creek apartment in North Memphis

When the Dixie Homes housing project was demolished, in 2006, a group of residents moved to a place called Springdale Creek Apartments in North Memphis, on Doug Barnes’s beat. They were not handpicked, nor part of any study, and nobody told them to move to a low-poverty neighborhood. Like tens of thousands of others, they moved because they had to, into a place they could afford. Springdale Creek is not fancy, but the complex tries to enforce its own quiet order. A sliding black gate separates the row of brick buildings from busy Jackson Avenue, where kids hang out by the KFC. Leslie Shaw was sold when she heard the phrase gated community mentioned by the building manager.

When Shaw saw the newly painted white walls, “so fresh and clean,” with no old smudges from somebody else’s kids, she decided to give away all her furniture. “I didn’t want to move in here with any garbage from Dixie,” she said. “I said to myself, ‘Might as well start over.’” She bought a new brown velour couch and a matching loveseat. She bought a washer and dryer, and a dresser for her 8-year-old grandson, Gerrell, who lives with her. The only thing she kept was a bookshelf, to hold the paperbacks coming monthly from the book club she’d decided to join.

Shaw is 11 years crack-free and, at 47, eager to take advantage of every free program that comes her way—a leadership class, Windows Vista training, a citizen police course, a writing workshop. What drove her—“I got to be honest with you”—was proving her middle-class sisters and brother, “who didn’t think I’d get above it,” wrong. Just after she moved in, one sister came over and said, “This is nice. I thought they would put you back in the projects or something.”

VIDEO: Leslie Shaw discusses the ineffectiveness of security guards

I visited Shaw in February, about a year and a half after she’d moved in. The view outside her first-floor window was still pretty nice—no junk littered the front lawn and few apartments stood vacant. But slowly, she told me, Springdale Creek has started to feel less like a suburban paradise and more like Dixie Homes. Neighborhood boys often kick open the gate or break the keypad. Many nights they just randomly press phone numbers until someone lets them in. The gate’s main use seems to be as a sort of low-thrills ride for younger kids whose parents aren’t paying attention. They hang from the gate as it slides open; a few have gotten their fingers caught and had to be taken to the emergency room.

When Shaw recounts all the bad things that have happened at Springdale Creek, she does it matter-of-factly (even as a grandma, she says, “I can jump those boys if I have to”). Car thefts were common at first—Shaw’s neighbor Laura Evans is one of about 10 victims in the past two years. Thieves have relieved the apartment management company of some of its computers, extra refrigerators, and spare stoves. A few Dixie boys—sons of one of Shaw’s friends—were suspected of breaking the windows in vacant apartments. Last year, somebody hit a pregnant woman in the head with a brick. In the summer, a neighborhood kid chased his girlfriend’s car, shooting at her as she drove toward the gate; the cops, who are called in regularly for one reason or another, collected the spent shells on the grass. “You know, you move from one place to another and you bring the element with you,” said Evans, who stopped by Shaw’s apartment while I was there. “You got some trying to make it just like the projects.”

In the afternoon, I visited an older resident from Dixie Homes who lives across the way from Shaw. Her apartment was dark, blinds drawn, and everyone was watching Maury Povich. A few minutes after I arrived, we heard a pounding at the door, and a neighbor rushed in, shouting.

“They just jumped my grandson! That’s my grandson!”

This was 64-year-old Nadine Clark, who’d left Dixie before it got knocked down. Clark was wearing her navy peacoat, but she had forgotten to put in her teeth. From her pocket she pulled a .38-caliber pistol, which was the only thing that glinted in the room besides the TV.

“There’s 10 of them! And I’m gonna go fuck them up! That’s my grandson! They took him away in an ambulance!”

Nobody in the house got excited. They kept their eyes on Maury Povich, where the audience was booing a kid who looked just like the thug who’d shot up his girlfriend’s car. “She’ll calm down,” someone said, and after a few minutes, Clark left. I drove down to Northside High, a few blocks away, where the grandson had gotten beaten up. TV crews and local reporters were already gathered outside the school, and a news chopper hovered overhead. There had been two school shootings in the neighborhood that month, and any fresh incidents made big news.

Clark’s grandson is named Unique, although everyone calls him Neek. Outside school that day, Neek had been a victim of one of the many strange dynamics of the new urban suburbia. Neek is tall and quiet and doesn’t rush to change out of his white polo shirt and blue khakis after school. He spends most of his afternoons in the house, watching TV or doing his homework.

Neek’s middle-class habits have made him, unwittingly, a perfect target for homegrown gangs. Gang leaders, cut loose from the housing projects, have adapted their recruiting efforts and operations to their new setting. Lately, they’ve been going after “smart, intelligent, go-to-college-looking kid[s], without gold teeth and medallions,” said Sergeant Lambert Ross, an investigator with the Memphis Police. Clean-cut kids serve the same function as American recruits for al-Qaeda: they become the respectable front men. If a gang member gets pulled over with guns or drugs, he can hand them to the college boy, who has no prior record. The college boy, raised outside the projects, might be dreaming of being the next 50 Cent, or might be too intimidated not to join. Ross told me that his latest batch of arrests involved several kids from two-car-garage families.

Neek generally stayed away from gang types, so some older kids beat him with bats. No one is sure whether a gun was fired. As these things go, he got off easy. He was treated at the emergency room and went back to school after a few days.

In the most literal sense, the national effort to diffuse poverty has succeeded. Since 1990, the number of Americans living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty—meaning that at least 40 percent of households are below the federal poverty level—has declined by 24percent. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Recently, the housing expert George Galster, of Wayne State University, analyzed the shifts in urban poverty and published his results in a paper called “A Cautionary Tale.” While fewer Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, increasing numbers now live in places with “moderate” poverty rates, meaning rates of 20 to 40 percent. This pattern is not necessarily better, either for poor people trying to break away from bad neighborhoods or for cities, Galster explains. His paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more total crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads.

Studies show that recipients of Section8 vouchers have tended to choose moderately poor neighborhoods that were already on the decline, not low-poverty neighborhoods. One recent study publicized by HUD warned that policy makers should lower their expectations, because voucher recipients seemed not to be spreading out, as they had hoped, but clustering together. Galster theorizes that every neighborhood has its tipping point—a threshold well below a 40 percent poverty rate—beyond which crime explodes and other severe social problems set in. Pushing a greater number of neighborhoods past that tipping point is likely to produce more total crime. In 2003, the Brookings Institution published a list of the 15 cities where the number of high-poverty neighborhoods had declined the most. In recent years, most of those cities have also shown up as among the most violent in the U.S., according to FBI data.

The “Gathering Storm” report that worried over an upcoming epidemic of violence was inspired by a call from the police chief of Louisville, Kentucky, who’d seen crime rising regionally and wondered what was going on. Simultaneously, the University of Louisville criminologist Geetha Suresh was tracking local patterns of violent crime. She had begun her work years before, going blind into the research: she had just arrived from India, had never heard of a housing project, had no idea which were the bad parts of town, and was clueless about the finer points of American racial sensitivities. In her research, Suresh noticed a recurring pattern, one that emerged first in the late 1990s, then again around 2002. A particularly violent neighborhood would suddenly go cold, and crime would heat up in several new neighborhoods. In each case, Suresh has now confirmed, the first hot spots were the neighborhoods around huge housing projects, and the later ones were places where people had moved when the projects were torn down. From that, she drew the obvious conclusion: “Crime is going along with them.” Except for being hand-drawn, Suresh’s map matching housing patterns with crime looks exactly like Janikowski and Betts’s.

Nobody would claim vouchers, or any single factor, as the sole cause of rising crime. Crime did not rise in every city where housing projects came down. In cities where it did, many factors contributed: unemployment, gangs, rapid gentrification that dislocated tens of thousands of poor people not living in the projects. Still, researchers around the country are seeing the same basic pattern: projects coming down in inner cities and crime pushing outward, in many cases destabilizing cities or their surrounding areas. Dennis Rosenbaum, a criminologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me that after the high-rises came down in Chicago, suburbs to the south and west—including formerly quiet ones—began to see spikes in crime; nearby Maywood’s murder rate has nearly doubled in the past two years. In Atlanta, which almost always makes the top-10 crime list, crime is now scattered widely, just as it is in Memphis and Louisville.

In some places, the phenomenon is hard to detect, but there may be a simple reason: in cities with tight housing markets, Section8 recipients generally can’t afford to live within the city limits, and sometimes they even move to different states. New York, where the rate of violent crime has plummeted, appears to have pushed many of its poor out to New Jersey, where violent crime has increased in nearby cities and suburbs. Washington, D.C., has exported some of its crime to surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia.

Much research has been done on the spread of gangs into the suburbs. Jeff Rojek, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina, issued a report in 2006 showing that serious gang activity had spread to eight suburban counties around the state, including Florence County, home to the city of Florence, which was ranked the most violent place in America the year after Memphis was. In his fieldwork, he said, the police complained of “migrant gangs” from the housing projects, and many departments seemed wholly unprepared to respond.

After the first wave of housing-project demolition in Memphis, in 1997, crime spread out, but did not immediately increase. (It takes time for criminals to make new connections and to develop “comfort zones,” Janikowski told me.) But in 2005, another wave of project demolitions pushed the number of people displaced from public housing to well over 20,000, and crime skyrocketed. Janikowski felt there were deep structural issues behind the increase, ones that the city was not prepared to handle. Old gangs—the Gangster Disciples and the LeMoyne Gardens gang—had long since re-formed and gotten comfortable. Ex-convicts recently released from prison had taken up residence with girlfriends or wives or families who’d moved to the new neighborhoods. Working-class people had begun moving out to the suburbs farther east, and more recipients of Section8 vouchers were taking their place. Now many neighborhoods were reaching their tipping points.

Chaotic new crime patterns in suburbia caught the police off guard. Gang members who’d moved to North Memphis might now have cousins southeast of the city, allowing them to target the whole vast area in between and hide out with relatives far from the scene of the crime. Memphis covers an area as large as New York City, but with one-seventeenth as many police officers, and a much lower cop-to-citizen ratio. And routine policing is more difficult in the semi-suburbs. Dealers sell out of fenced-in backyards, not on exposed street corners. They have cars to escape in, and a landscape to blend into. Shrubbery is a constant headache for the police; they’ve taken to asking that bushes be cut down so suspects can’t duck behind them.

I began reporting this story because I came across a newspaper article that ranked cities by crime rate and I was surprised to see Memphis at the very top. At first I approached the story literally, the same way a cop on a murder case would: here’s the body, now figure out what happened. But it didn’t take long to realize that in Memphis, and in city after city, the bodies are just the most visible symptoms of a much deeper sickness.

If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute. In this study, volunteers were also moved into low-poverty neighborhoods, although they didn’t move nearly as far as the Gautreaux families. Women reported lower levels of obesity and depression. But they were no more likely to find jobs. The schools were not much better, and children were no more likely to stay in them. Girls were less likely to engage in risky behaviors, and they reported feeling more secure in their new neighborhoods. But boys were as likely to do drugs and act out, and more likely to get arrested for property crimes. The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”

Researchers have started to look more critically at the Gautreaux results. The sample was tiny, and the circumstances were ideal. The families who moved to the suburbs were screened heavily and the vast majority of families who participated in the program didn’t end up moving, suggesting that those who did were particularly motivated. Even so, the results were not always sparkling. For instance, while Gautreaux study families who had moved to the suburbs were more likely to work than a control group who stayed in the city, they actually worked less than before they had moved. “People were really excited about it because it seemed to offer something new,” Popkin said. “But in my view, it was radically oversold.”

Ed Goetz, a housing expert at the University of Minnesota, is creating a database of the follow-up research at different sites across the country, “to make sense of these very limited positive outcomes.” On the whole, he says, people don’t consistently report any health, education, or employment benefits. They are certainly no closer to leaving poverty. They tend to “feel better about their environments,” meaning they see less graffiti on the walls and fewer dealers on the streets. But just as strongly, they feel “a sense of isolation in their new communities.” His most surprising finding, he says, “is that they miss the old community. For all of its faults, there was a tight network that existed. So what I’m trying to figure out is: Was this a bad theory of poverty? We were intending to help people climb out of poverty, but that hasn’t happened at all. Have we underestimated the role of support networks and overestimated the role of place?”

HOPE VI stands as a bitter footnote to this story. What began as an “I Have a Dream” social crusade has turned into an urban-redevelopment project. Cities fell so hard for the idea of a new, spiffed-up, gentrified downtown that this vision came to crowd out other goals. “People ask me if HOPE VI was successful, and I have to say, ‘You mean the buildings or the people?’” said Laura Harris, a HOPE VI evaluator in Memphis. “It became seen as a way to get rid of eyesores and attract rich people downtown.” Phyllis Betts told me that when she was interviewing residents leaving the housing projects, “they were under the impression they could move into the new developments on site.” Residents were asked to help name the new developments and consult on the architectural plans. Yet to move back in, residents had to meet strict criteria: if they were not seniors, they had to be working, or in school, or on disability. Their children could not be delinquent in school. Most public-housing residents were scared off by the criteria, or couldn’t meet them, or else they’d already moved and didn’t want to move again. The new HOPE VI developments aimed to balance Section8 and market-rate residents, but this generally hasn’t happened. In Memphis, the rate of former public-housing residents moving back in is 5 percent.

A few months ago, Harris went to a Sunday-afternoon picnic at Uptown Square, the development built on the site of the old Hurt Village project, to conduct a survey. The picnic’s theme was chili cook-off. The white people, mostly young couples, including little kids and pregnant wives, sat around on Eddie Bauer chairs with beer holders, chatting. The black people, mostly women with children, were standing awkwardly around the edges. Harris began asking some of the white people the questions on her survey: Do you lack health insurance? Have you ever not had enough money to buy medication? One said to her, “This is so sad. Does anyone ever answer ‘yes’ to these questions?”—Harris’s first clue that neighbors didn’t talk much across color lines. One of the developers was there that day surveying the ideal community he’d built, and he was beaming. “Isn’t this great?” he asked Harris, and she remembers thinking, Are you kidding me? They’re all sitting 20 feet away from each other!

In my visits with former Dixie Homes tenants who’d moved around the city, I came across the same mix of reactions that researchers had found. The residents who had always been intent on moving out of Dixie Homes anyway seemed to be thriving; those who’d been pushed out against their will, which was the vast majority, seemed dislocated and ill at ease.

I met 30-year-old Sheniqua Woodard, a single mother of three who’d been getting her four-year degree while living at Dixie. She was now working at a city mental-health clinic and about to start studying toward a master’s degree in special education. She’d moved as far out of the city as she could, to a house with a big backyard. She said, “The fact of being in my own home? Priceless.”

But I also met La Sasha Rodgers, who was 19 when Dixie was torn down (now she’s 21). “A lot of people thought it was bad, because they didn’t live there,” she told me. “But it was like one big family. It felt like home. If I could move back now, the way it was, I would.” She moved out to a house in South Memphis with her mother, and all the little cousins and nieces and nephews who drift in during the day. She doesn’t know anyone else on the block. “It’s just here,” she said about her new house. Rodgers may not see them right out her window, but she knows that the “same dope dealers, the same junkies” are just down the block. The threats are no less real, but now they seem distant and dull, as if she were watching neighborhood life on TV. At Dixie, when there were shots at the corner store, everyone ran out to see what was happening. Now, “if somebody got shot, we wouldn’t get up to see.”

Rodgers didn’t finish high school, although she did get her GED, and she’s never had a job. Still, “I know I have to venture out in the world,” she said, running through her options: Go back to school? Get a job? Get married? Have a baby? “I want more. I’m so ready to have my own. I just don’t know how to get it.”

It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”

The city’s deep pride about the downtown renaissance makes the issue more sensitive still. CITY, COOL, CHIC read downtown billboards, beckoning young couples to new apartments. Developers have built a new eight-block mall and a downtown stadium for the Grizzlies, the city’s NBA team. In 2003, The Commercial Appeal likened downtown Memphis to a grizzly bear “rumbling back into the sun.” The city is applying to the federal government for more funds to knock down the last two housing projects and build more mixed-income developments, and wouldn’t want to advertise any problems.

Earlier this year, Betts presented her findings to city leaders, including Robert Lipscomb, the head of the Memphis Housing Authority. From what Lipscomb said to me, he’s still not moved. “You’ve already marginalized people and told them they have to move out,” he told me irritably, just as he’s told Betts. “Now you’re saying they moved somewhere else and created all these problems? That’s a really, really unfair assessment. You’re putting a big burden on people who have been too burdened already, and to me that’s, quote-unquote, criminal.” To Lipscomb, what matters is sending people who lived in public housing the message that “they can be successful, they can go to work and have kids who go to school. They can be self-sufficient and reach for the middle class.”

But Betts doesn’t think this message, alone, will stick, and she gets frustrated when she sees sensitivity about race or class blocking debate. “You can’t begin to problem-solve until you lay it out,” she said. “Most of us are not living in these high-crime neighborhoods. And I’m out there listening to the people who are not committing the crimes, who expected something better.” The victims, she notes, are seldom white. “There are decent African American neighborhoods—neighborhoods of choice—that are going down,” she said.

In truth, the victims are constantly shifting. Hardly any Section8 families moved into wealthy white suburbs. In the early phases, most of the victims were working-class African Americans who saw their neighborhoods destroyed and had to leave. Now most of them are poor people like Leslie Shaw, who are trying to do what Lipscomb asks of them and be more self-sufficient. Which makes sorting out the blame even trickier. Sometimes the victim and the perpetrator live under the same roof; Shaw’s friend at Springdale Creek wanted a better life for herself and her family, but she couldn’t keep her sons from getting into trouble. Sometimes they may be the same person, with conflicting impulses about whether to move forward or go back. In any case, more than a decade’s worth of experience proves that crossing your fingers and praying for self-sufficiency is foolish.

So what’s the alternative? Is a strained hope better than no hope at all? “We can’t send people back to those barricaded institutions, like Escape From New York,” said Betts. “That’s not a scenario anyone wants to embrace.” Physically redistributing the poor was probably necessary; generations of them were floundering in the high-rises. But instead of coaching them and then carefully spreading them out among many more-affluent neighborhoods, most cities gave them vouchers and told them to move in a rush, with no support.

“People were moved too quickly, without any planning, and without any thought about where they would live, and how it would affect the families or the places,” complains James Rosenbaum, the author of the original Gautreaux study. By contrast, years of public debate preceded welfare reform. States were forced to acknowledge that if they wanted to cut off benefits, they had to think about job training, child care, broken families. Housing never became a high-profile issue, so cities skipped that phase.

Not every project was like Cabrini-Green. Dixie Homes was a complex of two- and three-story brick buildings on grassy plots. It was, by all accounts, claustrophobic, sometimes badly maintained, and occasionally violent. But to its residents, it was, above all, a community. Every former resident I spoke to mentioned one thing: the annual Easter-egg hunt. Demonizing the high-rises has blinded some city officials to what was good and necessary about the projects, and what they ultimately have to find a way to replace: the sense of belonging, the informal economy, the easy access to social services. And for better or worse, the fact that the police had the address.

Better policing, better-connected to new residential patterns, is a step in the right direction. Janikowski believes the chaos can be controlled with information and technology, and he’s been helping the department improve both for several years. This spring he helped launch a “real-time crime center,” in the hope of making the department more nimble. Twenty-four hours a day, technicians plot arrests on giant screens representing the city’s geography, in a newly built studio reminiscent of CNN’s newsroom. Cops on the dots is the national buzzword for this kind of information-driven, rapid-response policing, and it has an alluring certainty about it. The changes seem to be making a difference; recent data show violent-crime rates in the city beginning to inch down.

In the long view—both Betts and Janikowski agree—better policing is of course not the only answer. The more fundamental question is the one this social experiment was designed to address in the first place: What to do about deep poverty and persistent social dysfunction?

Betts’s latest crusade is something called “site-based resident services.” When the projects came down, the residents lost their public-support system—health clinics, child care, job training. Memphis’s infant-mortality rate is rising, for example, and Betts is convinced that has something to do with poor people’s having lost easy access to prenatal care. The services remained downtown while the clients scattered all over the city, many of them with no convenient transportation. Along with other nonprofit leaders, Betts is trying to get outreach centers opened in the outlying neighborhoods, and especially in some of the new, troubled apartment buildings. She says she’s beginning to hear supportive voices within the city government. But not enough leaders have acknowledged the new landscape—or admitted that the projects are gone in name only, and that the city’s middle-class dreams never came true.

And beyond this, what? The social services Betts is recommending did not lift masses of people out of poverty in the projects. Perhaps, outside the projects, they will help people a little more. But perhaps not. The problems of poverty run so deep that we’re unlikely to know the answer for a generation. Social scientists tracking people who are trying to improve their lives often talk about a “weathering effect,” the wearing-down that happens as a lifetime of baggage accumulates. With poor people, the drag is strong, even if they haven’t lived in poverty for long. Kids who leave poor neighborhoods at a young age still have trouble keeping up with their peers, studies show. They catch up for a while and then, after a few years, slip back. Truly escaping poverty seems to require a will as strong as a spy’s: you have to disappear to a strange land, forget where you came from, and ignore the suspicions of everyone around you. Otherwise, you can easily find yourself right back where you started.

Leslie Shaw is writing a memoir, and it contains more weather than most of us can imagine. At 15, she left home with a boy named Fat, who turned out to be a pimp. She spent the next seven years being dragged from state to state as a street hooker, robbing johns and eventually getting addicted to crack. Once, a pimp locked her in his car trunk. Another time, her water broke in a crack house. This covers only the first few chapters. She works on the memoir endlessly—revising, dividing the material into different files (one is labeled, simply, “Shit”). She still has two big sections to go, and many years of her life left to record. Her next big project is to get this memoir under control, finish it, have it published, and “hope something good can come out of it,” for herself and the people who read it.

When I last saw Shaw, in March, she had her plan laid out. About seven months earlier, she had taken in her 2-year-old granddaughter, Casha Mona, for what was supposed to be a temporary stay. The little girl’s mother was getting her act together in Albuquerque, where Casha’s father (Shaw’s son) was in prison. Shaw’s plan was to take Casha Mona back to Albuquerque, then begin a writing workshop at the Renaissance Center in Memphis to get her memoir into shape. And just before Easter, she’d dropped Casha off, come home, and signed up for the class. Two days later, she got a call from an aunt in Albuquerque. Casha had swallowed a few crack rocks at her mother’s house; state officials had put her in foster care. More weather. Last I spoke to Shaw, she’d bought another round-trip bus ticket to Albuquerque and was going to get the little girl back.

The writing class would have to wait, or she could do it at night, or … “I’m just going to get on that bus,” she said, “and pray.”

VIDEO: Leslie Shaw demonstrates the elaborate process of styling Casha Mona’s hair


Why White Girls Go Black and What Happens When They Go Back- And other news, the Day is coming people.

Why White Girls Go Black and What Happens When They Go Back

The Knoxville torture slayings in a nutshell: Naive white girl falls for black boy. Black boy beats white girl. White girl finally leaves black boy. Black boy and his black friends take out their anger by raping, torturing, and killing the first white couple they come across.

The white girl in this story is Daphne Sutton (pictured with child). The black boy is Lemaricus Davidson. The murdered white couple was Channon Christian and Chris Newsom. in Knoxville has just released details of the conversations Daphne Sutton had with Knoxville Police shortly after the murders. Sutton revealed to police that she had only known Davidson for two weeks when she moved in with him at 2316 Chipman Street. She said she had never dated a black man before, and her mind was clouded by drugs:

“I’ve been living with my parents for like a year and a half, and I really can’t stand it. You know how it is, living with your parents. So I met him, and he was getting this house and asked me to move in with him, and I guess just the first person to take care of me I jumped into. I don’t even date black guys, my kids are white, so I don’t know what the hell I was thinking. I really don’t. Maybe, I don’t know, the drugs, the weed.”

Davidson regularly beat Sutton, and eventually she left him and moved out. The very next night, Davidson and some of his black friends carjacked a white couple that was out on a date. Letalvis Cobbins, Davidson’s brother, testified that Christian and Newsom “was uh kissing in the car or whatever” when Davidson carjacked them and drove them back to his Chipman Street home.

There, Newsom was beaten and anally raped, before being shot three times. His body was set on fire and left by some railroad tracks.

Christian was killed only after hours of sexual torture. Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan has testified that Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was raped in all three orifices and then further sexually violated with a broken chair leg.

Channon was beaten in the head with enough force to cause bruising on her brain. A chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, was scrubbed with the same solution.

Christian was then “hog-tied,” and her face was covered tightly with a plastic trash bag. Davidson stuffed her into a large trash can in the kitchen, and commented that he needed to “take out the trash.” Christian died slowly in the trash can, suffocating. A few feet away, her exhausted killers celebrated their long night of rape and murder with a “hearty breakfast of sausage, biscuits, oatmeal and eggs.”

During the night, while Channon was still being raped, Davidson called Daphne Sutton and invited her back to his house, telling her he had a gift for her. While Channon Christian was being guarded in the bathroom by Vanessa Coleman (a black woman), Davidson presented his ex-girlfriend with a Sears bag containing Channon’s clothing and jewelry.

There’s no question these crimes were racially motivated. Davidson was angry his white girlfriend had left him, and when he saw a young white couple kissing he snapped and decided to take his anger out on them. The Knoxville authorities didn’t quite see things this way.

Astonishingly, the authorities considered the fact Davidson’s white girlfriend had just left him to be a mitigating factor in their decision not to seek hate crimes charges. The District Attorney actually said, “We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there’s evidence to the contrary.”

Imagine a white male trying to claim he can’t be charged with a hate crime because he has socialized with black people in the past. People would just laugh. In fact, a 14-year-old white boy in suburban Chicago was charged with a hate crime last year for using a racial epithet toward his black girlfriend after she broke up with him.


Rochester, NY: City Residents Carjack and Rape Pregnant Suburban Woman

Two men from the city of Rochester, NY were arrested for carjacking a pregnant woman from a suburban Rochester plaza last Tuesday night. Court documents reveal the suspects tore off all the victim’s clothing and forced her into the backseat of her car, where she was raped.

The victim begged the suspects to stop raping her, fearing they would kill her unborn baby. Instead, the suspects repeatedly threatened to kill the woman (and her unborn baby) by shooting her in the stomach. After the 90 minute ordeal, the suspects tied the victim up and left her by the side of a rural road.

On Thursday, the local NBC news affiliate interviewed State Assemblyman David Koon, whose 18-year-old daughter Jennifer was carjacked at the tony Pittsford Plaza in 1993. The college sophomore’s battered and bullet-ridden body was discovered a couple hours later in a seedy alley in the city of Rochester. Semen recovered from Koon’s body led to the conviction of Willis Knight (he now goes by the name Rasool Khadafi, following a jailhouse conversion to Islam), a city resident.

Koon noted there are “a lot of similarities” between this week’s carjacking and his daughter’s 16 years ago, but left unmentioned (by Koon and by NBC News) was the fact that in both cases white women in the suburbs were victimized by young black males from the city.

The refusal to confront the obvious racial aspect of the carjackings is reminiscent of the mainstream media’s coverage of the abductions and murders of college students Eve Carson and Lauren Burk in spring 2008. Initially the media spent countless hours analyzing the similarities between the two cases, but after the murderers were captured not one commentator pointed out the glaring fact that both young white women had been murdered by black men. Instead, the coverage shifted, rationalizations were made, and institutional forces took the brunt of the blame. Carson’s murder became an indictment of North Carolina’s ineffectual parole system, while Burk’s murder was attributed to the military’s failure to screen returning Iraq veterans for mental health disorders.

In the autobiographical work Soul on Ice, influential black writer Eldridge Cleaver recounted how in his younger days he purposely targeted white women for rape. Cleaver wrote, “I crossed the tracks and sought out White prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically… Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the White man’s law… and that I was defiling his women… I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.” [bold added for emphasis]

Federal crime statistics suggest that black males continue to “cross the tracks” to seek out white prey.

Of the 111,490 single-offender rapes committed against white women in the U.S. in 2005, Department of Justice statistics show that less than half (44.5%) were committed by white men and a full one-third (33.6%) were committed by black men. (Only 13% of Americans are black.) Of 28,350 multiple-offender rapes, only 9% were committed by groups of white men. 30% were committed by groups of black men, and 43% were committed by mixed-race groups.

Victim’s advocacy groups report that the majority of women who are raped are victimized by someone they know, while the rest are victimized by strangers. It’s hard to see how one-third of the white women in either group could be raped by black men. After all, interracial friendships and relationships are still not very common, and most neighborhoods remain racially segregated.

How are all these interracial rapes occurring? The most likely explanation is that black men continue to venture into the suburbs to seek out white prey.


Washington Post: White Women Who Prefer To Date White Men Are “Racist”

White women who don’t date black men are “racist” and “morally repugnant.” That’s what Washington Post Style Columnist Carolyn Hax wrote in response to a letter from a young white woman who has no problems with interracial relationships in general, but feels they just aren’t for her.

Although Hax wrote it was “horrifying” the young woman had no interest in dating black men, the truth is the questioner was expressing the prevailing view of interracial dating among white women.

While most whites express approval of black-white marriages in general (78% in 2007, up from 4% in 1958), studies have shown that white women still display strong personal preferences for a white partner. One study found that, after controlling for all other attributes (height, weight, attractiveness, etc.), a black man would need to earn $216,500 to be as appealing to a white woman as would a white man earning $62,500.

By depicting interracial relationships as normal and inevitable, and branding any individuals who don’t date interracially as racist, people like Hax are trying to abolish the white race by changing the racial dating preferences of young white women. Unfortunately, Hax has a large audience. Her column is carried in more than 100 newspapers and is geared toward people under the age of 30.


Hate Crime Recording: The Deck Is Stacked Against Whites

The NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force is investigating a string of recent anti-Mexican bias attacks in the Bronx. Over a three-day period, five Mexican immigrants have been attacked. Four of the victims were beaten; one was stabbed. Anti-Mexican epithets were used during the attacks.

So who is committing these heinous assaults? White people?

No. And yes.

The suspects in all of the attacks are believed to be Dominican, making these hate crimes Hispanic-on-Hispanic. But since the FBI doesn’t track Hispanic hate crime suspects, these attacks in the Bronx are all recorded as white-on-Hispanic.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a link to the FBI’s Hate Crime Incident Report. In the ‘Bias Motivation’ section, ‘Anti-Hispanic’ is listed. Yet in the ‘Suspected Offender’s Race’ section, Hispanic is not listed. Hispanic suspects are recorded as ‘White.’

This asymmetrical reporting has important implications when it comes to hate crimes involving Hispanics and whites.

‘White’ is a Suspect category and ‘Anti-Hispanic’ is a Bias category, so white-on-Hispanic hate crimes are recorded as such. But because Hispanics aren’t a Suspect category, the only way to record a Hispanic-on-white hate crime is as a White-on-White hate crime. Since this is rather illogical, it’s common for prosecutors to simply not pursue hate crimes charges in Hispanic-on-white attacks.

(As an aside, it should be pointed out that even though Anti-White is a Bias category on the FBI’s Hate Crime Incident Report, many prosecutors don’t consider whites to be a ‘protected class’ and they are therefore reluctant to treat any anti-White crimes as hate crimes. When Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate in June, he repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are not designed to protect whites.)

For example, last month in Denver a 49-year-old white woman was killed when she was intentionally run-over by a Mexican driver. A witness told police that immediately before the hit-and-run the suspects shouted, “We’re Mexicans! We’ll kill you white bitches!

Rather than prosecute the murder as a White-on-White hate crime, the prosecutors went to great lengths to sanitize the witness’s statement of any evidence of anti-White bias. The word “white” was removed from the indictment, and “white bitches” was shortened to just “bitches.”

Anti-white violence is rarely treated as bias crime, while internecine violence between Hispanics is recorded as white-on-Hispanic bias crime. When it comes to hate crime recording, the deck is clearly stacked against whites.

As a result, in the fewer than 10,000 hate crimes recorded each year, more than half the suspects are white. At the same time, there are 650,000 total interracial violent crimes committed in this country each year, and 90% of them are black-on-white.

By devoting an inordinate amount of attention to flawed hate crime statistics and ignoring overall violent crime patterns, the media gives an inaccurate portrayal of violent crime in America.


America’s Violent Decline- How do you tell when a great civilization is in decline? The shit is coming, are YOU ready?

2 toddlers die in fire; aunt concerned about welfare card


I normally don’t post much Memphis news, but this story is just too sickening to ignore. Two toddlers were critically injured in a fire (they’ve both since died), when their mother and their aunt left them alone to go shopping. (It was the second time that day they’d left the kids alone.) The mother was wailing for the TV cameras, but the aunt told reporters that she had no regrets about leaving the two boys home alone, as she had no idea “they was going to set the house on fire like that.” Then she began laughing, saying she sure hopes her purse didn’t burn up, because her welfare card is in it.

You have to see this to believe it.


Animal cruelty is rampant among non-whites

No other race but whites seems to take much interest in animal welfare. In fact, many non-whites get a kick out of torturing animals. Here are two more:

A teen accused of setting pit bull terriers on fire pleaded guilty today in a Dallas County Criminal Court and will serve a four-year sentence.

Lefferreio Sudds was charged with two counts of felony animal cruelty and torture for setting fire to the dogs on April 4.

Witnesses saw two dogs on fire running from the intersection of Sunburst and Alps drives, located about a mile west of Balch Springs, police said.

Two teenage boys were standing at the corner, but fled when witnesses tried to confront them, police said. Investigators went to the teens’ home on Sunburst and found six other pit bulls, which were later placed in the custody of animal control.

“The two dogs were in agonizing pain,” said Jonnie England, director of animal advocacy for the Metroplex Animal Coalition, shortly after the incident. “The little female dog … her face was practically burned off.” Because of their severe burns, both dogs had to be euthanized.

A second teen, Jucorey Davis, was also charged with two counts of animal cruelty.


Blacks and Mexicans set white kid on fire and laugh; strictly local news

You can just imagine how big this news would be if the races were reversed. The media would forget all about the balloon hoax and cover this non-stop. Nancy Grace would probably have an epileptic seizure on live TV if she heard about 5 white kids doing this to a black kid. But when five blacks and Hispanics surround a 15 year old white kid, douse him with rubbing alcohol, and set him on fire, leaving him severely burned and disfigured for life, it’s just a local story.


Apartment tells tenants to remove American flags

Because there’s a lot of diversities in the area and they might be offended.

ALBANY, Ore. – At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments – but residents have been told they can’t fly any flags at all.

Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag – he said – is his way of showing support.

“This flag stands for all those people,” said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. “It stands for the people that can no longer stand – who died in wars. That’s why I fly this flag.”

But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems.

He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction.

“It floored me,” he said. “I can’t believe she was saying what she was saying.”

Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down.

White said management told her that “someone might get offended.”

“I just said to her ‘They’ll just have to get over it,’” White said.

Resident we talked to who had been approached to take down their flags all told us the same thing: that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community.

Great. So the flag of our own country is now “hate”, too.


The GOP is determined to commit suicide

The Republican Party has learned nothing from recent history, and continues to do everything it can to repel its base of white voters, in a futile attempt to attract non-whites to the party. They’ve added a new section on, which features Republican “Heroes”. You’ve got to see this to believe it. Of the 18, three are white women from the 19th or early 20th century, such as the radical feminist Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, the nurse who founded The Red Cross, and one Ellen Foster, whose claim to fame is that she was one of the first female attorneys in the US. Apparently there have been no significant Republican women in over 100 years.

Of the eighteen “heroes”, nine of them are black men. Seven of them are as ancient as the women. But they certainly have had a huge impact on the GOP and America. Let’s see; there’s Pinckney Pinchback, the son of a slave who became the GOP governor of Reconstruction era Louisiana in 1872. Then there’s Octavius Catto, another son of slaves who became a civil right activist in Pennsyvania, and was murdered in 1871 by “a Democrat” who didn’t like his political activities. Then there’s Joseph Rainey, a runaway slave who went on to become the first “African-American” Congressman, thanks to Reconstruction. And who can forget Jose Celso Barbosa, the black Hispanic who “established the Puerto Rico Republican Party” in 1899. And, whoa Nellie!, what about John Langston? He was the very first “African-American” public official in the US, being elected township clerk in Ohio! He was later named as diplomat to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The GOP helpfully points out that Langston Hughes, whom they refer to as a “literary giant”, was named after him. For some reason, they forgot to mention that many of the poems by this “literary giant” appeared in the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, and that he was a notorious defender of the Soviet Union back when Stalin was killing millions. I’m sure that’s just an oversight.

Then there’s Hiram Revels, who was the first “African-American” Senator, again thanks to Reconstruction. Say, aren’t the GOP’s most reliable voters white Southerners? I wonder what they think of the party celebrating the Reconstruction period like this? Not to worry, because most of them will never know, because Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh will make it a point to never mention this “Heroes” page on their shows. Might not be good for business. Then there’s Frederick Douglass. No need to go into details on him. There’s also one black woman, Mary Terrell, who’s in there because she helped found the NAACP, which has done so much to advance the cause of conservative, limited government over the years.

There are a couple of blacks from the 20th century. One is Edward Brooke, who was elected Senator from Massachusetts in 1966. The other is Jackie Robinson, the first black player in major league baseball. They’re really reaching with this one. Robinson would be none too happy if he were alive today and saw the GOP claiming him as one of their heroes.

As pointed out by a Democratic source, the inclusion of baseball star Jackie Robinson on the list seems particularly egregious. The former Dodger, who broke baseball’s color barrier, was far from a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Robinson’s ties to the GOP seemed more driven by a personal admiration for Nelson Rockefeller — the New Yorker who would end up being vice president under Gerald Ford — than it was core ideological convictions. In his biography, Robinson said that as the Republican Party leadership tilted towards Barry Goldwater conservatives, he began to have “a better understanding of how it must have felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

Writing on page 340 of the autobiography, “I Never Had It Made”, Robinson went so far as to insist that he be called an independent, “since I’ve never identified myself with one party or another in politics.” In 1968 he campaigned for Hubert Humphrey.

“I was not as sold on the Republican party as I was on the governor,” Robinson wrote of Rockefeller. “Every chance I got, while I was campaigning, I said plainly what I thought of the right-wing Republicans and the harm they were doing. I felt the GOP was a minority party in term of numbers of registered voters and could not win unless they updated their social philosophy and sponsored candidates and principles to attract the young, the black, and the independent voter. I said this often from public, and frequently Republican, platforms. By and large Republicans had ignored blacks and sometimes handpicked a few servile leaders in the black community to be their token “niggers.” How would I sound trying to go all out to sell Republicans to black people? They’re not buying. They know better.”

“I admit freely that I think, live, and breathe black first and foremost. That is one of the reasons I was so committed to the governor and so opposed to Senator Barry Goldwater. Early in 1964 I wrote a Speaking Out piece for The Saturday Evening Post. A Barry Goldwater victory would insure that the GOP would be completely the white man’s party. What happened at San Francisco when Senator Goldwater became the Republican standard-bearer confirmed my prediction.”

“I wasn’t altogether caught of guard by the victory of the reactionary forces in the Republican party, but I was appalled by the tactics they used to stifle their liberal opposition,” Robinson wrote of that 1964 convention. “I was a special delegate to the convention through an arrangement made by the Rockefeller office. That convention was one of the most unforgettable and frightening experiences of my life. The hatred I saw was unique to me because it was hatred directed against a white man. It embodied a revulsion for all he stood for, including his enlightened attitude toward black people.”

Yeah, Jackie Robinson, “GOP Hero.”

Out of the 18, only four white men made the list, because, let’s face it, it’s really women and black folks who built the party. But I guess they had to have some token whites, so there’s Ronald Reagan, of course. And if you have to show some white guys, it’s probably best to highlight those who’ve done so much for black people. So there’s Everett Dirksen, a Senator who helped create and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There’s Frank Johnson, a federal judge from the same era, who issued several rulings that helped destroy freedom in the name of Equality. Eisenhower’s in there, for sending federal troops to Arkansas to forcibly integrate the schools. Lastly, of course, there’s good ol’ Abe Lincoln.

Like I said, except for Reagan, these guys are in there simply for what they did for blacks. But I notice the GOP doesn’t quote them on how they themselves felt about black people. Eisenhower famously remarked that the white Southerners weren’t bad people; they just didn’t want their sweet little girls sitting in school next to overgrown Negroes. Lincoln’s views on race are even more well known. He didn’t want blacks to vote, sit on juries, or be allowed to marry white. In fact, he wanted them all removed back to Africa. And these guys are two “heroes” that are supposed to bring blacks running the the GOP? It will never work. Any black person who stumbles on this page will be outraged and disgusted by this blatant pandering. But this kind of thing most certainly will repel white voters, who are the Republican party. The GOP seems hell bent on committing suicide. Well, the sooner the better, and good riddance.


White communities – a danger to America

A black journalist has a new book out called Searching for Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America. It’s all about one of the most “dangerous” trends in America – more and more white people choosing to live around white people. TIME interviewed him about this dangerous, growing practice. He freely admits that white areas are safe, attractive, and pleasant to live in, but nevertheless says that the government has got to step in and do something about it, because it flies in the face of racial integration, which is what America should be all about.

So how can we avoid the threat of racial balkanization you describe?

We have a golden opportunity now. If I were an elected leader I would say we have $800 billion in stimulus money that could rebuild America. We don’t want to build communities in such a way that continues segregation. After World War II, President Eisenhower built highways and gave incentives to homeowners that gave white suburbanites an advantage. It left us with segregation for decades to come. Now we have an opportunity to get it right.


We see that tendency to divide ourselves into identity groups in places all over the world, it seems, whether it’s by race or religion or political view. Is it simply human nature, do you think?

I just reject that argument. People in Whitopia would say, “Hey Rich, birds of a feather flock together. What’s the big deal?” Our government and businesses across the country make decisions every day that perpetuate segregation. When you say homes need to be built on a one-acre lot, when you say apartment renters can’t live in your community — these concrete policies are what contribute to segregation. It’s not in our biology, and it’s not natural. We’re a great country — we’ve overcome some thorny problems in our past and we’re better than that.


America’s Booming White Enclaves

Traveling some 27,000 miles, African-American journalist Rich Benjamin roamed the U.S. from 2007 to 2009 exploring a major demographic shift that is attracting remarkably little attention — the flight of white residents from cities and integrated suburbs into cloistered, racially homogeneous enclaves. Tidy communities such as St. George, Utah, and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho — places Benjamin calls Whitopias — have grown at triple the rate of America’s cities in recent years, raising troubling questions about the country’s multiracial cohesion. The Stanford literature Ph.D. chronicled his adventure in a new book, Searching for Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America, and spoke with TIME about what he found.
(Read “Resisting School Integration in Savannah.”)



Let’s start with the title of your book — what is a Whitopia, exactly? It seems to be more than just a place where a lot of white people live.
Absolutely. A Whitopia has three things. First, it has posted more than 6% population growth since 2000. The second thing is that the majority of that growth — upwards of 90% — comes from white migrants. The third thing a Whitopia has is an ineffable social charm — a pleasant look and feel.
(Read “A Brief History of the NAACP.”)

You say that many Whitopias offer a high quality of life and tend to perform well on those “Best Places to Live” lists that run in magazines. Do you think people are also drawn to these places specifically for their whiteness?
The major draw to Whitopia is that they’re safe communities with good public schools and beautiful natural resources. Those qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race in many Americans’ minds. For some people, race is a major role, and they said so to my face, but most of the Whitopians I encountered aren’t intentionally practicing racial discrimination or self-segregation.

You say Whitopias can form even in the middle of diverse cities. How is that possible?
People don’t realize that diversity isn’t the same as integration. Blacks and whites in New York, where I live, are as segregated today as in 1910 [based on a sociologists' segregation index that measures how much contact people of differing races have with one another.]

What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?
You can call me old-fashioned, but I’m an integrationist. A democracy can’t function at its optimum unless all members are integrated as full members.

A community full of like-minded people tends to enforce their own view of the world and close off opposing viewpoints. You can go to parties in New York City where the liberal smugness is intolerable because they’re only hearing liberal viewpoints. On the Whitopian conservative side, it’s spinning out of control. Look at the tea-bagger movement, where people are concerned their taxes are going to be wasted on minorities and illegal immigrants. Same with the movement that says [President] Obama is not a citizen. (See pictures of the tea-party protests.)

So how can we avoid the threat of the racial Balkanization that you describe?
We have a golden opportunity now. If I were an elected leader, I would say we have $800 billion in stimulus money that could rebuild America. We don’t want to build communities in such a way that continues segregation. After World War II, President Eisenhower built highways and gave incentives to homeowners that gave white suburbanites an advantage. It left us with segregation for decades to come. Now we have an opportunity to get it right.

Are there any places that are getting it right now? That serve as a model for what you’d like to see?
There are communities around the country that get it right. Maplewood, N.J., has all the attributes of a Whitopia — high property values, great public schools, neighborliness — and yet it’s also integrated and very diverse.

What surprised you about the communities you spent time in?
I was caught off-guard by the level of hostility to immigration reform in many of these communities and by how concerned many are by taxes — they believe taxes are too high. But I was also caught off-guard by how pleasant an experience it turned out to be, the personable warmth that greeted me in many cases.

And you were surprised by how much you enjoyed golf.
I was. [Laughs.] I feel like golf courses are the seductive emblem of Whitopia, and I didn’t think I could get the essence of the place without learning myself. What I thought was a chore turned out to be a labor of love.

Tell me about the time you spent with white separatists in Idaho.
I just stumbled upon it. There’s a religious sect called Christian Identity, which is a religious arm of the Aryan Nations. When I was in northern Idaho, I sat in on a three-day retreat and had some fascinating conversations. It was just a bizarre experience.

You, a black man, sat in on a white-separatist retreat. How did that go over?
They were curious and shocked they had found a black man on their premises. A lot of the members of the church took pains to explain to me the difference between white supremacy and white separatism. They said, “We don’t think we’re better than you; we just want to be separate from you.”
(Read “What Berlusconi’s Obama ‘Jokes’ Say About Italy.”)

We see that tendency to divide ourselves into identity groups in places all over the world, it seems, whether it’s by race or religion or political view. Is it simply human nature?
I just reject that argument. People in Whitopia would say, “Hey, Rich, birds of a feather flock together. What’s the big deal?” Our government and businesses across the country make decisions every day that perpetuate segregation. When you say homes need to be built on a 1-acre lot, when you say apartment renters can’t live in your community — these concrete policies are what contribute to segregation. It’s not in our biology, and it’s not natural. We’re a great country — we’ve overcome some thorny problems in our past, and we’re better than that.

See pictures of expensive things that money can buy.

See pictures of Americans in their homes.


GOP’s war on white people rages in Huntsville, AL

Here’s the kind of story we’re looking for when we ask people to send news tips. We can’t use email forwards, personal accounts of incidents, or obviously fake urban legends, and we’re getting a lot of these kinds of things. We need real stories, with links, and we’re not getting many of them. Here’s a great one:

An Alabama reader sent us this link, which shows clearly that far from being “conservative”, or “on our side”, the GOP is nothing but the tag team partner of the Democrats in the relentless war on white people. Thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act proposed by George Bush and passed by a Republican Congress, all decent public schools will eventually be destroyed in the name of Equality. That bill made it a law that if enough students in a certain school have low test scores, they have the right to transfer to schools with high test scores. As if it’s somehow the building that is responsible for the test scores. What that means is that black and brown students now have the right to demand entry to successful white public schools, and destroy them with their chaos, crime, and low test scores. Buildings don’t cause low test scores. Bad teachers aren’t the cause of low test scores. The cause of low test scores is not very bright students. And moving them to another building won’t make them any smarter, but it will destroy a successful white school. And that was the whole purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act. It’s already happening in Huntsville, where 10% of the students on the black side of town have already demanded transfers to white schools on the south side. Now the south side schools are overcrowded, taxpayers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in upkeep and staff for half empty schools on the north side, and the blacks who have transferred to the white schools are scoring as low as ever on the tests.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear some “conservative” GOP pol going on about how bad Obama is, and talking about what a great thing the Tea Parties and Town Hall protests are. They may sound good, but the vast majority of them are sellouts, who will betray you in a heartbeat. If that weren’t the case, No Child Left Behind would never have passed. The GOP hates white people just as much as the Democrats do. They just hide it a little better.


Uncle Tom Lloyd Marcus becomes the face of the Tea Party movement

All across America, we’ve seen literally thousands of Tea Parties, Obamacare town hall protests, and the recent march on Washington. Hundreds of thousand of people, if not millions, have come out to voice their anger at what’s going on in their country courtesy of President Rahm Emanuel and his puppet, Barack Obama. And 99% of them have been white. That’s a fact. In fact, it’s probably higher than that, like 99.99%. It’s a white movement, plain and simple. But white people have been taught to hate themselves, and so they go out of their way to recruit Uncle Tom’s for their movements, hoping the media won’t call them racists. The family values crowd enlisted “Bishop” Harry Jackson in their fight against gay marriage. And Harry Jackson promptly repaid the favor by inviting “black conservative” crackhead criminal Marion Barry to speak at a rally for traditional marriage. And who can forget Julius Caesar (JC) Watts, the darling of the conservative movement in the 1990s, simply because he was the only black Republican in Congress? After being coddled and promoted by white Republicans for years, in 2008 Watts paid them back by saying he was probably going to vote for Obama, and hinted that he thinks the GOP is “racist.” And don’t get me started on Harry Alford.

Republicans have been doing this for decades, groveling and pandering to blacks in the hope that blacks will see just “color-blind” they are, and start voting GOP. And year after year, election after election, blacks continue voting for the Democrats by a factor of at least 9-1. In 2008, it was 19-1. 95% of blacks voted for Obama. And have conservatives learned anything? Nope. Look at the tea parties for proof. Until a couple days ago, hardly anyone could name a person associated with the tea parties. They came out of a true grass roots movement, and except for the few politicians and washed up C-list celebs who latched on to them, like Chuck Norris, there wasn’t a face attached to the movement. It was truly a mass movement, that didn’t revolve around a personality.

But in the past couple days, one person has become the face of the tea parties. And surprise, surprise, it’s a black guy. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people show up at tea parties, and about 7 of them are black, and now one of them has become the public face of this white movement. I wrote about Marcus a long time ago. He wrote some lame song that’s now the Tea Party Anthem, and so he was invited up on stage to play and sing for the crowd at the Orlando protest. I said that his presence was proof that the tea parties aren’t serious, and that they were going nowhere. And after his Orlando performance, he was asked to perform at a whole bunch of other “conservative” political events and protests, by stupid white people who are eager to show they’re not racist.

Never mind that’s he’s “married” to a white woman. Oh hell no, that’s no problem. Conservatives will gladly embrace their own genocide if they think the media will stop calling them racists.

But in the past few days, Lloyd Marcus has become the national symbol of the Tea Party movement. He wrote a column for the neo-con website American Thinker denouncing liberals and Democrats for, you guessed it, “racism”. (Do blacks, “conservative” or “liberal”, ever talk about anything else?) Then influential columnist (and substitute host for Rush Limbaugh) started praising him on the National Review website. More prominent “conservative” writers picked up the theme and ran with it. Here’s one. There are lots more.

Unbelievably, even Peter Brimelow is now praising Lloyd Marcus.

So once again, a white movement has been completely neutralized by political correctness. Millions of white people are looking for a group that will speak out for them, and speak up for their interests, without apology. Then they find out that the tea party crowd not only won’t speak up for them, but their public mascot is a black man who’s engaged in white genocide.

Yeah, that’s a real smart plan for winning the hearts and minds of the millions of fed up white people in this country.

And conservatives wonder why they never make any progress, or win any big battles?

It’s fine for white women to marry black men, but two men getting married is a big deal?

Interracial marriage is hunky dory, but high taxes are an abomination?

Immigration is bad because we’re replacing the founding stock of this country, but it’s just dandy for the founding stock of this country to breed themselves out of existence by “marrying” blacks?

This is insane.


The Coming Race War in America
A Wake-up Call
By Carl T. RowanChapter One: America’s Violent Decline

How do you tell when a great civilization is in decline? When a great nation is on the rocks spiritually, morally, racially, and economically?

I look closely at my country, and everywhere I see signs of decadence, decay, and self-destruction.

Respect for law and order has declined drastically, except in the phony speeches of politicians.

The nation’s capital is awash with special counsel and special prosecutors, taking testimony from the President, the First Lady, key members of the cabinet and the Congress–all accused or suspected of criminal wrongdoing. The FBI is far short of being trustworthy, its agents and former agents deep in partisan politics. Local police departments reek with corruption, including condoned lawlessness by some policemen. Our prisons bulge with record numbers of young Americans, mostly the fruit flies of the drug trade, while the big bumblebees of the crime and drug syndicates peddle their wares with impunity.

Every day our newscasts begin with stories of grisly murders, sexual assaults, grotesque abuses of children, mass killings on job sites, and worse.

America is sinking in greed. Our workers fear tomorrow and their bosses grab what they can today. A corporate fatcat can get a $10 million reward for “downsizing” his firm–that is, putting thousands of employees out of work.

Public morality has probably never been lower. Lawmakers writhe and wrangle over how to deal with television programming that spews out sexual rot and gratuitous violence morning, afternoon, and night–prime time sewers. Congress makes believe that a meaningless “rating system” and a V-chip will solve the problem.

Racism has not been as virulent throughout America since the Civil War, with short fuses burning on a thousand powder kegs. We have seen our greatest law enforcement agency, the FBI, sit for weeks in a stalemate with a small Montana cult, the Freemen, whose leaders preach that the descendants of northern Europeans are “God’s chosen people,” that Jews are “the children of Satan,” and that African Americans and other people of color are by nature dumb and immoral.

We see the Freemen and other hate groups like the Aryan Nation, the skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan, and assorted militias piling up arms for what they say is a coming race war in America that will precede the return of Christ.

These are the adherents of a “Christian Identity” movement whose, followers refuse to pay governmental levies, but collect taxes themselves. They rake in millions through extortion, the widespread use of bogus checks and phony credit cards, and simple extortion.

But local law enforcers and even the FBI are afraid to tangle with them, wary since their disastrous confrontations with the David Koresh cult in Waco, Texas, and the Randy Weaver group at Ruby Ridge in Idaho.

Official, open coddling of these groups pretty much ensures that the race war these white supremacists predict will really come.

I know that these harsh judgments about America as it nears the turn of the century are not what most Americans want to hear. In the wake of the fall of the “Evil Empire” that was the old Soviet Union, with the still-limited development of China and the Third World, and the starkly limited hegemony of European and other “first world” nations, Americans prefer to boast that the United States is the last of the great powers. As proof we cite our nuclear arsenals and the fact that we have the only quick-strike forces capable of moving into Bosnia, Africa, and the Middle East, to wage war or peace, within hours of a White House go-ahead to strike. We like to boast of our economic might, even though we’ve seen a frightful decline in good, high-paying jobs. We like to think that we are the world’s cultural giant because our movies and music, our top television shows, are coveted the world over, this much to the dismay of foreign leaders who think the cultural fare that we export carries the seeds of national destruction.

So much of what Americans boast about nowadays is superficial, even delusionary. Look below the surface. I have done so and concluded that this country, for which I have fought in war and peace, is in precipitous decline. The leaders of Rome, Greece, the Third Reich, the British Empire, never saw the onset of decadence and internal rot in time; we can, and we must, if the United States is not to succumb to its internal hatreds and moral excesses, to be consumed by its own self-destruction.

Who can overlook the decline of marriage as an American institution, with Hollywood and television stars, and so many social and political leaders, abusing drugs and having sex and babies out of wedlock? Our teenagers see no stigma in this lifestyle. Licentiousness and depravity have made the United States a hollow remake of Sodom and Gomorrah, with even preachers and priests, nuns and schoolteachers, unveiled as the practitioners of child abuse, as marriage killers, and as outright murderers.

Take a look at this society’s decline in terms of organized religion. Preachers preach and rabbis teach, but fewer and fewer people listen, and those who visit churches and synagogues rarely heed what they hear. Look at what the Greeks and Romans have written that they saw too late–and what we see now, everywhere in this nation: racial and religious bigotries, blind nationalisms, and myriad other injustices tolerated and even glorified by our philosophers, politicians, Presidents, the “wise men” allowing this, the greatest of societies, to be consumed in hatred.

Look at the piling up of economic injustice and ask how long we can live in peace and prosperity.

The January 22, 1996, issue of U.S. News & World Report carried an article about how WORKERS TAKE IT ON THE CHIN which noted:


* that in 1982 dollars, U.S. workers had suffered a decline in earnings, from an average of $298 weekly in 1970 to $256 in 1994* that during the last five years “the upper class” has gained economically by 76 percent, while the middle class has risen by 6 percent, the working class by 2 percent, and the poorest class by 6 percent

* that in 1945 the top 1 percent of U.S. families held 32.4 percent of the nation’s wealth, but in 1992 that top 1 percent held 42 percent of the wealth. Here was indisputable evidence that while the privileged were assailing attempts of the New Deal and the Great Society to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, the rich have been getting richer while the poor have lapsed into deeper poverty

A less conservative publication would have been accused of spreading “inflammatory class warfare verbiage” or “an anti-capitalist, pinko diatribe.”

What we have to recognize is that we are a society stumbling into a vast darkness, because we do not really seek answers to the issues that I have raised, issues that are of concern to all of us. Instead we look for scapegoats!

The result: in just the last decade we have seen some gruesome manifestations of racial and ethnic hatred in America–literally, murder in the streets, blood spilling everywhere. We have seen political fights in Congress over who should get the most of America’s goodies–fights that have caused shutdowns of the federal government and mind-boggling gridlock in Washington. One senses that our nation is split irrevocably and that there is no one to bring us together again.

The blame game seems to be played with every American failure.

Some U.S. auto dealers blame Japan’s supremacy in selling certain products on “unfair trading practices.” From time to time the U.S. industrialists who feel cheated, and the politicians who deplore the trade imbalance with Japan, create almost enough hysteria to foment a trade war between Washington and Tokyo.

Some American industrialists find scapegoats in the men and women of organized labor, claiming that the “exorbitant” demands of U.S. workers drive them to move plants to Taiwan, Singapore, and, yes, Mexico, where they can enjoy cheap labor. So these employers have engaged in economy-crippling wars with the organized-labor movement, which itself is struggling to emerge from a long, tragic decline.

Still, it is clear that organized laborers and their pay, health care, and other demands are not the cause of the rot in industrial America. If greedy union leaders are not responsible for the disappearance of “good jobs”–of high-paying posts as computer chip makers and camera makers and even shirtmakers and shoemakers in the United States, then who is?

The political flamethrowers, such as Governor Pete Wilson of California, think they see advantage in blaming our economic decline on the great influx into the United States of “illegal aliens.” They are bent on making immigration the issue on which many politicians in California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and other states will rise or fall in the 1996 elections and the remaining years of this century.

The one explosive issue that may trigger the actual burning of America, and certainly exacerbates the ever-widening divisions between and among its citizens, is “affirmative action.” Almost every presidential and congressional candidate now strives to convince voters that black, Hispanic, Asian, and female recipients of undeserved economic preferences are really to blame for the economic malaise that has produced so many millions of “angry white men.”

These simplistic blame games have already created a disrespect, even hatred, not only for the poor, but for government officials at all levels. They are seen as the ones who proposed, enacted, and protected the laws that supposedly have lowered the levels of life of white men. Others who think their plight is far worse than that of white men have also made the government their worst villain. The government is seen as the invader, controller, and circumscriber of the lives of everyone–the middle class that has lost ground, the underclass that never had sufficient chance.

So citizen militias, operating publicly and secretly, have sprung up across America–a fact that exploded into our consciousness with the dreadful bombing of the federal Alfred P. Murrah office building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Some Americans prefer to think that some grotesque mental illness affecting only a handful of individuals would provoke the bombing of a huge building and the murder of 168 people–but only the next bombing will show us the level to which “the government” has become the enemy of “the people.”

Yes, I can virtually guarantee you that there will be other bombings of the magnitude of the one that occurred in Oklahoma City. That is because the forces that prompted the Oklahoma City crime have influenced hundreds of thousands of other Americans who nurse precisely the same hatreds that were unleashed in Oklahoma.

Note, for example, that the crazy defiance and the spirit of violence of the Montana Freemen did not end with their “surrender” to the FBI. They still defied the authority of the federal courts. In late June, in a Billings, Montana, courtroom, one of the Freemen, Steven Charles Hance, said to U.S. magistrate Richard Anderson, “You’re going down, son.” The Freemen had already been charged with threatening the life of another federal judge, and yet they were handled with kid gloves.

We cannot afford to ignore the fact that the Freemen are just a tiny part of a nationwide horror–the sprouting up of highly armed militias and paramilitary groups across America, all of them expressing some degree of racial paranoia and hatred. The most watched of these “patriot” right-wing groups are the Militia of Montana, the Unorganized Militia of the United States, the Michigan Militia, Police Against the New World Order, the Idaho Sovereignty Association, United Sovereigns of America, the North American Freedom Council, and the Texas Constitutional Militia. But those pressing to create a constitutional crisis by promoting a ghastly race war are going underground.

The nation was stunned late in June 1996 when federal officials announced that they had arrested ten men and two women in Phoenix on charges that they had plotted to blow up buildings that housed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, and other federal agencies. These twelve members of a group called the Viper Militia, which almost no one had heard of, had gone so far as to videotape the columns in these buildings where explosives should be put so as to most effectively cause the buildings to collapse. Their plan had been foiled through a marvelous piece of police work. An Arizona law officer infiltrated the group and in meeting after meeting listened to the militiamen boast of how they would quickly kill any infiltrator.

Police learned quickly that these twelve alienated Americans had the explosives and weapons with which to carry out what would have been a devastating act of domestic terrorism. In the home of one Viper alone, that of Gary C. Bauer, the group’s ordnance expert, federal agents found almost one-half ton of ammonium nitrate. This little Viper Militia group had stashed away in one Phoenix house half a ton of ammonium nitrate; fifty-five gallons of nitromethane; a highly toxic yellow powder explosive called picric acid; many blasting caps; and more than seventy automatic rifles. This tiny band of self-styled revolutionaries had, right in residential Phoenix, the ingredients for a bomb at least half as large as the one used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

The evidence mounts that many of the eight hundred or so militia groups that have sprung up in this country are amassing even greater caches of explosives and firearms, and that the serious terrorists are operating in units of fewer than a handful of people, so as to prevent infiltration by lawmen.

Yet, FBI and other officials in Washington tell me that Americans as a whole are not yet sufficiently aware of the gravity of the situation. These “patriot” criminals are now regularly robbing banks with automatic weapons. They are planning assassinations and attacks on police and military units. They are suspected of the sabotage derailment of an Amtrak train outside Phoenix in October 1995.

Incredibly, within weeks, for most Americans it was as though the events in Phoenix never occurred. The Viper Militia had produced no bodies to bury, no loved ones to mourn, so the threat didn’t seem as real as was the Oklahoma City bombing.

It may be years before we learn how many paramilitary groups like the Vipers were driven underground by the arrests and seizures of weapons in Arizona.

But overt or covert, all these groups profess to believe that dangerous conspirators, including Jewish bankers and publishers and animal-like blacks, have usurped the U.S. Constitution, corrupted the courts and the banks, and moved to take arms away from loyal citizens. Their solution is to fight what the fringe leaders call “the System” by setting up common-law courts, robbing banks, and engaging in terrorism.

You cannot dismiss all these whites as mere “angry men” who shout a lot about their grievance but aren’t likely to become violent. They have done violence almost beyond comprehension in Oklahoma City. And “they” were clearly influenced by a weird novel, The Turner Diaries, published in 1978 under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald by a former physics professor named William Pierce. This uncompromising racist, Pierce, has become the prophet of a Caucasian war, and his book has become the bible of the “save the White race” movement.

In May 1996, I wrote to the National Alliance in Hillsboro, West Virginia, to purchase a copy of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries. Along with the book I got a sheet stating:


For far too long, we of European descent have allowed clever aliens to rob us of our identity and our history and to impose on us an alien morality in which the highest virtue is to hate our own race.The time has come for a courageous rethinking of all our values–for a new morality for White people, based firmly on Nature’s laws and on the highest ideals of our Race-soul, a morality in which the first principle is the survival and advancement of our race–a principle to which all other things are subordinate.

Clearly, the lives of all those people who died in Oklahoma City were subordinate to the mad-dog, white-supremacist goals of those who are waging war to gain the power to say who can live in America. I have read the most racist of all the literature of slavery days, and of the bitter conflicts of the 1950s and 1960s, and I recall nothing as bigoted as The Turner Diaries. Almost every page reeks with talk of “depraved blacks raping white women,” “the corruption of our people by the Jewish-liberal-democratic-egalitarian plague,” details of the assassination of white editors who side with blacks; with the conclusion that “it is frighteningly clear now that there is no way to win the struggle in which we [whites] are engaged without shedding torrents–veritable rivers–of blood.”

I am aware that white people who have just begun to read this book are probably fixated on the question of when and why angry blacks will begin the race war. There is no question in my mind that the disciples of William Pierce will start the fires of what some of them refer to as “Armageddon.” Pierce wrote the “fictional” details of how to blow up the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. His scheme, right down to the use of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, was copied in the Oklahoma City tragedy. It is known that right-wing militiamen Timothy McVeigh, who was indicted on charges of carrying out that bombing, regarded The Turner Diaries as his gospel.

When Mike Wallace of CBS’s “60 Minutes” confronted Pierce in the mountains of West Virginia, he found a man who would express no sorrow about the Oklahoma City bombing, just regret about the timing of it.

“[The bombing] does not make sense under the present conditions that we have when there’s no group capable of actually taking on the federal government and defeating it,” Pierce said. “I do not believe that we are in a revolutionary phase yet. I believe that the people have a lot of waking up and understanding to do first.”

By way of “educating” the people, Pierce told Wallace that he had sympathy for the Montana Freemen and the Unabomber, favored shipping American blacks to Africa, and admired more than any man Adolf Hitler–an admiration he expressed by keeping two original copies of Mein Kampf right over his shoulder in his office.

Pierce has sold some two hundred thousand copies of The Turner Diaries since 1978. He has made a deal with publisher Lyle Stuart, a Jew, to republish the book and give it wider circulation. Stuart told Mike Wallace that he wants the world to know what Pierce stands for.

The Clinton administration’s timid handling of the Freemen emboldened not just the Freemen, but lawless militiamen everywhere. Some of the most reactionary politicians in America went to that Jordan, Montana, farmhouse to try to negotiate a peaceful end to the standoff, but came away saying that the Freemen did not want a peaceful end to the dispute. That event made it clear that if the FBI and state law enforcement units continue to be intimidated, these groups that declare themselves to be beyond the jurisdictions of the law agencies of “the System” will strike out violently, making a race war inevitable.

Are you worried yet?

Just note that amidst all the concern about The Turner Diaries, the FBI’s National Security Division was issuing a bulletin to police agencies that some militia leaders had issued directives for their “Project Worst Nightmare,” in which militia units were told to prepare to “shut federal operations down” in the event that federal forces were used to assault the Montana Freemen farmhouse. The private militias were given “targets of opportunity,” including communications facilities, senior federal law enforcement officials, and “selected news media.”

In May, the FBI made more headlines by confirming that it had learned of anonymous threats to alcoholic beverage producers and broadcasters who air alcohol commercials, federal government officials, members of the news media, and Jewish executives and physicians.

The threat to kill government officials was based on cries that the Freemen standoff was a plot to attack all militias and seize their weapons. The threat to Jews involved an alleged plan to murder twelve hundred Jewish executives and physicians if Israel did not withdraw its military from Lebanon immediately.

In Georgia, just before the Olympic Games in Atlanta, federal treasury agents arrested two members of the Georgia Republic Militia on charges that they were plotting to make dozens of pipe bombs for use in a “war” against the United Nations and the “new world order.” Fears were expressed that Robert Starr, the militia commander, and William James McCranie, Jr., planned to explode devices during the Olympics. A pipe bomb was exploded, with no evidence of involvement by the Georgia Republic Militia. The FBI poured hundreds of agents into efforts to identify the perpetrator of a crime that killed one woman and injured more than a hundred people.

How far can the madness go? The incidents and developments cited above represent mostly the homegrown threats. Add in the likelihood of foreign terrorists intervening in alliance with whatever groups stand up against Pierce and his Hitlerite punks and you have the makings of a terrible conflagration–one worse than the Civil War. Worse because the 200 million handguns on America’s streets will come into play, along with the automatic guns and other weapons held by militias, weapons stolen from U.S. armories and gun stores, and sophisticated weapons provided by some foreign countries.

In April 1996, the FBI declared that Islamic radicals represent “the greatest threat coming to us domestically in the United States.”

John P. O’Neill, chief of the FBI’s counterterrorism section, said investigations of international terrorists had increased by 600 percent since the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center in February 1993. “No longer is it just the fear of being attacked by international terrorist organizations–attacks against Americans and American interests overseas,” O’Neill added. “A lot of these groups now have the capability and the support infrastructure in the United States to attack us here if they choose to…. Our largest growth area is in the anti-government movement, particularly in the area of militias…. We are seeing a threat from the international groups and the domestic groups at the same time.”

Although international Islamic terrorists and local militias all profess to hate the U.S. government, they surely will not be on the same side in an American race war. They will be killing each other, turning the United States into a killing field, with blacks, Jews, Hispanics–well, everybody–forced to become combatants or to be slaughtered.

Clearly, no one in America can gain from such a war. But how to stop it? Tragically, the hated “System,” as Pierce has labeled our federal government, must do some of what Pierce and the militiamen say they fear. Federal authorities must rein in to some degree the militia leaders who talk openly about killing federal judges and assassinating other elected officials, and who espouse murdering newspaper editors and destroying banks by writing billions of dollars worth of phony checks.

In April 1996, O’Neill warned against walking into what he called “a crescendo” of anti-government feeling fueled mostly by the Waco siege of the Branch Davidian compound and the shoot-out with the Weavers at Ruby Ridge. He said the image of a U.S. Army tank, with a white star painted on the side, moving against a civilian target, contributed to the anti-government movement “more than anything else.” That thinking virtually paralyzed the FBI, leading to a long standoff during which most of the militia leaders decided they could do almost anything they wanted to do.

The American dilemma now? If we can restrain the crazy, violent, paranoid white men, conceding the existence of millions of white people who secretly sympathize with William Pierce, we will have a chance to pacify the millions of nonwhites who are more than ready to rumble.

We have gone too long without taking “the race problem” seriously enough to put it on a war footing. But we have a little time in which to try to avert the spilling of what Pierce calls “torrents–veritable rivers–of blood.”

Before the big rumble, we are going to have a propaganda war, the guts of which are discernible in this “60 Minutes” exchange between Wallace and Pierce:


WALLACE: (Voiceover) The central message of his novel The Turner Diaries, indeed, his own abiding conviction, is that the United States is being ruined by blacks, Hispanics, Jews–just about everyone but those he calls his people, Aryan whites.The breakdown of our society, you blame, basically, mainly on blacks and Jews.

DR. PIERCE: No, not–not primarily. I–I blame it on the fact that we have …

WALLACE: Dr. Pierce …

DR. PIERCE: … allowed this society to become excessively cosmopolitan; that we have not had real white leadership in this country.

WALLACE: That’s the buzzword; that’s the code word, “cosmopolitan.”

DR. PIERCE: Mm-hmm.

WALLACE: That’s Jews and blacks, and you know it is.

DR. PIERCE: Well, if you want to put it that way, but it involves a lot of other people, too. It involves the mestizos coming across the–our southern border. And …

WALLACE: Race mixing?

DR. PIERCE: Race mixing is–is one of the things which is causing the breakdown of American society, and the alienation of the people generally.

The people who sold me the copy of The Turner Diaries, the price hiked from $5.95 to $12.95, sent me gratis a copy of a National Vanguard Books catalog that listed dozens of racially inflammatory titles, plus many U.S. Army manuals such as Boobytraps, Incendiaries, Explosives and Demolitions, Improved Munitions Handbook, and an assortment of fiction about “Race and Revolution.”

The centerpiece of this catalog is a long article headlined WHO RULES AMERICA?, with a subhead declaring that The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken. Who are the “aliens” in this tirade of hatred? Michael Eisner of Walt Disney Company and Capital Cities / ABC; Gerald M. Levin of Time Warner Inc; Sumner Redstone of Viacom; David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Steven Spielberg of Dream Works; the heads of the Newhouse newspapers-books-magazines-and-cable empire, Samuel and Donald Newhouse; the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.; and the publisher of the Washington Post, Donald Graham. You’ve guessed it. All of the people being assailed and threatened in this screed are Jews.

“The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today,” this article screams. “There is nothing–plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war–more dangerous to the future of our people.”

What are Jews doing to justify such extreme condemnation? The catalog says:


The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asiatic women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character–except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

I am sure that many Jews hate being tied to African Americans whenever the advocates of a race revolution spread their bigotry. It must be especially irritating when some African Americans like Louis Farrakhan make attacks on Jews a major thrust of their efforts to gain followers and make money. But neither Jews nor blacks can escape the fact that the white-supremacist killers wish both groups a common destiny of either expulsion from these shores or genocide.

I am one black man who wants Pierce and the militiamen to know that there will be no expulsion and no timid voluntary return to Africa.

If decent Americans become afraid to stand up to the threats and violence of the white supremacists, things will become worse very fast. Pierce and his followers will believe that they are in what he calls “a revolutionary phase” in which the federal government “can be defeated.”

The conflict that I foresee will be as crazily complex as it will be violent, cruel, and heinous. We now see the skinheads and Ku Klux Klansmen emboldened in their campaigns against blacks, Jews, Catholics. We see the Muslims at war not only against Jews, but against the Italian mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, and against America as a whole, as reflected in terrorist bombings. We hear black students talk about “the basis of truth” in a speech full of anti-Semitic invective by Nation of Islam minister Khalid Muhammad at Kean College in New Jersey. We see blacks in political struggle with Hispanics. And from Los Angeles to Detroit to New York, we see a growing underclass at war against “the establishment.”

This dreadful upsurge in hurting and hatred in America, the increase in murders that are both random and born of rage, flows in part from the denied but obvious racism and contempt for the poor that were so venomous during the Reagan years, and before that from the spineless neglect and indifference of the Nixon and Ford years. But that is history. A race war of destructive proportions that will shock the world is probable because of these facts:

While President Clinton is no closet bigot, he is not as committed to racial and social equality as were Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Clinton has fed the fever over welfare reform, even after discovering that “the poor must work” rhetoric was hollow, because for millions of impoverished men and women our society has no jobs, offers no training, and will not pay for day care for their children. He has gone along with the pretense that building more and more prisons at obscene costs is a solution to the crime problem. In an effort to prove that he is not “soft on crime” he has not only voiced the “rock ‘em up” mentality, but led the way to designate more federal crimes as reasons to execute offenders.

During the heat of the presidential primaries, Clinton looked like a leader only because the warring Republicans looked so atrociously unpresidential. Pat Buchanan revealed himself to be shamelessly anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-Hispanic, thus destroying what little chance he had of winning the GOP nomination. The winner, Bob Dole, began immediately to play the race card, as have all the winning Republican candidates since Eisenhower. They bring the race war closer, but either don’t know it or don’t care.

Sophisticated hatemongers are in their heyday in the American media. The Rush Limbaughs, Howard Sterns, Pat Buchanans, and other socially and morally blind electronic pamphleteers write the nation’s bestselling books because they moderate and dominate the nation’s most-listened-to or most-watched radio and television shows.

Limbaugh and others of his ilk have manipulated public opinion in dangerous ways.

The idea is to make Limbaugh look great while making poor people look like bums, environmentalists appear to be “wackos,” and decent-minded people look like enemies of democracy.

The politicians who love Limbaugh have virtually destroyed the social safety net in America, but they still rant about “reverse discrimination” and the so-called “special privileges” given to minorities. White male paranoia has become epidemic. This despite the fact that the median net worth of black households in this country is $4,604, or just one tenth the median net worth of white families–$44,408. The comparable figure for Hispanics is $5,345.

On talk shows and elsewhere I am frequently asked why “blacks get all the college scholarships.” The General Accounting Office report that 96 percent of all the scholarship money in America goes to whites has done little to wipe out the white cries of persecution, many inspired by the likes of Limbaugh but reverberating in political campaigns across America.

Black judges and generals, cabinet officers and columnists, and talk-show hosts and television anchors are prominent symbols of the racial progress that has taken place in this society over the last two generations. But these symbols create a veneer that hides the truth that for the overwhelming mass of black people, Hispanics, and other nonwhites, precious little has changed during the thirty years that gave us the so-called civil rights revolution.

This harsh truth was never clearer to me than on August 27, 1993, when some seventy-five thousand people marched on Washington, D.C., to commemorate the celebrated March on Washington of 1963 when the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his great “I Have a Dream” speech.

Only the most embittered flamethrowers could argue that no racial progress had been made over those thirty years. Sane people of sufficient age remembered that in 1963 petty apartheid was still a deeply ingrained way of life in the old slave states, and Jim Crow held sway over more of the North than most Yankees would admit. Black children were getting their heads battered and bloodied simply because they tried to buy a hamburger or drink a cola in Jim Crow restaurants, or even fancy department stores. Black travelers were being humiliated on buses and trains, or when they sought shelter in “white” hotels and motels. Jim Crow was king from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Indianola, Mississippi.

That 1963 March on Washington provoked the Congress to pass the Public Accommodations Act of 1964, which erased most of the ugly racism manifested in segregated movie theaters, recreation facilities, and other public places. That law gave a measure of dignity to black people. Few Americans have tried to force blacks into the backs of buses, or deny them the right to sit among whites at theaters, in restaurants, and now even in beauty parlors and dance classes. We have had problems with Denny’s and other fast-food operations, but for the most part a black man’s dollar has come to look as green and good as that of anyone else. Stores that once refused to let black women try on dresses or other garments now spend billions of dollars a year pitching their merchandise to black women.

But those who perceive a dramatic decline in racism in the United States, or who embrace Ronald Reagan’s line that it no longer exists, will point out, accurately, that black political power was relatively inconsequential in 1963.

That 1963 march struck the consciences of millions of white Americans and enabled President Johnson to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a result, by the time of the 1993 march, blacks from Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, had been elected to Congress, and some eight thousand other black elected officials were holding office.

It was notable in 1963 that no black person had ever been a member of a President’s cabinet. In 1963 there were no black syndicated newspaper columnists, no black presidents of major white universities, no black military men who even dreamed of becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And no one listening to King’s dream would have stretched it to a belief that by 1993 blacks would have served as mayors of Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and other cities.

But therein lies a damning story of the indelible curse of racism. It was only when the cities were watching their tax bases erode as affluent whites and some privileged blacks fled to suburbs, urban crime rates began to soar, and the public schools were falling into disrepair that the white power structure said: “OK, let’s turn this mess over to a black mayor. And let him have a black police chief and a black superintendent of schools. Let them wrestle with this fucking problem!”

Political leaders moved deliberately to create “black majority” districts–in some cases creating district boundaries that looked absurd. Now politicians who benefited from gerrymandering for decades are screaming that gerrymandering to benefit blacks is unconstitutional. These efforts to rip away the political power blacks have obtained also carry the seeds of violent upheaval.

Then the businessmen who called the shots moved their businesses out of the cities. And Republican Presidents, seeing that our cities were populated more and more by blacks, Hispanics, immigrants legal and mostly illegal, who tended to vote for Democrats, said the big cities could “DROP DEAD!”

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 has never been much more than a joke. Big cities such as Chicago, New York, Detroit, may be more segregated in terms of housing now than was the case twenty-eight years ago.

Jim Crow is maintained as much by bankers and mortgage companies as by hood-wearing white hoodlums. In city after city investigative reporters and others have established the fact that even a black person of exceptional prestige and large financial resources has a more difficult time getting a housing loan than a white applicant with lesser qualifications. The difficulty is magnified if the black applicant is trying to integrate public housing projects in formerly white neighborhoods! In January 1996 we saw the spectacle of FBI agents and U.S. marshals accompanying four black families, including eight children, into the Vidor Village federal housing project in Vidor, Texas, an all-white suburb of Beaumont. The Department of Housing and Urban Development had taken over the project after nine previous black residents were driven out by harassment and threats of violence.

The result is that there is no sense of community that reaches across racial lines. So walls of fear, suspicion, and hatred are maintained. And that makes the unthinkable, a race war in America, possible.

The long-heralded 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education has failed in many important respects to wipe out Jim Crow in public education and to give blacks the most basic opportunities they were guaranteed forty years ago. The University of Alabama, which once was violently opposed to the admission of any black citizen, can now field a predominantly black football team, or even an all-black basketball team. Cheering fans may think for a moment that racism has vanished. But a visitor to the public schools of Birmingham, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., or Summerton, South Carolina, sees only token integration.

Now, the most pernicious discrimination in public schooling takes place in the North–in the cities such as Boston, Chicago, Detroit. White flight to suburbs, gerrymandering of school district lines, unfair distributions of everything from books, computers, and discretionary funds for teachers have poisoned such relationships as exist between black and white children.

Blacks gained dignity from the Public Accommodations Act and political power from the Voting Rights Act. But the whole truth is that there can be only limited dignity and self-respect for those who live in poverty, and there is only limited political power for Americans who have no money and can afford no lobbyists or political action committees.

The curse of racism was never more evident than in the fact that while some blacks found dignity and political clout and economic opportunity over the last thirty years, the great mass of black Americans have not. And that fact lies at the heart of the breakdown of so many American families, the rise in rage and violent criminal behavior, and the worries about personal safety that we all feel.

In July 1963 unemployment was 5.1 percent for white Americans and 10.2 percent for nonwhites; in July 1993 joblessness was 6.0 for whites and 12.9 for blacks. In 1963 unemployment for white teenagers was 16.5 percent, but 31.2 percent for nonwhites; in 1993 it was 15.6 for white teenagers, but 32.7 percent for blacks. Over all these years you could bet your life that black unemployment would at any time be at least double that for whites. That is how and why black people have become the heart of America’s permanent underclass.

In 1963, people marched on Washington in part to protest the fact that the median income of black families was only 53 percent of the median income of white families. That march provoked social legislation during LBJ’s presidency that lifted black families to the point where they had $64 for every $100 available to the white family. But then came the racist “white blacklash” that wiped out the heart of Johnson’s bid for a “Great Society.” Black family income fell, so today the normal black family has $57 for every $100 available to the normal white family. That is pitiful, tragic “progress.”

No law has provided for blacks and other minorities what ought to be the most basic of civil rights: the opportunity to work and earn a decent living. I have lived through all the promises of urban renewal, the War on Poverty, Community Action programs, Community Development corporations, Model Cities, Community Development block grants, Urban Development action grants, Enterprise Zones, and now “Empowerment Zones.” But no life-changing money went into urban ghettos or the pockets of rural poverty, because slicksters already eating at the federal gravy train found ways to siphon off, or just plain steal, the monies intended to revitalize the most depressed neighborhoods. Ronald Reagan has been out of office for years now, but prosecutors are still trying to convict and imprison all the HUD officials and their co-conspirators who looted that department of billions of dollars on Reagan’s watch.

You ask why, even with all the new evidence of bigotry, greed, exploitation of the underclass, anyone would be upset enough to start a race-class war. White Americans who have not endured the roller-coaster nightmare of political promises and burgeoning hopes, followed by dashed dreams and more of the traditional neglect, deliberate abuse, and institutionalized racism will never understand why some people stop hoping and start fighting.

From the time I was in elementary school in then Jim Crow Tennessee I have heard optimists, the self-styled keepers of “the American dream,” say: “We can never change this generation of adults, but the kids will solve the problem. They haven’t been fed racism in mother’s milk.”

We are sliding headlong into terrible racial conflict that will dwarf the Los Angeles riots precisely because the baby boomers have not grown up devoted to racial equality the way we thought or hoped they would. In fact, white youngsters–the children of the baby boomers–have swallowed more of the stereotypes that engender fear and hatred in recent years than at any time I have known. Thus, when they see that white girls are fornicating promiscuously, with larger and larger percentages getting pregnant out of wedlock, a “social scientist,” Charles Murray, and his mouthpieces can alarm the nation with warnings that white girls have begun to act like black girls.

In his State of the Union address in January 1994, President Clinton exhorted the nation to “remember that even as we say no to crime, we must give people, especially our young people, something to say yes to.” He said, “We must take the guns out of their hands and give them books.”

But white denial makes good steps difficult to achieve. There are only a few white people–the skinheads, assorted Klansmen–who will openly say they are racists. But corporate boardrooms, local governments, education districts, are full of powerful men and women who are virulent bigots but will be come stridently indignant and threaten to sue if someone calls them a racist. So racism thrives, safe behind a curtain of politically correct language. What constructive things have we actually given to the millions of underclass youth that they can say yes to? Not even books. Most readers of this book will have seen on TV numerous times the wretched public schools for blacks in which there are no encyclopedias, only a few termite-ridden books, not even a magnifying glass, let alone a modern piece of scientific equipment.

For almost seven years I have run a scholarship program for black high school seniors, and I have seen needed and deserved grants go to many hundreds of youngsters who display the learning, achievement, and personal integrity manifested by children who have been given a decent chance. But I see, with growing alarm, that millions of the children who can’t get nominated for a Project Excellence scholarship have never been given a fair shake, never been offered even a tiny stake in this society.

White Americans expect blacks to say yes when they get only the backs of white people’s hands.

Do they expect black youth who are desperate for ways to make an honest dollar to say yes to 40 percent or higher unemployment?

Do they expect proud and angry young black men to say yes to a Congress that allocates billions for new prisons but refuses to fund “dead-end” public service jobs? A “dead-end” job is a blessing for all of us compared with the dead people we keep counting in our pockets of unemployment.

We are at the brink of tragic racial strife because young black men have, in shameful numbers, been given prison cells to bolster the pretense that the bureaucrats are making progress in “the war against drugs.” Bureaucrats fired the first salvos in the race war when they let the white kingpins of the drug trade, corrupt cops and sheriffs, and rich drug-buying actors, publishers, athletes, lawyers, and stockbrokers skate free.

For a generation we have seen a law enforcement version of genocide: our failed drug war has incarcerated, or destroyed the reputations of, a fourth of the young black men in this country.

And now we hear a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, endorse “boot camps” for first-time violators of the law. And Newt Gingrich urging a “wartime” stance in which the federal government builds detention camps.

Welcome to the old South Africa and Nazi Germany!

There is a limit to how much oppression black Americans will take, no matter how much comfortable African Americans such as Carl Rowan tell them that they can never match the firepower of national guardsmen, or the troops that would surely be deployed to put down a black rebellion. Surely the Mayan Indians in Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas knew that their Zapatista National Liberation Army was no match for the military power that Mexico’s corrupt then-president Carlos Salinas de Gortari could throw against them. But rage and desperation provoked the Indians to seize San Cristobal de las Casas and other towns and villages, to take over a radio station, bust open a prison, take many hostages, and make it clear that life in Mexico could never be the same. They wouldn’t take it anymore.

If Gingrich and others think 33 million black people will accept his “stockades” in dumb docility, they had better ponder these facts:


* In every war, in every crisis, no group of Americans has been more loyal than African Americans. But the African American potential for destruction is incalculable should even a thousand desperately angry blacks become allies of the foreign terrorists who wish to do great harm to this country. The gates to the new concentration camps will swing shut much too late to stop those who think it is time for rebellion.* There are now five million or more Muslims living in the United States, a million in deeply troubled California alone, and close to a million in New York. Some 42 percent of the Muslim residents are United States-born African Americans. We would be fools to assume that they will listen only to moderate black pacifists. Louis Farrakhan was surely referring to them when he said in Iran that “God will give the Muslims the honor of destroying America.”

Let me reiterate that black involvement in a race war will largely be reactive–a response to deliberate provocations by the soul brothers of William Pierce and the other white supremacists, but also to those “law and order” Americans whose abuses of the criminal justice system drive blacks to say, “We’ve had enough!” It will be for the most part a black-versus-white war, because the rapidly growing Latin American population has not yet quite learned that the paranoiacs who spew forth rhetoric about killing to save the white race have no more respect for brown people than they do for black people. But Hispanics are sure to learn a lot faster than most Americans think. That is why from the White House to Capitol Hill to the largest and smallest city halls in America, there should be no priority greater than making the moves of justice that will prevent a race war.

You are saying, perhaps, that there can’t possibly be provocations that are serious enough to provoke a race war. Then you have no idea of what goes on in America every day. Consider, for example:

Two Days in December

It was December 6, 1995, a routine night at Fort Bragg, near the Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of the fabled 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. Many of the fifteen thousand members of this elite unit just sat around drinking beer–not yet sobered by the prospect of having to do duty in Bosnia or any other trouble spot.

One small gathering of drinkers included Private James N. Burmeister II, twenty, of Thompson, Pennsylvania, Private Malcolm Wright, twenty-one, of Lexington, Kentucky, and Specialist Randy Lee Meadows, Jr., twenty-one, of Mulkeytown, Illinois–all Caucasians. With each beer, Burmeister spoke with more agitation about wanting to earn his “spider web tattoo”–a symbol that he had committed a murder “for the cause.” The “cause,” later testimony showed, was white supremacy and the right-wing political agenda.

According to police and court records, Burmeister and Wright set out that December night, with Meadows driving, to find some black people to harass. They came upon a black man, Michael James, thirty-six, and a black woman, Jackie Burden, twenty-seven. After racial insults were hurled, one of the military men shot the two blacks to death.

Police arrested Burmeister and Wright on charges of first degree murder. They charged Meadows with two counts of conspiracy to commit murder.

When police searched Burmeister’s rented room, they realized that these were not random, drunken killings. They found a Nazi flag, white-supremacist literature, pamphlets on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, and a videotape of the movie Natural Born Killers. Among the hate literature was a clandestine newsletter published at Fort Bragg called The Resister. A group called “Special Forces Underground” was publishing this newsletter, which in recent issues had railed against the United Nations, opposed United States policy in Haiti, and declared support for “individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism and republicanism.” Police also found a 9mm Ruger that they said was used to execute Mr. James and Ms. Burden.

When Burmeister, Wright, and Meadows admitted that they were skinheads–a neo-Nazi white-supremacy group that in recent years has become increasingly violent across most of the nation–military authorities at Fort Bragg and in Washington were aghast. Could a brutal, racist, revolutionary group have invaded the army and its celebrated “special forces” in such a frightening way? They must have remembered the two army men who had become buddies at Fort Riley, Kansas, and had been accused of bombing a federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. And just two months earlier, at Fort Bragg, a sergeant had been charged with a predawn sniper attack on soldiers who were warming up for a morning run. He had killed one member of the 82nd Airborne and wounded eighteen others.

Here were killings far more disturbing than any number of hate-inspired assaults by whites on blacks, Jews, Asians, and homosexuals. Here was a possible cancer within America’s most vital military forces, an affliction of right-wing hatred that would leave everyone, including the President, vulnerable to wanton murder.

Naturally, neither Pentagon nor White House officials wanted to portray the problem as a national security threat. On December 12, Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr., announced a worldwide investigation of the presence of political extremists in army ranks, and a determination to oust from the military the hate groups that seemed to be gaining influence in American life. But West’s announcement was shrouded in a maze of military mumbo jumbo and political caveats about what the country could do or should do about, or to, haters in military uniforms.

The Pentagon said army regulations prohibit soldiers from active participation in groups that espouse supremacist causes, attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, religion, or sex, or that advocate the use of violence. The Pentagon said soldiers are discouraged, but not prohibited, from merely being members of hate groups, receiving mail from them, or attending their meetings while off duty.

Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth McGraw, spokesman for the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, told the media that the extremists who published The Resister and opposed U.S. policies were not in violation of any regulations.

Was anything being said, or planned, that would deter those ready to kill to earn a tattoo? Or even those military men who printed in The Resister things that went to the heart of the army’s ability to fulfill a mission? Such as:

“The U.S. military has become a slave service for the wealth redistribution schemes of internationalists and gangs of weeping do-gooder mystics. One need simply note the circling of media carrion eaters to predict in which third world toilet these altruists will flush hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars and the lives of U.S. servicemen. Peacekeeping is a monumental fraud.”

Secretary West said that he believes the extremists of Christian militia mentality or other haters “are not a sizable proportion of our Army.” But the question arises, “How large, how well-organized, do these groups have to be if they have access to army training, army weapons, army secrets?”

Burmeister was not the only unheeded symptom of racial troubles in the military. Race riots had occurred in Korea years before. The navy had had hate-based eruptions on some ships. White members of hate groups on army bases in Germany wrote racial slurs on the cars of black soldiers. Skinhead groups in Colorado armed themselves with guns stolen by sympathizers on military bases.

Sad to say, the upsurge of violent racism in armed groups in America involves more than the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. It now includes every police force in any city and county in America. the National Guard, federal agencies, and even some private “protective” groups.

On that December day in 1995 when Secretary West declared his intention to ferret out the haters in the army, I reacted with pessimism. I explained why with these words:


Do you remember that half a year ago we were shocked by revelations about an orgy of racism by law enforcement officers at a “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup” in Tennessee? White officials and ordinary agents of the FBI, the Secret Service, the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and even the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police would gather in Ocoee, Tenn., hiding behind a “Nigger Check Point,” to get drunk and vent their racism. Employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had begun this event, called “sickening” by President Clinton, in 1985.ATF Director John W. Magaw and the heads of the other law enforcement agencies promised investigations in July. Even though there are videotapes of some of their employees attending those “roundups of hatred,” we haven’t seen a single report of any punishment being meted out to anyone.

It’s time we faced the fact that some people–white, black, brown, or whatever–have violent, authoritarian personalities. The only places where they can legally get a gun, bayonet, or baton and occasionally use them to maim or kill is in a law enforcement agency or the military. We know about the crisis they have brought to the policing of America’s cities. We are learning, much too late, of the frightening problems these authoritarians, especially those driven by hate, are bringing to our legitimate military–and to the “militias” that are springing up.

© 1996 CTR Productions


Little, Brown








Crime, Census and Censorship

Crime, Census and Censorship

By Michelle Malkin

There are serious problems with the administration of the U.S. census. Americans have good reason to be wary of the stranger’s knock on the door. Unfortunately, anything critics say about the federal census can and will be used against them in the court of left-wing opinion.

First, the disturbing news about the government’s most recent census travails: According to a new General Accounting Office report, botched fingerprinting by ill-trained employees led to the hiring of some 36,000 census workers with insufficient background checks. “More than 200″ of those workers may have had serious criminal records, according to the GAO. The investigators revealed that:

“…of the prints that could be processed, fingerprint results identified approximately 1,800 temporary workers (1.1 percent of total hires) with criminal records that name check alone failed to identify. Approximately 750 (42 percent) (of those) were terminated or were further reviewed because the Bureau determined their criminal records—which included crimes such as rape, manslaughter and child abuse—disqualified them from census employment.”[Census Bureau Continues to Make Progress in Mitigating Risks to a Successful Enumeration, but Still Faces Various Challenges]

Gulp. This comes on the heels of the Census Bureau’s admission that it is uncertain of the final cost of the 2010 decennial census, and that it faces ongoing problems with handheld computers used to collect data. The failure of the handheld devices will increase census costs by up to $3 billion, officials told a House subcommittee last month. On top of that, blogger Tim Mak points out, the bureau is grappling with cost overruns of nearly $90 million related to verifying its address list.

Then there’s the troubling alliance between the Census Bureau and the aggressively partisan Service Employees International Union—whose many leading officials and organizing tactics are inextricably intertwined with the disgraced personnel and methods of the ACORN community organizing racket.

GOP Congressmen Peter Roskam, Patrick McHenry and Mark Kirk pointed out in a letter to Census Director Robert Groves that the SEIU donated more than $4 million to ACORN in 2006-07. ACORN founder Wade Rathke, who covered up his brother’s million-dollar embezzlement of ACORN funds, is the “Founder and Chief Organizer” of SEIU Local 100. In Chicago, SEIU Locals 1 and 880 have contributed $230,000 to ACORN groups in Illinois and Texas. Many of their offices are co-located.

Given “SEIU’s intimate financial relationship with ACORN,” which the Census dropped from its partnership contracts after last month’s prostitution sting video fiasco, “you should take action to protect the public from the corruption of the 2010 census,” the GOP critics wrote. Their warning has gone unheeded.

Instead, Groves, the SEIU and several pro-illegal amnesty groups recently launched “a historic campaign” to target “the estimated 50 million Latinos living in the United States.” Inclusion of the massive illegal alien population has resulted in a radical redrawing of the electoral map. More people equals more seats. More illegal immigrants counted equals more power—for ethnic lobbyists, Big Labor and the Democratic Party.

Alas, watchdogs can’t call attention to the politicization of the census enumeration process and its bureaucratic woes too loudly.

Three weeks ago, a part-time census worker was found murdered in rural Kentucky. Bill Sparkman was tied to a tree by the neck (his feet touching the ground when discovered), and the word “fed” had been scrawled on his chest with a felt-tip pen. Police are still investigating and haven’t ruled out three possibilities: suicide, accidental death or homicide. “We’re not responding to any of the speculation, the innuendo or the rumors,” Don Trosper, spokesman for the Kentucky State Police, told the Christian Science Monitor last week. “The Kentucky State Police concerns itself with facts.”

But this hasn’t stopped rabid opportunists from convicting outspoken conservatives in the media of the unresolved crime/non-crime/incident.

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan immediately fingered “Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk-radio cohorts.” Author Richard Benjamin acknowledged that the area where Sparkman died is an infamous drug haven, but zeroed in on “anti-government bile” as his favored culprit. Benjamin singled out GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for her criticism of ACORN and the Census.

“Progressive” talk-show host Stephanie Miller blamed the Tea Party movement for inciting violence. Echoing the unhinged liberal base, New York magazine indicted conservative talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh and other “conservative media personalities, websites and even members of Congress.”

They did this with abortionist George Tiller’s shooting in Kansas, the Holocaust Museum shooting in Washington, D.C., and the Binghamton immigration center shooting in New York. Motives had yet to be determined and bodies were still warm, but that did not stop the liberal stampede from redefining conservative political expression as an incitement to violence.

This cynical move to demonize criticism of the census is part of a larger drive by the left to muzzle limited-government advocates at every opportunity. Who needs the Fairness Doctrine? The criminalization of conservative dissent is well underway.


Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin’s website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and the just-released Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

Black Power and the Obongo Police State

Black Power and the Obongo Police State

Recently a nigger walked into a grocery store, loaded up with shoplifted merchandise, then headed out the door. He was immediately nailed by several cops who were hired as security on their off hours, because the store is a regular victim of thieving blacks and illegals. When the cops tried to arrest Mr. Chimps, he pulled a large knife and started swinging with it. He cut a couple of the officers deeply, and even cut himself during the struggle. The worthless buck was finally brought down, cuffed and stuffed.

Personally I’d have delivered him to the station in a very tattered condition. While the officers were being sewn up at the hospital, it was discovered that this piece of crap had AIDS, and had probably infected the entire security staff with his blood. On top of that, there’s no telling how many innocent women this worthless buck infected without bothering to even tell them he was sick. Typical black behavior. I think that any nigger caught deliberately passing on AIDS should be publicly castrated, then executed as an example and a warning to all the other maggots out there. We need to stop coddling these animals and start killing them with the same gusto they’re destroying our society.

A 50-year-old father of three was at a stoplight, on his way home from another hard day’s work. He was bone-tired and impatiently waited for the light to change. Suddenly the driver’s door was yanked open and an ugly, plate-lipped nigger shot him in the face, without warning or reason, then snatched his wallet and fled into the night. Of course he was never caught. After all, they all look alike, and as we all know, monkoids will never squeal on each other, no matter how heinous the crime is. That evil piece of dung left the dead man sitting in his car at the intersection for the other Whites to handle, the ones that are still trying to hold together what’s left of our society.

From what the authorities were able to put together, the man was killed for around $30. That didn’t buy much crack at today’s prices. No doubt ole’ Buckwheat had to go back out a couple more times that night to get up enough money to make him happy.

Last year two niggers broke into a home in San Diego, beat the residents and stole their 18-month-old child. Neithey they nor the missing child have ever been heard from since. These types of evil atrocities are occurring all around us every single day on a genocidal scale. Yet almost none of these outrages are ever reported by the liberal-controlled media. That would go directly against all their years of intense brainwashing propaganda, who’s goal is to get the public to smile when they smell crap and call it perfume.

I know for a fact that there’s not one single person out there in my reading audience that hasn’t either personally suffered at the hands of these animals, or knows someone close to them that has. Like trying to poke ten pounds of gunpowder into a five-pound metal tube using a crowbar, something’s going to give, and violently.

White America is up to its gills in bullshit and has had all it’s going to take. I’ve ranted and raved about blacks and other dark races for years in an attempt to wake up the Whites of this nation and planet before it’s too late. Sometimes I sound like a broken record. The sad truth is that if there were more people like me out there preaching the truth, and more people believing it, I wouldn’t have to write half the rants I presently produce. It’s hard, time consuming, risky, draining, and sometimes I feel just like Chicken Little crying to an indifferent public that the sky is falling.

But then I’ll receive a few letters of support from my readers, thanking me for opening their eyes, or confirming a suspicion, or clearing up some mystery that’s been troubling them, and I know I’m doing the right thing. If I have a hand in saving some of my race by waking them up in time, then it will have all been worth it to me. But the real weight is on the shoulders of you, dear readers, because it’s up to each of you to take the message to your friends, loved ones and peers, and have the heart and guts to teach them the truth, even if it means risking a friendship.

Want to know what real friendship is? That’s when you care enough about someone that you’re willing to risk losing them as a friend or loved one in order to save them. Humans are odd ducks. They get angry when they’re told the truth about something they don’t want to hear, even if they know they need to hear it. And far too many of us would rather risk seeing them dead or enslaved, than risk losing their love or friendship. Who’s being selfish and self-centered now? Hmmm? But if you could have told them, but they died because you didn’t for your own personal interests, would they love you for it? I think not. Doing the right thing is seldom easy or fun. We’re fortunate when it is. But it’s that trait that elevates us above the dark races. It’s called altruism

Putting things off until tomorrow is what’s going to get you and those you love killed. We’re almost out of time. You can’t procrastinate any longer. You’re going to have to make up your mind now. Either do the right thing; the thing you know in your heart-of-hearts should be done, or accept the fact that you’re going to be responsible for a lot of needless deaths because you didn’t have the cojones to step up to the plate.

Do you love your people and race deeply enough to risk losing their approval and love, if it means saving their lives? That’s the big question each of you must ask yourselves. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all other dark races to varying degrees, have a culture steeped in CYA, or covering each other’s asses. This trait is the real source of “black power” and why the government and law enforcement can’t get a handle on them.

Long before that evil buck Tookie Williams started up the first gang in L.A., blacks had a long history of protecting each other. Any race that turns a blind eye to crime is bound to develop such a culture just for survival’s sake. Just ask any detective that’s spent any length of time talking to blacks or other minorities about the whereabouts of some killer. Regardless of what he’s done, the people in his neighborhood will lie and protect him. This gives these groups a strength we as a race don’t possess any longer.

Our old ladies can’t wait to report suspicious activities at their next-door neighbor’s house, and they’re insufferable gossips. There’s telephone, telegraph, and tell a granny. We all know the type; they’re as common as Jews at a diamond expo. We not only tolerate this behavior, we laugh at it and think it’s cute. And of course the cops praise the old busybodies because after all, cops love a good bust. We must stop rewarding and encouraging this kind of behavior, and in fact ostracize these people for betraying their own kind. It’s high time for a little “White power.”

In the days before the police state, communities dealt with their own problems and issues, and didn’t involve the government unless they had to. But now the government encourages people to report to them about every minor thing. This is bad news and very, very stupid. We need to break the back of the dark cultures and restore our own. This can and must be done if we are to survive.

It isn’t open for debate. It must be done. The evil being done to us is increasing exponentially, and the media is still refusing to let out a single squeak about it. Therefore we must learn to completely ignore the liberal media and rely only on our own people for news of events.

There’s really no other options open to us. Never believe anything they tell you, except for shouts of alarm at our increasing numbers, and their fear of our growing power. Those are things they won’t lie about. Fear has a way of doing that to people.

You and I know without a shadow of a doubt that if they wanted to, our government could stop all this nation’s woes practically overnight. But considering the fact that they were the ones that deliberately created this mess in the first place, I wouldn’t hold my breath for too long waiting for that to happen. The whole idea is to destroy our nation. Got that? Well face it. We can’t negotiate with evil. It can’t be done, so don’t even entertain the idea. It’s pure idiocy. You can only deal with evil one way, and we all know what that is.

No, I can’t give you a set date when the government will strike. This isn’t a movie. I doubt they even know themselves for certain. A whole raft of conditions have to be in place before they can do this. All I know for certain is that they will strike. Maybe this fall or winter when the heat turns off, or in the spring, when winter is far off in the future.

Keep in mind that they have spent billions on this project, and years preparing for the takeover. They have quietly constructed hundreds of rail cars, millions of coffins, dug hundreds of mass graves, and converted over a hundred old military bases into internment camps. They have manufactured an economic collapse, created a deadly flu in their labs, and made a “vaccine” to “save” us. And if you still believe that all this is just unrelated coincidence, I pity you and your family because you’re all as good as dead.

Our greatest strength during the coming crisis is going to be our own brand of black power, where whites band together in bonds of loyalty that no other race can approach. We used to be that way. That’s how we won the last great war against our racial brothers in Europe. We must return to the old ways and do it now. The family, the clan, the tribe, the nation. We stick together right or wrong. Or we perish.

-The Lone Haranguer

Diversity Is Strength! It’s also…Minority Jury Nullification.

Diversity Is Strength! It’s also…Minority Jury Nullification.

By Nicholas Stix

“What do you have to do today to get the death penalty?” asked Channon Christian’s father incredulously.

Letalvis Cobbins, a black man, was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering the 21-year-old white girl in the January 2007 Knoxville Horror.  And yet the jurors sentenced him to “life without parole”. [Letalvis Cobbins found guilty in Christian—Newsom murders, WATE, August 25, 2009.]

Since murderers have been known to be released from prison sentences of “life without parole”, and prison is for the most violent black and Hispanic offenders a felon’s paradise, replete with cable TV, weight lifting, and ample opportunities to deal and buy drugs and gang-rape white men, Cobbins’ sentence is both misleading and of dubious punitive value.

The jury’s pretext for not sentencing Cobbins to death for the most heinous crimes ever committed in Knox County: laughable “mitigating” factors, which it asserted outweighed any aggravating factors: “[A] horrific childhood, the pleas of his relatives and his alleged role as subordinate to an evil mastermind”.

One or more of the potential jurors obviously perjured himself during voir dire. Because District Attorney General Randy Nichols had announced that he would seek the death penalty for Cobbins, each Cobbins juror had to be “death penalty-qualified” i.e., had to testify during jury selection that he was willing to consider the ultimate sanction or be automatically disqualified.

(In an instance of criminal justice affirmative action, in Tennessee a prospective juror in a capital case must also say that he will consider a convict’s “background”—wink, wink—rather than simply his crimes, in deciding whether to sentence him to death.)

Presiding Judge Richard Baumgartner had sabotaged the possibility of a death sentence before the trial even began. Arguing that pre-trial publicity made it impossible for the defendant Cobbins to get a fair trial with a Knox County jury, Baumgartner went to Davidson County to fetch a jury to bus in to Knoxville, the Knox County seat, and sequester for the trial.

Baumgartner then permitted “Cobbins’ defenders [to use] the jury challenge process to fashion a predominantly black panel from Davidson County.”

The jury originally contained only three white jurors, for crimes whose victims were both white, and which were carried out in a jurisdiction that was 87.3 white, and only 8.8 percent black. By contrast, Davidson County is 27.5 percent black. (During the trial, a black female juror who was herself a rape victim was upset by pictures of the victims’ rape wounds, and was replaced by a white man.)

Judge Baumgartner’s actions give new meaning to the phrases, “busing to achieve racial balance”, and “racial gerrymandering”. He should be kicked off the bench and disbarred for his chicanery, but he’ll more likely be the hero of the cocktail party circuit.

By all accounts lead prosecutor, ADA Takisha Fitzgerald (who is black), acquitted herself honorably. But she and her (white) co-prosecutor, ADA Leland Price, never had a chance with that jury.

This sort of behavior has become pervasive among black and other minority jurors. Their refusal to punish, or in some cases even to convict, heinous minority criminals amounts to a form of jury nullification that threatens the entire justice system.

Another recent example: Last December, Brian Nichols’ confessedly racially motivated, 2005 Atlanta mass murder spree resulted in only a life sentence, “without parole”.

The last case I know of (thanks to reader “D”) in which black jurors sentenced a black defendant to die for his crimes, was the 1992 trial in Los Angeles’ Mount Olive Church of God and Christ double-murder, in which both victims were black.

However, even that case required that prosecutors excuse numerous black potential jurors via peremptory challenges, after the latter expressed attitudes that were “anti-police, anti-prosecution, or anti-death penalty”.

Black potential jurors have since gotten smarter, and now publicly conceal their true views.

In what constitutes the criminal justice credo of America’s “civil rights” tradition, beginning during the 1960s, ever-expanding swathes of black America have decided, the facts be damned:

1. That entirely too many black (and entirely too few white) males are in jail;

2. That black convicts are getting unfairly harsh (and white convicts getting unfairly light) sentences;

3. That innocent black boys and men are being arrested by racist, brutal white policemen (“police brutality”), and railroaded by “racist,” white juries, while white criminals are operating with carte blanche;

4. That America’s laws do not apply to blacks; and

5. To encourage young blacks to violate “the white man’s laws,” and to openly oppose the symbol of that system, the “racist,” white policeman.

Granted, the various points contradict each other and, to be sure, different parts of the black population initially adhered to different points of the above-listed, paranoid agenda. But some embraced them all. I believe that today the vast majority of blacks—in urban areas as much as 90 percent—embrace all five points.

Thus has the racist black lunatic fringe become the racist black mainstream.

I call this attitude, the paranoid, black supremacist, jailhouse philosophy of law. “Jailhouse,” because such rationalizations are the sort of thing one used to expect from present and aspiring black convicts, not from black church deaconesses.

Today, black civilians, lawyers, and felons alike routinely invent non-existent legal requirements as a pretext for acquitting black criminals, or diminishing their punishment, e.g., variously denying, expanding, or twisting legal principles such as criminal culpability and “acting in concert” (in Tennessee, “criminal responsibility”—under the pre-diversity understanding of “acting in concert”, Letalvis Cobbins would also have been convicted of Channon Christian’s boyfriend’s murder, of which he was acquitted), “burden of proof”, and even the presumption of innocence, in order to rationalize acquitting guilty blacks, railroading innocent whites, and generally turning the law on its head.

For instance, in 1996, a black man who claimed that he dealt with the police every day professionally (while refusing to say just what his profession was), insisted to me that O.J. Simpson could not legally have been convicted, because: (1) The murders could not possibly have been carried out by one person; and (2) The law forbids convicting one person alone for a crime that was committed by two or more.

Black jurors have condemned police for engaging in perfectly legal practices, and used these non-violations as pretexts for acquitting black murderers, such as:

There is also mainstream black opposition to:

The foregoing dodges can be summed up in one phrase: “It ain’t over ‘til the black felon wins.”

It’s bad enough that most blacks embrace such insanity. But for over 40 years, they have increasingly succeeded at imposing it on America’s criminal justice system.

The writer who laid the foundations for all this was the black novelist James Baldwin.

The 1960s saw an explosion in black crime in general, black-on-white crime in particular, in the form of both race riots and street crime, and some bizarre jury verdicts and sentences in racially significant cases.

Few people today know about a series of four black lynchings of whites carried out in Harlem from 1963-1964, by the racist Blood Brothers gang. Baldwin had previously provided the boilerplate for the “police brutality” myth, (later re-spun and rebranded as the “racial profiling” myth). When six suspects in the Harlem lynchings were arrested, tried, and convicted, Baldwin wrote the script for what would become, to my knowledge, the first successful, modern black race hoax. Baldwin “disappeared” the four lynchings, and got “The Harlem Six” retried and acquitted, under cover of “civil rights” hysteria.

Today, no one seems to know if the six were innocent.

This drama has since replayed itself many times.

  • In 1967, racial terrorist, mass murderer, and Black Panther (PDF) co-founder, Huey Newton (1942-1989), murdered white Oakland Patrolman John Frey, wounded white Patrolman Herbert Heanes, and kidnapped motorist Dell Ross. Although Newton’s crimes were sufficient to see Newton executed, he was initially convicted of mere voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to 2-15 years in prison. After serving 21 months, Newton’s conviction was reversed on a technicality.

Newton was tried two more times, but after hung juries, California authorities gave up. Newton returned to his life of terror and crime.

Although Carson was charged with murder, attempted murder, and kidnapping, the jury convicted him only of kidnapping, under the legally irrelevant pretext that the jurors weren’t sure “whether or not he had ordered the shooting”, acquitting him on the other charges. He served a mere 17 months, was released, and picked up his criminal, er, community organizing career where he had left off.

  • In the late 1980s, a series of black and Hispanic New York City juries acquitted black mass murderer-robber-kidnapper-mass attempted murderer Larry Davis (1966?-2008) of attempting to murder nine policemen who had gone to arrest him, of aggravated assault for the six cops he had shot that night (while the same jury convicted him of illegal possession of a firearm!), and of all charges regarding five drug dealers he allegedly had murdered.

The shameless juries—many local blacks still lionize Davis—embraced Davis’ defense attorneys’ fairy tale that the police were his crime partners, who had sought variously to frame and murder him. Fortunately, in 1991, a jury convicted Davis in the murder of a sixth drug dealer.

Juror identification with predators translates into revolving-door justice, in which the most violent felons spend more time on the street than in lock-up.

The Knoxville Horror could never have been committed had the alleged “ringleader” not been given a token sentence for previous violent felonies. In 2001, Lemaricus Davidson was convicted in Tennessee of carjacking and aggravated robbery, for which he could have been sentenced to life in prison. Instead, he served a mere five years.

While exuberantly supporting the most bloodthirsty black felons, blacks also often demand the incarceration of innocent whites.

In 1992, four LAPD officers were acquitted in a state trial of using excessive force under color of authority. Their alleged “crime” was the brutal but perfectly lawful beating of parole-violating felon Rodney King who, while in a state of extreme intoxication, had led police on a chase at speeds of up to 115 miles per hour, violently resisted arrest, and assaulted four officers.

Their acquittal was greeted by the worst race riot in American history.

The feds responded by retrying the officers in an unconstitutional, double-jeopardy, civil rights trial. Jurors convicted two of them. Koon and Powell’s federal convictions were the result, variously, of racist black jurors, leftist whites, and whites who either appeased the racist black jurors, or as Lou Cannon suggested in his monumental work, Official Negligence : How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, sacrificed the two officers to “the 13th juror”—the “street”, i.e., the fear of additional black race riots.

Racist blacks also demand that whites be imprisoned for acts “violating” non-existent laws, as in the Jena Hoax, or for acts that never occurred, as in the Duke Rape Hoax.

One of the ever-burgeoning blessings of diversity is that it is not just racist black jurors who are destroying the criminal justice system. Racist, Hispanic immigrants likewise refuse to recognize America’s laws, and diversity has emboldened a minority of white jurors dedicated to thwarting justice, who see themselves as the “allies” of blacks (read: black criminals), and as “race traitors” towards other whites.

Given that the state trials of Cobbins’ three co-defendants are yet to come —with Judge Baumgartner presiding over all of them—and a federal retrial of convicted accessory Eric Boyd is possible, we will have the opportunity to observe up to four replays of the Cobbins travesty.

The destruction of America’s criminal justice system is one of the many gifts of “diversity”, which was originally called the “civil rights movement.” When black civil rights leaders began their war on America’s legal system, the country was 88 percent white, and 10 percent black. America is now only 66.3 percent non-Hispanic white, as opposed to 12.6 percent black, 14.7 percent Hispanic, and 4.4 percent Asian. And the law is being worn away a little each day.

I have touched here only on the jury problem—leaving aside the issues of diversity-oriented local and federal prosecutors, sentencing (and reversals) by judges, “de-policing”, politicians who aid and abet criminals (here and here), and diversity-based, systemic overload.

America can have “diversity”—or it can have justice.

But, as is becoming increasingly clear, not both.

Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men’s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

Letter To A Turncoat -The Lone Haranguer

Letter To A Turncoat

[The letter is addressed to a man named Tom Leyden, who back in the 90s betrayed his former comrades in the Skinhead movement for money and tried to garner his 15 minutes of fame by going the liberal talk show route telling stories about his life among the wicked racists, almost all of which appear to be fabrications and do not stand up to factual analysis. Leyden failed to "take off" because he was so obviously bogus, but he simply cannot accept that his 15 minutes is over, and he still pops up from time to time. - HAC]

Hey Leyden,

How the hell can you justify turning your back on your own race, and denying the blatant reality of black and mestizo evil in this country? What…did you get in a car wreck and suffer brain damage?

You were actually among people that could see the truth, and yet you went back to your old, ignorant ways, like a dog returning to its vomit. It takes a man to face hard truths about himself and the world he lives in. It’s easy to go along with the crowd and get the approval of other fools and corrupt idiots, but in the end you only end up going down with them. Diversity is a lie, and the greatest evil ever to hit our culture, race, and nation. It’s tearing the US apart at the seams. I predict that this country doesn’t survive in its present form another two years, tops.

There’s a huge difference between racism and realism. According to the liberal propaganda dictionary, racism is anything that doesn’t like people of other races, no matter how justified it is. The truth is far different. Webster’s defines it as an “unjustified” bias against a race, person, or philosophy, without proof, reason, or merit.

The key word here is “unjustified.” Even as twisted as your own thinking has become, you know the meaning of that word, and you know very well that any racism toward these other races is more than justified, it’s demanded.

Black-on-white crime in this country has literally reached genocide proportions, and yet the liberal media flatly refuses to air any news clips of the tens of thousands of attacks that occur each and every day in this country. A fat 88% of all black males in this country are either in prison, in jail, on parole, on probation, wanted for a felony, out on bail, or have just been arrested. And those are only the ones we know about. The figure is closer to 98% according to law enforcement. Want to know the percentage of white crime in the US? 3 percent!

That’s right, I didn’t stutter. Three percent! If we could deport all invaders and get a handle on the blacks in this country that are running amok, we could fire 97% of all cops, close 97% of all prisons and jails, and tear down 97% of all courthouses.

You think about that. Think hard. These are facts. They’re not “unjustified bias” or racism. Diversity is a lie. It doesn’t work. It’s a tool for the liberal elite to destroy our race and nation, and it’s working. Fools like you only make their job easier.

And in the end, after they’ve turned this country into a communist police state, what do you think they’ll do to you? Think you’ll be given any special treatment for turning your back on the truth and your people? You’ll be executed just as ruthlessly as the rest of our race. In fact they’ll laugh at the dupe that used to help them.

True, the skinheads are too radical, but it’s a reaction of the young to this hypocrisy and the evil of diversity and integration. Just because you don’t want to be one of them doesn’t mean you should deny the truths that created them. There are now literally thousands of white activist groups out there now, that are expanding exponentially, and many others are merging into larger, more powerful organizations.

Revolution is coming. And if we should win the day, you, and people like you, will be on the short end of the stick. Either way you lose. Your only hope is to stand up and be a man and face reality. Stop craving pats on the back from people I wouldn’t hire to drive a trash truck.

Get your priorities in order. Do some thinking for once in your life.

-The Lone Haranguer