The New White Nationalism in America – a critique

The New White Nationalism in America – a critique

This essay is a critique of Carol Swain’s book The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. It is adapted from a paper written in 2008 and targeted towards a mainstream (i.e. ultra-liberal) academic audience, so if the tone seems somewhat detached and non-partisan for an MR article, that is the reason why. Although not especially topical (the book was published in 2002) the decision to post the piece was prompted by a comment left elsewhere on the blog to the effect that Obama’s election signals the rebirth of ethnocentrism in the United States. Is that actually a supportable proposition and if so, why? Certainly if Swain’s argument that WNism in America is largely (but not wholly) propelled by opposition to Affirmative Action holds up, then having a beneficiary of the same in the White House would seem to support the proposition as stated.

At the time of the initial publication of her book Carol Swain, was (and still is today) Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University. On her website she cites herself in describing the book in the following terms: “My book is a wake-up call,” says Swain. “We’re at a point in history where we have an opportunity to avert disaster. I believe that unless we take action today, we’re headed for unprecedented levels of racial and ethnic conflict.” Even after allowing for a tinge of self-puffery and hyperbole, it sounded like pretty strong stuff from a rather unexpected source.

I felt that the combination of subject matter – the [re-]awakening of white racial consciousness – and the status of the author as a bona-fide member of an oppressed group, presented an interesting mixture rendering reading and commenting on it a worthwhile exercise. There is also the fact that the book is not positioned as a polemic, unlike most other attempts to deal with racial matters in contemporary America.  In the course of this short critique, I intend to provide an overview of Swain’s stated objectives in writing the book, outline her perception of the problem(s) and their causes, then touch on her proposed remedies, and conclude by noting my personal impressions and commentary.


The author states at the outset that her work is intended for a mainstream audience, rather than being targeted at fellow academics and policy specialists, which all augured well for its readability. On the other hand, though, she doesn’t skimp on the citations, footnotes and bibliography for those who might wish to examine her sources for themselves.  In p. xv-xvi of her Preface she sets out the objectives as follows:

(a) [… to] explore the development of an emerging white nationalist (WN) movement that poses a threat to the peace and repose of the multiethnic society;

(b) to heighten public awareness about the various groups that constitute the WN “movement” and their leadership;

(c) to provide liberals in particular with an insight into the ongoing racial problems in the United States;

(d) to show how some of the policies advocated by liberals are exacerbating racial discord, and

(e) to make the case for a reinvigorated public debate into the issues of race and identity politics.


In p.1 of the Introduction, CS takes some care to differentiate between what she styles as the ‘old-style White Supremacist (WS) movement’ and what she terms ‘… a new and expanded white consciousness movement … white nationalism (WN)’. She contrasts the ‘new, sophisticated WNism with the crude racism’ of the KKK et al (p. 3), and highlights the current heightened focus on recruiting from an educated, mainstream audience. On pp. 4-5 she mentions the growth of a new ‘Euro-Americanism’ as an emerging new player in the identity politics field, one which is at present camped predominantly on the radical right of the political spectrum.

This ‘new white racial advocacy movement’ (p.15) is led by people who are ‘…cultured, intelligent, and often possessing impressive degrees from some of America’s finest colleges and universities’. They are a ‘… far cry from the populist politicians and hooded Klansmen who fought the losing battles for segregation during the great civil rights upheavals…’ (p.15). From p.16 onwards, several of the leading personalities are introduced, including David Duke, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, the academics Philippe Rushton, Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn. The Internet is cited as a prime recruiting tool (p.30) and CS details particularly and its proprietor Don Black. CS concludes that the fundamental goal of the new WNism is not white supremacism but racial separation:  “White nationalists recognize that America is already a multiracial, multiethnic society, but given their pessimism about the long-term health and viability of such societies, they believe that drastic measures must be taken to change things. Their solution is usually some form of ethnic separation based on territorial partition. Racial separation is the obvious next step for people who believe that racial and ethnic minorities are a danger to the personal safety and social values of white Americans” (p.19).

At this point, then, it seems clear that for CS the danger inherent in the ‘emerging new white nationalism’ and white ‘identity politics’ is not just the challenge it presents to racial integration but the threat it poses for the long-term viability of the United States itself in its present form.


Back in her Introduction, CS sets out what she believes forms the underlying causation for the nascent WN movement. These “…seven conditions [which] threaten to fuel the growth of this new [white] racial consciousness movement” are taken up again in Chapter 14 and can be summarized/paraphrased as follows (pp.2 and 423), with an appropriate citation for each, as being illustrative of the author’s rationale for its inclusion:

 Changing demographics principally due to large-scale immigration which brings the prospect that whites will cease to have a racial majority in the US (“… whites who feel threatened by immigration, and fueled by WN rhetoric, may one day take matters into their own hands to ‘solve’ America’s immigration issues” p. 103);

 Job losses due to globalization (“… In almost every sector, large companies manipulate the immigration system, much to the detriment of Americans. The new H1-B work visa program is the most recent example of this” p. 93);

 Resentment over racial preference polices e.g. Affirmative Action (“… affirmative action policies … have become synonymous with quotas, reverse discrimination, and naked racial preferences, all of which are strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of America’s white population” p. 133)

 High levels of black-on-white crime, particularly violent crime (“WNs have seized on this issue of black crime rates and begun a concerted effort to raise the racial consciousness of white America through a series of press releases detailing the racial disparities in violent crime” p. 113);

 Multiculturalism, ‘ethnic pride’, and identity politics (“On many campuses, balkanization and grouping along cultural lines has prompted some white students to self-segregate and seek their own organizations …” p. 314);

 Rising expectations among racial and ethnic minorities (“Moreover it is not only whites who are angry or feel resentful and threatened. A part of the future discord will come from the rising expectations and demands of racial and ethnic minorities, which are sure to increase as minorities become a larger portion of the American population” p. 424) ;

 The communicative power and political impact of the Internet (“Concerted efforts by watchdog agencies and institutional elites to censor WN groups have failed … such groups have highly developed networks and forums that allow them to take their messages to millions of Americans” p.346)

She points to a rising level of racial consciousness amongst European-Americans and WN as the ‘next logical stage for identity politics in America’.

Much of the remainder of the book is taken up with the author’s rationale for identifying this particular “host of powerful social forces” (p.423) as the principal drivers behind the growth of the new WNism. Separate chapters in the book are devoted to the impact of demographic change, crime and the fear of violence, and, in particular, Affirmative Action and racial preference policies in general. In fact there seems little doubt that of all the ‘powerful social forces’ enumerated above, racial preference policies are the most troubling for CS in constituting a main driver for WNism. So much so, in fact, that she devotes a further three full chapters to discussing the implementation of Affirmative Action schemes in America’s colleges, and the legal, social and political consequences that have ensued.


In Chapter 14, the author recites a number of recommendations for initiatives to mitigate and, potentially, to eliminate the roots causes of the problems that she says are putting Americans at risk of “… large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation’s history” (p. 423). She has two distinct groups of recommendations: ideas for the improvement of American society generally, and recommendations directed specifically towards the African-American community. The former group consists of fourteen recommendations, listed on pp. 425-443, the latter group has nine recommendations, described on pp. 425-455.

Among the general recommendations which are both more radical and likely to be challenging to implement are calls to action on: the opening up of political discourse on unfashionable ideas on race; the need to address legitimate public policy issues raised by WNs and conservatives which are currently ignored by governmental offices and liberal elites; the abandonment of all racial- and gender-based double standards, especially in colleges and universities, and the termination of all racial preferences in employment and promotion; and finally, a dramatic scale-back of legal immigration and proper enforcement of current laws against hiring illegal aliens.

Some of the recommendations for action on the part of the black community and its leadership are no less radical and challenging. These include calls to make the reduction of black crime rates America’s No. 1 public policy issue, for the black leadership to cease using riotous behavior by blacks as an opportunity to press for more federal largesse, and to vigorously condemn the ‘scandalously high’ rates of illegitimacy and AIDS in the black community.


At almost 500 pages excluding bibliography this is a long and densely-written work. It is an honest and, to my mind, even-handed treatment of a difficult subject and it is clear that Professor Swain had no compunction in leading to slaughter a number of cows considered sacred by the liberal managerial elites. She is particularly critical of the way in which the self-anointed leadership of various minority communities, and especially blacks, are encouraged through the prevailing dogma of multiculturalism and oppression-theory to indulge in ethnic rent-seeking and identity politics. The non-partisan reader could hardly fail to agree with the author’s conclusion that the social dynamics that have led to the racially-charged atmosphere have increased the vulnerability of mainstream white Americans to the ‘subtle recruitment strategies’ of WNism. Nor with her claim that the situation is greatly exacerbated by the ability of WNs to cloak their arguments in legitimate-sounding rhetoric, as well as the intransigence of the white liberal establishment and minority leaders in addressing the concerns that the white majority has about racial preferences and all the rest.

Impressive as the work is, it is not, in my opinion without some serious flaws. The largest, in my view, is that the author has, despite a strenuous effort to be more all-encompassing, fallen into the trap of viewing the new WNism as a binary issue of black-white identity politics. The undue focus on Affirmative Action and black social pathologies obscures the greater truth, which is that advocates of white separatism are primarily motivated, not by fears of black crime and resentment over racial preferences, by rather by a more atavistic fear of ethnic and cultural displacement. A cursory look at contemporary WN literature, propaganda and, particularly Internet forums such as Stormfront (not to mention of the dozens of private ones), will reveal immediately that, while many white nationalists are extremely disparaging about blacks and wish to be rid of them, there is a far greater level of concern about what is termed ‘the rising brown tide’, which is being fuelled by continuing large-scale immigration from the Third World. In the grand scheme of things, the ‘black issue’ on its own is generally held be manageable in the long term but the demographic transformation is not.

The other criticism I would make is that CS has focused rather too much on the “story so far” and, while issuing dire but necessarily non-specific warnings about the consequences of identity politics, she fails to properly sketch out any plausible future scenarios. She ignores totally the political dimension of the impact that the demographic transformation fuelled by immigration and globalization will have the American political landscape, and appears to assume that a ‘business as usual’ approach will prevail whilst the transformation process runs its course. This is to an extent a reflection of her parochialism and her inability to view the issue through anything other than a prism of African-American sensibility. If she had made a greater effort to examine the situation in other countries, she would not have failed to notice the emergence of ‘far-right’ nationalist parties, some of which have now entered the mainstream political process. In Denmark, for example, the Danish People’s Party has become the third-largest party in Parliament, based on the popularity of its stance against immigration and multiculturalism. In America the continuing option of white flight may delay the emergence of such factions for a while yet, perhaps even another generation or two, but unless the issues that Carol Swain has described can be resolved in the meantime, their eventual emergence is practically guaranteed. Our children and grandchildren will be living in interesting times, I wonder what they will make of the societal legacy that we have left them?

Whitopia? It Used To Be Called America

Whitopia? It Used To Be Called America

By Ellison Lodge

Occasionally, political scientists build a large thesis based on one interesting statistic. In his 2008 book The Big Sort, Bill Bishop came up with the idea of a “landslide countywhere Republicans or Democrats won by over 20%. Bishop found that the number of these counties nearly doubled from 26% of the electorate in 1976 to 48% in 2004. He convincingly demonstrated that this was proof of Americans’ increased self-segregation on racial, political, and cultural lines.

Richard Benjamin, [Email him]an African American fellow at the think tank Demos, attempts to find such a knockout statistic in his book Searching For Whitopia: An Improbable Journal To The Heart of White America. Instead of landslide counties, he documents “Whitopias” that supposedly indicate, well, increased self-segregation on racial, political, and cultural lines for America.

According to Benjamin, a

“Whitopia is whiter than the nation, its respective region, and its state. It has posted at least 6 percent population growth since 2000. The majority of that growth, often upward of 90 percent) is from white migrants. And a whitopia has a je ne sais quoi—an ineffable social charisma, a pleasant look and feel.”

Well, not exactly. The appendix with a list of hundreds of “Whitopian Counties” defines them as being “at least 85% non Hispanic White, with total population growth of at least 7 percent after 2000, and with more than two thirds of that growth coming from non-Hispanic whites.”

This definition contradicts the first one. While all these Whitopias are whiter than America as a whole, many are not whiter than their state. Idaho is 95% white, yet all but one of the ten Whitopias in the state were less than 95% white.

And nowhere does Benjamin establish that these counties’ growth is actually caused by white migration—simply that their growth is 66% white. While this number is significantly higher than the 18% white share of nation wide population growth, it is still significantly lower than the actual population of these Whitopias, so it could be caused by natural increase. In fact, only one of Benjamin’s 100 “extreme” Whitopias’ white share of the population growth is greater than the white share of the existing population. In other words, despite his claim that Whitopias are getting whiter, almost every single one is becoming less white—just not as quickly as the rest of the country.

Finally, the baselines of 85% white population and seven percent growth over the last six year is nothing to write home about. The entire country experienced six percent growth over those the last six years. While immigrants are flooding into the suburbs, the non-white population is still heavily concentrated in urban areas, making the rest of the country much more than 66% white.

Of course, the entire country was over 85% white before the 1965 Immigration act. Combined with the high birthrates after World War II, the whole of America probably qualified as a Whitopia.

Benjamin’s statistics merely establish is that there are some counties in America that are not yet flooded with Third World immigrants that managed to grow without the installation of low income housing.

I have no doubt that white flight exists, although it is complicated because whites tend create conditions that cause them to be followed by minorities. Benjamin just hasn’t thought carefully enough about it.

Searching for Whitopia, however, is not based solely on statistics. Benjamin tries to weave them into a left-wing cultural travelogue. While his statistics are important, we do not need any numbers to know that white flight is not confined from the cities to the suburbs, but now to exurbs and even formally rural areas. Benjamin braves areas such as St. George, Utah; Forsyth, Georgia; and Warren County, New Jersey to see just what makes White Americans tick.

In this respect, the book is an inferior knock-off of the 1998 bestseller Confederates in the Attic, in which Tony Horwitz [Email him]left Bethesda, MD to travel across swaths of the unreconstructed South exposing the backwardness and bigotry of its residents to his cosmopolitan readers. Like Horwitz, Benjamin hails from suburban Maryland and dares to explore to Red America and its inhabitants. Also like Horowitz, he shows a feigned and patronizing sympathy for his subjects, always tempered by the fact that (of course) their existence and worldview is wrong and intolerant.

Though I strongly disagreed with Horwitz’s message, Confederates in the Attic kept my attention. This is probably because neo-Confederates (or whatever you want to call them) are much more interesting characters than ordinary Americans who simply want to live in an area with nice schools, safe neighborhoods, and English-speakers. When going native, Horwitz joined a group of hardcore Confederate re-enactors who would go as far starving themselves to emaciation before battles. Benjamin just learned to play golf.

As Benjamin notes, America is rapidly approaching what he calls the “White Peoples’ Deadline” of 2042 when whites will become a minority. Immigration into the suburbs is one of the major causes of white flight to the exurbs.

In his chapter “The Latino Time Bomb”, Benjamin recounts an extensive conversation with Roy Beck of Numbers USA. Before reading it, I correctly predicted the exchange. Beck, of course, bent over backward to explain that NumbersUSA’s opposition to immigration has nothing to do with race. Benjamin responds by linking Beck to John Tanton, whom he smears for publishing Camp of the Saints and Sam Francis. He also accuses Beck of having “the worst germ fixation I have ever seen” simply because Beck—who had a cold—did not want to shake Benjamin’s hand.

Memo to Beck: spread disease next time.

Curiously, Benjamin did not interview American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor, who (whatever else Benjamin no doubt think about him) has thought long and hard about the implications of white flight and would certainly have given Benjamin more of a fight. (Maybe that was the problem.) has a barely traceable presence in Whitopia— Benjamin quotes a very prescient 2004 Sam Francis column that predicted that Barack Obama may represent the “moment when America ceases to be a nation defined and characterized by the white racial identity of its founders and historic population and is transformed into the non-white multiracial empire symbolized and led by ‘people like Obama.'” And he lists Peter Brimelow’s book Alien Nation as one of “spate of panicky best sellers” in the last ten years. (It was actually published in 1995).

Most amusingly, the dust jacket describes Whitopias as a place full of people who do “not mind a little ethnic food or a few mariachi dancers—as long as these trends do not overwhelm a white dominant culture.” Besides inserting “white” before “dominant culture”, this is an unacknowledged verbatim lifting of Marcus Epstein’s quip in a column that offended the New York Times’ editorial board earlier this year.

If there is one minor insight in Searching for Whitopia, it’s that whites don’t want to talk or acknowledge the racial basis for their decisions—even as they make huge sacrifices to avoid the benefits of diversity. According to Benjamin,

“Most whites are not drawn to place explicitly because it teems with other white people. Rather, the place’s very whiteness implies other perceived qualities. Americans associate a homogenous white neighborhood with higher property values, friendliness, orderliness, hospitality, cleanliness, safety, and comfort. These seemingly race-neutral qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class in many whites’ minds. Race is often used as a proxy for those neighborhood traits. And, if a neighborhood is known to have those traits, many whites presume—without giving it a thought—that the neighborhood will be majority white.”

Of course, these whites presume correctly. As areas become more and more non-white, crime increases, social cooperation goes down, and school quality declines. After detailing his experience of an African American youth robbing him at gunpoint in New York City, Benjamin even reluctantly admits that whites have some justification for these fears.

But given our insane regime of political correctness, whites also have good reason to pretend race has nothing to do with their decisions.

Benjamin concludes by with the obvious question “Where’s the harm?” What is wrong with whites choosing to live among their own kind?

He replies that middle class whites are forced to experience cultural isolation, long commutes, and urban sprawl. Low-income whites, who occupied the exurbs prior to the white flight, are sometimes priced out. Low-income minorities lose any contact with the middle class. Benjamin believes that “Stemming disintegration is crucial to the long-term quality of our democracy.”

While Benjamin painfully tries to show that this segregation the result of zoning and tax laws, it doesn’t take his Stanford PhD to know that it’s really due to federal government’s housing, education and above all immigration policy. whites —who until the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act would simply have been called “Americans”—are increasingly forced to choose between living in crime-infested neighborhoods with terrible schools or retreating to the suburbs and now to the Whitopias at their own social and economic cost.

But unless whites—Americans— acknowledge that their decisions are in response to our insane immigration policies and fight to change them, they will eventually run out of new Whitopias to run to.

Benjamin concludes his book with this sentence: “I want desperately, come 2042, for our national experiment to work.”

But America never signed up for any “national experiment” of making whites a minority through government immigration policy.

The experiment is already failing. And unless we want the country to become even more segregated—and possibly break up—we need to pull the plug.

Ellison Lodge (email him) works on Capitol Hill.

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.

Who Are “Asians” Anyway—And Why Are We Giving Them Affirmative Action Benefits?

Sailer Strategy (contd.): Who Are “Asians” Anyway—And Why Are We Giving Them Affirmative Action Benefits?

By Steve Sailer

I’ve shown recently that simple arithmetic proves the Sailer Strategy”—by which the Republican Party would worry less about “outreach” to hostile minorities and more about inreachto mobilize its natural white base—will be viable for a surprisingly long time, despite current immigration policy.

But it will obviously help if some minorities can be persuaded to be less enthusiastic about the Democrats. In devising any long-term strategy for preventing one-party Democrat rule in America, the Asian vote, which went for Obama 62-35 over McCain, must be analyzed especially closely.

A generation from now, Hispanics will have an abundance of votes, but Asians will have plenty of money and brainpower. Hispanics will naturally continue to gravitate toward the tax-and-spend party, but Asians are more unpredictable. With their higher earning power, Asians, in theory, might not prove hostile to a party advocating limited government. On the other hand, if Asians continue their current shift to the left, their talents will magnify the impact of their numbers.

I’ll discuss the Asian vote in detail in an upcoming column, but today’s essay will merely explore the political implications of one basic question:

  • Who are “Asians” anyway?

Asia is an awfully big place. It has four billion people inhabitants. Is everybody from Asia an “Asian” according to U.S. government regulations?

For instance, everybody would agree that, say, Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Senator from Hawaii for the last 46 years, is Asian because his parents were Japanese.

But what about Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a potential 2012 Presidential candidate? Is the blue-eyed Daniels an Asian? After all, he is of Syrian Christian descent, and Syria is in Asia.

Well, of course not! Everybody knows that West Asians aren’t whom we are talking about when we talk about “Asians”.

Then, how about Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana? He is of Asian Indian descent. Does that make him an “Asian” Asian?

Funny you should ask. See, Jindal was officially Caucasian for the first decade of his life. But then the Reagan Administration changed him to an Asian. So now he’s an Asian.

To begin at the beginning: originally, the concoction of the overall “Asian” category was another folly of the Nixon Administration. Rather than simply continuing to tabulate separately each of the mutually antagonistic East Asian nationalities, with their lurid histories of aggression and atrocity against each other, Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget lumped them together into the single racial category of “Oriental Americans”, making them a legally-protected class able to sue for disparate impact.

Nixon’s creation of an “Oriental” category (later changed to “Asian” to entrap unfashionable people who fail to keep up with the latest PC nomenclature shifts) inevitably called into existence a pan-East Asian class of activists to protect and extend their racial privileges.

As I argued when reviewing Sandra Day O’Connor’s disastrous, Bush-backed, majority opinion in the Grutter quota case, if the government announced that people born on Wednesdays were now a legally preferred class, there would soon spring up pressure groups with names like The Children of Woe to lobby for more Wednesdaytarian power. PBS would run Wednesday Pride documentaries during Wednesday History Month about esteem-building people born on Wednesdays, such as Jimmy Carter, Bruce Lee, and Rosie O’Donnell.

Of course, the (relatively) good news about “Asians” is that since they tend toward competence, they benefit from fewer quotas than blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notorious Four-Fifths Rule for detecting disparate impact results in de facto quotas for Asians much less often than for Non-Asian Minorities (NAMs).

Still, those Asian activists are in action. Thus, back in the 1970s when Gov. Jindal was a child, Indian and Pakistani immigrants and their offspring were legally considered racially Caucasian, in accordance with the general findings of physical and genetic anthropology.  But then, Indian immigrant businessmen clamored for the Small Business Administration’s low-interest minority business development loans. So, in 1982, the Reagan Administration lumped immigrants from the Indian subcontinent in with East Asians, declaring them all to be “socially or economically disadvantaged Asians.

This is the result: Imagine you are a Taliban terrorist from the mountainous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. You immigrate to America. If you are from the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass, you are now officially “Asian”, and you qualify for taxpayer-subsidized low-interest loans. But if you are from the Afghanistan side, you are officially white and are out of luck at getting a government loan.

Got it?

Lumping together East Asians and South Asians is transparently bogus. Pyong Gap Min, a professor at Queens College in New York City, pointed out:

[Asian] is a political term used by Asian-American activists and enhanced by governmental treatment. In terms of culture, physical characteristics, and pre-migrant historical experiences, I have argued, South and East Asians do not have commonalities and as a result, they do not maintain close ties in terms of friendship, intermarriage or sharing neighborhoods.”

The Reagan Administration’s attempt to bribe a talented pressure group, the Indians, by declaring them legally nonwhite is another example of the shallow short-term thinking about race that has left the Republican Party with its future in doubt.

It’s absolutely nuts for Republicans to expand a system under which immigrants can win money and prizes by declaring themselves victims of whites.

You don’t make friends that way, you make enemies. It’s basic human nature.

Unfortunately, almost everybody thinks about diversity in only the most abstract terms: e.g., If we give Group X the special benefits their leaders demand, they will vote for us more. I mean, their politicians wouldn’t have ulterior motives, now would they?

But, in reality, to understand the effects of diversity, you have to think about how individuals actually act, about how they feel when they act. You have to put yourself in their shoes.

Consider this example. In 2005, the Office of the Inspector General sent a report to the SBA: Criteria for Overcoming the Presumption of Social Disadvantage is [sic] Needed. A whistle-blowing citizen had filed a complaint about an Asian businessman in his mid-20s who had qualified for the SBA’s 8(a) minority business development programs. The whistle-blower argued  that the entrepreneur was not really disadvantaged.

See, in theory you don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized loans just by being “Asian”. No, you have to be a socially or economically disadvantaged Asian. And how do you demonstrate you are disadvantaged? You fill out a form about how you’ve suffered under the lash of white bigotry.

Thus this Asian entrepreneur related a tale of woe on his application, including:

“I then watched as young, less experienced white men got the promotions and salary increases that I had been promised.”

The Inspector General’s office discovered, however, that in the company where the victim toiled, his father was a senior officer and shareholder. In fact, this young martyr to social and economic disadvantage:

1. came from a wealthy family; e.g., according to a newspaper article, since 1996, three companies his parents founded and were affiliated with were sold for approximately $3 billion;

2.  was raised in his parents’ home, which had an assessed value of $5.2 million as of January 1, 2005; …

5.  was gainfully employed by the United States Senate, Goldman Sachs International … among others.

As the title of the 2005 report points out, after decades of handing out loans to each and every Asian who submitted a form claiming to be “socially or economically disadvantaged”, the federal government still hadn’t gotten around to developing criteria for “overcoming the presumption of social disadvantage”.

In other words, if you are Asian, the government just takes your word for it.

Consider the psychological effect of the government prodding you to lie about white persecution. Sure, this Asian applicant no doubt knew he was fibbing the first time the government asked him to complain about being discriminated against by whites in order to qualify for quotas. Yet, as the years go by, and he keeps having to fill out these forms to get more advantages over whites, and keeps donating to ethnic lobbies to preserve his privileges, it will only be natural for him to start believing his cover story about how he’s the real victim and thus he deserves his loot.

If you pay people to exploit you, they will come to believe you deserve it.

In fact, maybe you do.

The policy implications are twofold.

  • First, the next time the Republicans get any power, they need to abolish all programs that treat “Asians” as victims deserving special treatment.

If Asians are put on a basis of legal equality with whites, they will get along well enough with them—and cease to identify with the people, and the party, benefitting from quotas

Sure, there will be a short-term political price to pay. But if you don’t do it now, when will you do it? When Asian voters are more numerous?

  • Second, South Asians must be reclassified back to Caucasian, and the “Asian” category renamed “East Asian” (if not Oriental).

It was particularly shortsighted of the Reagan Administration to declare South Asians officially nonwhite. South Asians tend (especially compared to East Asians) to be extraverted, loquacious in English, interested in politics and argument, and intellectually venturesome. There are already far more South Asian than East Asian pundits in America. Policies that incline these Indians to the left could turn out to be disastrous.

There are some grounds for hope. One of the main reasons for anti-white feelings among East Asian men is that white men are much more likely to marry East Asian women than East Asian men are to marry white women, leaving a lot of cranky East Asian bachelors left over. This is less of a problem for South Asian men, who keep their womenfolk on tighter leashes. Arranged marriages are still common among South Asians in America.

Because the GOP is inevitably destined to be considered the white party, it would be best to have the Indians, as Lyndon Johnson vulgarly but memorably said of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, “inside the tent p—–g out than outside p—–g in”.

And it’s not at all too late to rectify the Asian definition to detach Indians. The current categories are hardly set in stone. For example, in 1997, the OMB broke apart the silly “Asian or Pacific Islander group into Asian and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Note, however, why this was done. Right now, only minority activists pay attention to the federal definitions of race and ethnicity. Thus the “Asian or Pacific Islander” group was split not because it was plainly stupid to lump massive Samoans in with wiry Vietnamese—and certainly not because it was good for America. Instead, it happened because Native Hawaiian groups felt that being aggregated with Asians was slowing their endless campaign to badger Congress into treating them like American Indians (for instance, let them have casinos to cater to gambling-crazed Chinese tourists).

Asians are richer than Pacific Islanders. So lumping them together statistically diminished the Polynesians’ claims of victimization.

Bottom line: American whites have long subcontracted out to minority pressure groups the question of how Washington develops the racial categories used to award legal privileges and perquisites.

When whites made up an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, as they did during the Nixon Administration, that heedlessness may have seemed trivial.

But as whites lose their numeric dominance because Washington’s immigration policy, they will have to learn to play these grubby games, too.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

The Affirmative Action Nobel

The Affirmative Action Nobel

By Patrick J. Buchanan

All my life, said Voltaire, I have had but one prayer: “O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous. And God granted it.”

In awarding the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama, the Nobel committee has just made itself look ridiculous.

Consider. Though they had lead roles in ending a Cold War lasting half a century, between a nuclear-armed Soviet Empire and the West, neither Ronald Reagan nor John Paul II ever got a Nobel Prize.

In 1987, Reagan negotiated the greatest arms reduction treaty in modern time, the INF agreement removing all Soviet SS-20s and all U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles from Europe.

Other than hosting the “Beer Summit” between Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, what has Obama done to compare with what these statesmen did to make ours a more peaceful and better world?

What has Obama accomplished to compare with what the other sitting presidents to receive the Nobel Prize accomplished?

Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 for the Portsmouth Treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson won the 1919 Nobel Prize for getting Germany to accept his 14 Points as the basis for an armistice that ended the bloodiest war in all of European history.

And what about Richard Nixon?

In 1972, he made his historic trip to China, ending a quarter century of hostility, negotiated SALT I with Leonid Brezhnev, limiting ICBMs, and ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam. True, Nixon persuaded Hanoi to sign the Paris Peace Accords only after 13 days of “Christmas bombing.”

Yet that did not deter the Nobel committee from giving the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Hanoi ‘s Le Duc Tho.

Early in the week his award was announced, Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama, the 1989 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who has spent 50 years as a courageous voice for the rights of his Tibetan people, who have endured half a century of Chinese communist repression and cultural genocide. Which of these—the Dalai Lama or Barack Obama—seems more deserving of a Nobel Prize for Peace?

Since the news broke, the president has been a national object of mockery and mirth. In fairness, this is not his fault. There is no evidence he lobbied for the prize; no evidence he knew it was coming.

“Is this April Fools’ Day?” said one startled aide.

In accepting, Barack was properly humble, saying that he did not belong in the company of previous recipients, that he would try to live up to the expectations his Nobel had created.

It is the members of the Nobel committee who have made fools of themselves and further devalued their prize, if that is still possible.

For how many Americans could, without Google, identify Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Muhammad Yunus and Martti Ahtisaari? Who are they? The 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008 winners of the Nobel Prize for Peace. In that company at least, Barack, for his willingness to talk to America’s adversaries and enemies, is not outshone.

Indeed, looking down the list of other recipients in this decade—Jimmy Carter in 2002, Muhammad ElBaradei in 2005, Al Gore in 2007 and Obama—the committee should probably rename it the Nobel Prize for Peace … and Stick-It-to-George Bush Trophy.

By 2002, Carter, who should have been included in the 1978 Nobel that went to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat for the Israeli-Egyptian peace he brokered at Camp David, had become a global pest, bedeviling Bush, as he did Bill Clinton, in violation of the tradition of ex-presidents, all the while accomplishing nothing.

While the International Atomic Energy Agency was right about no atomic weapons or programs in Iraq, ElBaradai himself regretted not having been more courageous in opposing the war. As for Gore, his prize was the committee’s way of providing publicity for a campaign against global warming that is a front for the latest scheme to advance world government.

As for Obama, he got the award because he is the quintessential anti-Bush. Yet, the Nobel committee did him no service.

They have brazenly meddled in the internal affairs of the United States. They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes—Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions—he did not earn. They have put him under moral pressure to mollify a pacifist left. They have brought him to the point, dangerous in politics, where a man becomes the butt of reflexive jokes, as did Bill Clinton in the Monica affair.

These Norwegian groupies, acting out of “adolescent adulation,” writes the Financial Times, have exposed themselves as “an annex to the left wing of the U.S. Democratic Party” with a “deeply misguided act” that will “embarrass (Obama’s) allies and egg on his detractors.”

The committee did something else. They ensured that their Nobel Peace Prize will never be taken as seriously again as once it was.


Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.

Yes, It Is About Race. Quite Right Too.

Yes, It Is About Race. Quite Right Too.

By Peter Brimelow

I really must congratulate me on this prediction, made back in early March when Obama was still riding high, based on my observation of the intense grass-roots fervor that contrasted so sharply with the complacent Establishment leadership at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Committee conference:

“The followership, the vast and remarkably youthful crowd, essentially all white, both sexes dressed in very proper office clothes, was intensely enthusiastic if confused—applauding both Ron Paul’s assault on indiscriminate military interventionism and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s very disappointing belligerent boilerplate about the Islamic threat with equal enthusiasm, so far as I could see.

“But my guess is that the details don’t matter here. In Kevin MacDonald’s terms, a powerful ‘implicit community’ is blossoming in opposition to Obama’s racial-socialist coup. The backlash to Obama is likely to be faster and more furious than the Beltway Establishment, Right or Left, anticipates.”

(Emphasis added, gloatingly!)

The power of that backlash, at Town Halls and Tea Parties, has been the sensation of the summer. The Obama Administration is obviously shaken. The President hastened to disavow Jimmy Carter’s smear of Rep. Joe Wilson, dumped ACORN, and has even conceded that opposition to Obamacare is not, in itself, “racist”. Nevertheless, large parts of his agenda now seem imperiled.

But it is clear that the Establishment Right is also uncomfortable with the backlash, and particularly with some of its more exuberant enthusiasms, notably the apparently irrepressible demand that Obama produce his birth certificate—although this is clearly a case of symbolic politics filling a void created by the Establishment Right’s failure to lead.

It’s actually really interesting how many grassroots revolts have shaken the Establishment in recent years. The most dramatic examples, of course, was the back-to-back routing of the two Kennedy-Bush amnesty attempts. But I would argue that a precursor was the grassroots backlash to the War Against Christmas, which in the last couple of years has resulted in the simultaneous blossoming of what can only be called War Against Christmas denial, ludicrous in the teeth of scores of examples documented on VDARE.COM, so co-ordinated that it’s almost as if powerful group was shaken, like the Obama Administration, and circulated a secret memo.

Was the summer surge “racist”? I’m sure that New York Times house-broken conservative columnist David Brooks was absolutely right to say he detected no signs of “racism”, in the sense of visceral personal animosity, as he jogged through the 9/12 rally in Washington. (No, It’s Not About Race, New York Times, September 17, 2009.) This got Brooks denounced by Ed Kilgore, a New Republic blogger, as a “Yankee” (!!!apparently because Southerners regularly mingle with blacks, but everyone knows they’re racist). You have to wonder what the 9/12 crowds would have had to do to satisfy these people.

But it’s still “about race”. It is no coincidence, comrades, that the backlash is overwhelming white. Whites in America voted heavily against Obama. White Protestants (“let’s face it, they are America”—Phillip Roth, American Pastoral, p. 311) still make up nearly half (42%) the electorate and they voted 2-1 for McCain. But are even 4% of Obama’s appointments white Protestants?

The plain fact is that the Obama Administration has very shallow roots in historic America. It is, to put it brutally, a minority occupation government. Government and governed have little real contact or mutual understanding. It’s a recipe for continuous clashes.

Inevitably, a significant number of these clashes are racial. A year ago, in my introduction to Steve Sailer’s book America’s Half-Blood Prince, I wrote:

“I think the contradictions that Steve has identified in this book will turn any Obama Presidency into a four-year O.J. Simpson trial and that the consequent melt-down will compare to the Chernobyl of the Carter Presidency in its destructive partisan effects.”

And these polarizing O.J. Simpson incidents are coming thick and fast—from the inexplicable dropping of voter intimidation charges against the Philadelphia New Black Panthers, to Obama’s reflexive siding with black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates against white Cambridge cop James Crowley, to black educator Charisse Carney-Nunes’ instructing school children to rap in praise of Obama to the multicultural photograph posed by the White House to celebrate Obama’s recent rally with doctors in support of his health care legislation. (Typical mordant discussion by Larry Auster here).

Under the clinically scientific headline Birth of a Notion, Scientific American’s Steve Mirsky recently argued that the inexplicable (to him) appeal of the birthers lay in what he called implicit social cognition, which involves the deep-rooted assumptions we all carry around and even act on without realizing it”.

As an example,

“Harvard University psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is a leader in implicit social cognition research. She excavates the hidden beliefs people hold by measuring how fast they make value judgments when shown a rapid-fire succession of stimuli, such as photographs of faces….[She] found that volunteers linked white Americans more strongly than Asian-Americans with, well, America. Banaji and Devos then decided to do what even they thought was a ‘bizarre’ study: they had people gauge the ‘American-ness’ of famous Asian-Americans, such as Connie Chung and tennis player Michael Chang, versus European whites, such as Hugh Grant.

“The study found that white Europeans are more ‘American’ than are nonwhite Americans in most minds….Little surprise, then, that in a study done during the 2008 election campaign, Devos found that John Mc­Cain (who, ironically, was born in Panama, albeit at a U.S. naval base) was seen as more ‘American’ than Obama.”

This may be annoying to Banaji and Mirsky. But, to adapt Phillip Roth, “Let’s face it, they [whites] are America.”

The moral of this story: Diversity is not strength. It is weakness. By importing diversity through the disastrous immigration reform of 1965 and the simultaneous abandonment of enforcement at the southern border, Washington has forced whites—who for most of U.S. history would have been simply called “Americans”—to recognize, if only for now at a subliminal level, that they have common interests and must act to defend them.

This development is unimpeachably legitimate. It is not, of course, a recipe for civil peace.

But I didn’t make current immigration policy. My advice to those who did: you (OK, your illegal alien maid) made your bed—now lie in it.

Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House – 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins – 2003)