200701 American Renaissance

8/7/2019 200701 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200701-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - January 2007

Continued on page 3

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

Vol. 18 No. 1 January 2007

Why Michigan Needed to Ban Preferences

American Renaissance

Discrimination got worse

after the court rulings.

by Steven Farron

On November 7, theMichigan electoratevoted 58 to 42 per-

cent in favor of what came to be called “Proposal 2,” whichwas, to quote its text, “A proposal to amend the state con-stitution to ban affirmativeaction programs that give preferential treatment togroups or individuals basedon their race, gender, color,ethnicity or national origin for public employment, educa-tion or contracting purposes.”Its intent was the same as thatof the Civil Rights Act of 1964: to guarantee equaltreatment. Like the voters of California who passed a simi-lar ban in 1996, and the vot-ers of Washington State whodid the same in 1998, the people of Michigan were, ineffect, saying “and now wereally mean it.”

Proposal 2 passed in theface of nearly unanimous opposition from business, themedia, and political leaders of both parties, including former

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Illi-nois Senator Barack Obama. Opponentsspent four times as much on their campaign to defeat it as its supporters spent.Even the American Civil Liberties Unionand the Catholic Church forgot their dif-ferences and joined to oppose it.

“Affirmative action” supporters areobsessed with preferences for non-whites, but because Proposal 2 prohib-ited sex as well as race discrimination,many trumpeted the alleged horrors in

store for women. The Detroit News, for example, editorialized idiotically that itwould jeopardize “breast cancer screen-ings [and] domestic-violence shelters for

women.”Much of the opposition consisted of outright lies. Michigan Governor Jenni-

fer Granholm got it exactly wrong-wayaround when she said the preferences ban would take away the “opportunity

to compete on a level playing field.” OneUnited Michigan, the best-funded andmost “mainstream” of the pro-discrimi-nation groups, claimed Proposal 2 would

“immediately eliminate op- portunities for women andminorities to have equal ac-cess to jobs, education, andcontracts in Michigan.” Oneof its radio ads was nothingshort of hysterical: “If youcould have prevented 9/11from ever happening—wouldyou have? If you could have prevented Katrina—whatwould you have done? On November 7 there’s a nationaldisaster headed for Michigan:Proposal 2.”

A heavily-black pro-dis-crimination group called ByAny Means Necessaryclaimed the ban would “give[the state’s] universities, itslocal governments, its coun-ties, and its state bodies theright to discriminate against blacks, Latinos, and womenin violation of our federallyguaranteed equal-rights pro-tections.” This is typical of our times: eliminating officialdiscrimination in favor of blacks and Hispanics is dis-crimination against them.

By Any Means Necessarywas the group that bused hun-

dreds of black high school students to ameeting of the Board of Canvassers,whose job it was to put the language of the proposal on the ballot. Shouting“They say Jim Crow; we say hell no,”they jumped up on chairs, knocked over a table, and physically prevented thecanvassers from acting.

This sort of thing probably helped the proposal, and the voters of Michiganwent on to vote more or less as one

“There’s a national dis-aster headed for Michi-

gan: Proposal 2.”




Letters from ReadersSir — Dr. Dutton’s “Changed Over-

night: Race in Finland” in the Dec. is-sue was a real eye-opener. I was totally

unaware of the co-called “Swedish-Finns” and their behavior, or of the vari-ous prescriptions designed to perpetu-ate their interests in Finland. This must be seen as yet further evidence of racial-ethnic groups looking after their own.

Finnish self-censorship was, as noted by Dr. Dutton, a major theme through-out the Cold War and is yet another ex-ample of the exceptionally close ideo-logical and methodological links be-tween Marxism-Leninism and the cur-rent multicultural mind terror. One of the best studies on the cowed nature of Fin-

land and its left-wing media during theCold War is Esko Salminen’s The Si-lenced Media: The Propaganda War between Russia and the West in North-ern Europe (trans. Jyri Kokkonen,Macmillan Press Ltd., 1999).

One of Mr. Salminen’s main themesis self-censorship, and the author paintsa grim picture of Finland in the 1970s:“The Soviets did not have to look far for those who would praise and white-wash their system, and remain silentabout problems and failings. In the late1960s, a major portion of Finland’s uni-

versity students avidly adopted theteaching of the New Left. Marxism wasregarded as a solution to the ills of soci-ety. Before long, many students, artistgroups, research and journalist associa-tions were captured by the system” (p.27). Worse still: “Kowtowing to the So-viets developed to the level of a newnational consciousness” (p. 28). Even papers considered to be conservative or right wing in Finland, such as UusiSuomi, accepted regular columns from

Soviet journalists; in that paper’s case,from Spartak Beglov, a prominent So-viet propaganda specialist.

I have no doubt that the predatory behavior of “Swedish-Finns” described

by Dr. Dutton has something to do withFinland’s cowardice on the issue of multiculturalism but, equally, I do notdoubt that much of it has to do with theenduring effects of Marxist poison,which has now mutated into the pan-demic of multiculturalism.

Frank Ellis, Yorkshire, England

Sir — According to the FBI, blacksare the most frequent victims of so-calledhate crimes. We see this reported againand again, but is there any effort made

to differentiate the most serious hatecrimes from the least? In Berkeley lastyear, two thugs beat a UC student andleft him in a coma. The media did notidentify the races of anyone involved, but we can guess. The police did not callit a hate crime.

Across the bay in San Francisco, van-dals gouged out the face of a mural putup by leftists in honor of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Naturally, theSan Francisco police decided it was a“hate” crime.

Name Withheld, San Francisco

Sir — I found Jared Taylor’s three- part “Black Racial Consciousness” se-ries (see Sept., Oct. and November is-sues) very instructive. In closing the thirdinstallment, Mr. Taylor asks, “In 100years, will American whites be living astheir cousins now live in Zimbabwe andSouth Africa?”

It is certainly possible that whiteAmericans will be oppressed at that time,

but it will not be by blacks. In a century, blacks are not expected to make up amuch greater percentage of the popula-tion (13 percent) than they do now.Blacks will remain in a state similar towhich they are currently found in themajor cities and indeed the world over.

Blacks in this country are their own

worst enemy. Their population is heldin check by high abortion rates (approxi-mately 40 percent), high murder rates,the highest rate of AIDS of any group(around 40 percent of new cases), andof course the highest incarceration rate.

No, it will not be blacks oppressingwhites in 2100. It will be Hispanics, whoare already the fastest growing popula-tion group.

Warren Boiselle, Virginia Beach, Va.

Sir — On page 4 of the November

issue you ran an image that included thePledge of Allegiance. I strongly disap- prove of this 20th century invention. ThePledge uses the word “indivisible” whichis legally and factually wrong. The Dec-laration of Independence clearly statesthe people have the right to sever their relationship with the government for various reasons. The Constitution andthe Bill of Rights in fact confirm thisright. It was Abraham Lincoln who triedduring his presidency to alter this real-ity—unsuccessfully, I might add. It took many more years before the people were

federally brainwashed to the point of accepting this false premise.

Adrian Krieg, Bradenton, Fla.

Sir — As a Southron, it has botheredme since childhood that American blacksuse white names. It’s always been a par-ticular sore point when I come across a black using my own surname. Of course,the media love this, as it serves to con-ceal the race of criminals in news sto-ries. When I was a child, newspapersalmost always mentioned the race of

perpetrators.After 50 years of “afro”-this and

“afro”-that, why can’t they all use “afro”names? I’d support legislation allowing blacks to change to a more authenticname for free. They would be all themore “afro” for doing it, and I would domy best to wrap my thin Saxon tonguearound those thick African sounds.

D. Crockett Stewart, Gatesville, Tex.




American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $28.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $40.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor Ronald N. Neff, Web Site Editor

would expect: Fifty-nine percent of white women and 70 percent of whitemen voted for the ban, 82 percent of non-

white women voted to keep racial pref-erences. Perhaps more significant, nofewer than 86 percent of blacks and 69 percent of Hispanics voted to keep ra-cial preferences. What does this tell usabout what blacks and Hispanics will doonce they are state majorities?

On November 8, the day after the proposal passed, the president of the Uni-versity of Michigan (U-M), Mary SueColeman, staggered to the microphonein a state of distress. In return for her annual salary of $742,148, the taxpay-ers of Michigan got the following state-

ment: “I will not allow this university togo down the path of mediocrity. That isnot Michigan. Diversity makes us strong,and it is too critical to our mission, toocritical to our excellence, and too criti-cal to our future to simply abandon.”(See “highlights” from her speech on page 5.)

We shall see below the extent of theracial discrimination U-M practiced inorder to prevent “mediocrity” and attain“diversity.” It did so in the shelter of twowidely publicized Supreme Court deci-sions.

In June 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger ,the Supreme Court ruled that the methodused by U-M’s undergraduate Collegeof Literature, Science and Arts at AnnArbor to practice racial discriminationwas unconstitutional (see “What theSupreme Court Did,” AR, Aug. 2003).The university had been assigning applicants a certain number of points for various qualifications and characteris-tics, including race. For example, anoutstanding essay earned a maximum of

three points; being the child of an alum-nus, four points; personal achievement,leadership, or public service, a maximumof five points; a perfect score on the SAT

or ACT, 12 points; and being black, His- panic, or Native American 20 points.The only other qualification worth 20 points was the difference between a 4.0(i.e., straight As) high school GPA (grade point average) and a 3.0 (a B average).Socioeconomic background made no

difference. The child of a black or His- panic multimillionaire had an automatic20 point advantage over the child of non-English-speaking Bulgarian immigrants.

The Supreme Court ruled that racialdiscrimination in admissions does notviolate the Constitution, but the mechani-cal, numerical manner in which the un-dergraduate college implemented itdoes. On the same day, the SupremeCourt ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that

the discrimination U-M’s law school practiced, which was at least as great asthat practiced by the undergraduateschool, was being done in the correct,flexible, constitutional manner. As the justices put it, race was part of a “highlyindividualized, holistic review of eachapplicant’s file,” rather than the cold

formula the undergraduate school used.However, the majority also stated:“It would be a sad day indeed, were

America to become a quota ridden soci-ety, with each identifiable minority as-signed proportional representation inevery desirable walk of life. But that isnot the rationale for programs of prefer-ential treatment; the acid test of their justification will be their efficacy ineliminating the need for any racial or ethnic preferences at all. . . . We expectthat in twenty-five years from now, theuse of racial preferences will no longer

be necessary.”In their dissent from the majority in

the Gratz decision, Justices RuthGinsburg and David Souter pointed outthat rulings like these would simply en-courage universities to discriminate with“winks, nods, and disguises,” rather than

openly and honestly. That, of course, isexactly what U-M proceeded to do, andthe evidence now is available for all tosee.

The Center for Equal Opportunity(CEO) and the Michigan Association of Scholars have obtained data on the ad-missions policies and academic perfor-mance of students in Michigan’s under-graduate, law, and medical schools sincethe Grutter and Gratz decisions, and

Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964.




have published them on CEO’s website(www.ceousa.org).

The median combined verbal andmath SAT scores of undergraduates ad-mitted in 2005 was 1160 for blacks, 1260for Hispanics, 1350 for whites, and 1400for Asians (scores run from 400 to 1600).The median high school grade point av-

erage was 3.4 for blacks, 3.6 for His-

panics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.A black or Hispanic in-state, male applicant with no alumni connection, acombined SAT score of 1240, and a 3.2high school GPA had a 90 percent chanceof being admitted. A white or Asian withthe same record had a 10 percentchance.

This level of racial discrimination wasconsiderably greater than before theGratz and Grutter decisions, as shown by changes in what is called the oddsratio. This is the difference in chances

of being admitted for applicants of dif-ferent races with the same SAT or ACTscore and high school GPA, controllingfor in-state/out-of-state residence, sex,and alumni connections. In 2005, a black applicant was 71 times more likely to be admitted than a white with the sameSAT score, high school grades, and back-ground. For applicants who took theACT, the odds ratio was 63 to one. TheHispanic-white odds ratios were 46 toone for the SAT and 48 to one for theACT. For students admitted in 1999— before the Supreme Court decisions—

the odds ratios were not so unfavorableto whites: The black-white odds ratiowas 27 to one on the SAT, and 49 to oneon the ACT; the Hispanic-white oddsratio was 12 to one on the SAT and 32to one on the ACT. (To put these ratiosinto perspective, a smoker is 14 timesmore likely to die of lung cancer than anon-smoker.) The clear, numericalmethod of discrimination U-M used be-fore the Supreme Court rulings held theadmissions office in check; “flexible,”

“holistic” discrimination removed theserestraints.

As always, discrimination in admis-sions is reflected in subsequent academic performance. Below are the average col-lege GPAs of students admitted to Michi-gan in 2004 (the most recent year for which this information is available), at

the 75th percentile of their groups (i.e.,25 percent had a higher average), themedian of their group, and the 25th per-centile (i.e., 75 percent did better):

Blacks: 3.15, 2.84, 2.47Hispanics: 3.34, 2.99, 2.65Asians: 3.53, 3.26, 2.94Whites: 3.60, 3.33, 2.99

The proportions of students admittedto U-M in 2004, who later went on aca-demic probation were: blacks, 28 per-cent; Hispanics, 23 percent; Asians, 8

percent; whites, 5 percent. In this con-text, it is worth noting, as Iexplain in my book, The Af-

firmative Action Hoax, that blacks and Hispanics receivemassive preferences in col-lege grading, and take mucheasier courses than whitesand Asians.

It is significant also thatthe academic performance of whites was better than that of Asians. That was also true of the two other years, 1999 and

2003, for which informationon grades is available. Nev-ertheless, opponents of affirmative ac-tion at U-M and elsewhere have concen-trated on its unfairness to Asians. In fact,whites are the greatest victims of affir-mative action, but opponents claim thatAsians are the main victims in order notto have to defend whites.

The main basis for the claim thatAsians are the primary victims of affir-mative action is that at most universitiestheir average combined verbal and mathSAT score is higher than that of whites.

However, the combined score is mislead-ing. Asians have a considerably higher average math score than whites, but alower average verbal score. The mathdifference is greater than the verbal dif-ference, but for most university subjects,the verbal test is a better indicator of academic performance. The white/Asiandifference in average ACT scores for students admitted to U-M was negli-gible, and whites had higher averagehigh school grades.

At U-M’s law school, racial prefer-ences did decline after the 2003 SupremeCourt decisions, but were still enormous.A black who applied in 2005 was 18times more likely to be admitted than awhite or Asian with the same LSAT (LawSchool Admission Test) score, under-graduate GPA, residence status, sex, and

alumni connections. A Hispanic wasmore than three times more likely to beadmitted than a white or Asian.

In 2005, an in-state black male withno alumni connections had a 70 percentchance of admission if his LSAT scoreand undergraduate GPA were equal tothe median of blacks who were admit-ted. A Hispanic with the same qualifi-cations and background had a 30 per-cent chance of admission; a white or Asian had a 10 percent chance.

At U-M medical school, in 2005, theodds favoring a black or Hispanic ap-

plicant over a comparable white appli-

cant were 21 to 1 and 5.5 to 1, respect-ively. Below are the average MCAT(Medical College Admission Test)scores of applicants admitted to U-Mmedical school in 2005, at the 75th per-centile of their groups (25 percent had ahigher score), the median of their group,and the 25th percentile (75 percent did better):

Blacks: 39, 36, 32Hispanics: 42, 40, 36Whites: 46, 44, 42Asians: 47, 45, 43

Please note that whites and Asianswho scored at the 25th percentile for their groups scored much higher than blacks and as high as Hispanics whoscored at the 75th percentile of their groups. The MCAT is the best predictor of performance in medical school. Be-

By Any Means Necessary at the hustings.




low are average scores on Step I of theUnited States Medical Licensing Exami-nation, which students take after twoyears of medical school, at the 75th per-centile, median, and 25th percentile of blacks, Asians, and whites (no informa-tion is available for Hispanics) in 2003(the last year for which information is

available):

Blacks: 224.5, 215, 199Asians: 243, 232, 223Whites: 249, 235, 225

Again, although admissions standardsseem to be slightly higher for Asians thanwhites (Asian MCAT scores are slightlyhigher), white students performed bet-ter on the Medical Licensing Examina-tion. This is a universal finding. As I have pointed out in The Affirmative Action Hoax, even when Asians score slightly

better on admissions tests, whites score

Opponents of race prefer-ences claim that Asiansare the main victims inorder not to have to de-

fend whites.

better on tests of actual practice: teacher qualifying tests, the bar examination, andall medical qualifying tests.

A warning: The legal abolition of ra-cial discrimination in Michigan is not acause for rejoicing but for heightened

vigilance. Wherever racial discrimina-tion has been banned, public universi-ties have responded by adopting devi-ous, circuitous, and deliberately confus-ing admissions criteria that make clear racial comparisons impossible. In 1996,U-M’s president emeritus James Duder-

stadt said, “We will continue to do this

[practice racial discrimination] until theSupreme Court says we can’t any more.. . . [Then] we’ll try to find other waysto get the same result.” After the vote,the current president, Mary Sue Cole-man, vowed not to abandon racial dis-crimination. On the night before, she is-sued the following statement, “Regard-

less of what happens with Proposal 2,the University of Michigan will remainfully and completely committed to di-versity. I am determined to do whatever it takes to sustain our excellence by re-cruiting and retaining a diverse commu-nity of students, faculty and staff.”

Mr. Farron retired as a professor of classics at the University of Witwa-tersrand in Johannesburg in 2000 to

study racial questions. His book, TheAffirmative Action Hoax , is reviewed inthe January 2006 issue. Additions and corrections to his book are at www.

affirmativeactionhoax.com.

University president railsagainst the results.

Mary Sue Coleman

Diversity matters at Michigan, to-day more than any day in our history. It matters today, and it

will matter tomorrow. It will alwaysmatter because it is what makes us thegreat university we are.

I am deeply disappointed that the vot-ers of our state have rejected affirma-tive action as a way to help build a com-munity that is fair and equal for all.

But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse,welcoming campus. We will not be de-terred. . . .

I am standing here today to tell youthat I will not allow this university to godown the path of mediocrity. That is notMichigan. Diversity makes us strong,and it is too critical to our mission, toocritical to our excellence, and too criti-cal to our future to simply abandon.

This applies to our state as much asour university. Michigan’s public univer-sities and our public bodies must bemore determined than ever to provideopportunities for women and minorities,who make up the majority of our citi-zenry. . . .

I will not stand by while the very heart

and soul of this great university is threat-ened. We are Michigan and we are di-versity.

I am joined on these steps by the ex-ecutive officers and deans of our univer-sity. We are united on this. You have my

word as president that we will fight for what we believe in, and that is holdingopen the doors of this university to all people.

Today, I have directed our GeneralCounsel to consider every legal optionavailable to us. . . .

I will immediately begin exploring

legal action concerning this initiative.But we will not limit our drive for diver-sity to the courts, because our convic-tion extends well beyond the legal land-scape.

It is a cause that will take our full fo-cus and energy as an institution, and Iam ready to begin that work right now.We will find ways to overcome the hand-cuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to placeon our reach for greater diversity. . . .

For University employees who fear that their livelihood is at risk with the passage of this proposal, please knowthat you have no cause for worry. Noone’s job at the University of Michiganwill go away because of Proposal 2. Wewill continue to review all of our pro-grams dedicated to minority affairs andcampus diversity to ensure that theycomply with the law, as we have donefor many years.

Let me be very clear about this: Your work is more important now than ever before. I will do everything I can to support you in this work, because the Uni-versity of Michigan promotes diversity.. . .

We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research.Affirmative action has been an effectiveand important tool for creating this rich,invigorating environment.

We believe so strongly in affirmativeaction that we went before the UnitedStates Supreme Court to defend its use,

‘Diversity Matters at Michigan’

President Coleman.

Ω




and we prevailed.Today, I pledge that the University of

Michigan will continue that fight. . . .Of course the University of Michigan

will comply with the laws of the state.At the same time, I guarantee my com-

plete and unyielding commitment to in-creasing diversity at our institution.

Let me say that again: I am fully and

completely committed to building diver-sity at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes. . . .

Let’s stand together to tell the stateand the nation that the University of Michigan embraces, promotes, wants,and believes in diversity.

Let’s stand together to say we value

all those on our campus who make this

such a remarkable institution.Let’s stand together to say: We are

Michigan and we are diversity. Dr. Coleman is president of the Uni-

versity of Michigan. These remarks areexcerpted from a speech she gave theday after voters approved Proposition2 banning race and sex preferences in

college admissions.

Who Led the Charge?

The official name for Proposal2 was the Michigan Civil RightsInitiative (MCRI), and its two

most prominent spokesmen were a black man and a white woman. The director of the organization behind the initiativewas the same Jennifer Gratz who was plaintiff in the 2003 Supreme Court casethat put an end to U-M’s formulaic ra-cial preferences system. She decided to

sue when she was passed over in favor of less-qualified non-whites, and hasnow seen her stand vindicated by the people of Michigan.

MCRI would probably not have suc-ceeded, however, without the support of Ward Connerly, the black businessmanand former University of California re-gent who managed the earlier ballot ini-tiatives in California and Washington.After the vote in Michigan, he arguedthat because Proposal 2 passed by a sub-stantial margin despite decisive votesagainst Republicans in many states, it

means equal treatment has broad, bipar-tisan support. “I think the end is at handfor affirmative action as we know it,” hesaid.

There are now two cases pending be-fore the Supreme Court that involve as-signing students to public school on the basis of race. Mr. Connerly thinks the

new court, without Sandra O’Connor and with the addition of John Robertsand Samuel Alito, could very well strikedown racial preferences in all its forms.If it does not, he is considering sponsor-ing ballot initiatives in any of severalstates: Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah,Missouri or South Dakota. He notes thatit is not necessary to win in all states inorder to eliminate preferences; Florida

changed its government contracting andadmissions policies after the mere threatof a ballot initiative.

The 67-year-old Mr. Connerly has become an object of hatred among blacks perhaps second only to SupremeCourt Justice Clarence Thomas. Hestirred up yet more hatred when he wel-comed the Ku Klux Klan’s endorsementof Proposition 2: “If the Ku Klux Klan

thinks that equality is right, God blessthem. Thank them for finally reachingthe point where logic and reason are being applied instead of hate.”

During the campaign for Proposal 2,Mr. Connerly met with so much abusefrom blacks and liberal whites that he

was tempted to make the Michigan campaign his last, but he is now buoyed byvictory. “I won’t retire until my toes curlup,” he says.

What conclusions are we to drawfrom this campaign and its results? Itappears that the fight against racial pref-erences may have, as figureheads, any-one but a white man; the victims of dis-crimination fear to take a public stand

against it. Mr. Connerly cheerfully con-cedes that if whites expressed his viewsthey would be called “racists,” and thatmany white donors to his efforts ask thattheir identities be concealed. For mostwhites, the furthest they dare go is toargue that preferences are wrong be-cause they detract from the achievementsof blacks and Hispanics, not that theyharm whites.

As illustrated by the campaign ban-

ner to the left and below, the anti-dis-crimination forces were promoting the proposal as the fair, good and proper wayto achieve integration. They never dis- puted the desirability of the “diversity”that President Coleman is so desperateto bring about.

Mr. Connerly and his allies evenadopted Martin Luther King’s wordsfrom the 1963 March on Washington:content of character, they said, mustcome before color of skin. For whites todon the mantle of King was particularlyinsulting to the proponents of discrimi-

nation, and only added to Mr. Connerly’sdisrepute in the eyes of blacks and lib-erals.

The entire campaign was a sad com-mentary on the cowed state of the whiteman. Every institution in a country thatused to reflect his values, his culture, andhis interests endorsed continued dis-crimination against him. He dared nottake the lead in defending his own rights, but instead hid behind a woman and a black man, and even Martin Luther King.Only in the security of the voting boothdid he vote for his own interests, and

even there 30 percent of his number votedto keep their jobs as whipping boys.

This is a victory, but one for whichwe can take little credit, and one thatcannot serve as a model for the future.Benevolent, fair-minded non-whites willnot decide that we deserve homelandsof our own. There will be no safe, anony-mous ballots whereby we ratify survivalthat others have arranged for us. Our fate,if we are to have one, must be in our own hands.

Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz.

Ω

Ω




Warnings From the Lion

Churchill understood thethreat to the West.

by David Hamilton

Sir Winston Churchill is one of thefew major British politicians whohad the courage to try to stop

open-door immigration. He had strongviews about race and was a keen sup- porter of eugenics. Late in his career, as post-war prime minister from 1951 to1955, he might have succeeded in bar-ring the door had it not been for failinghealth. Most biographers and historiansnow downplay his racial views and

thereby give a false picture of the greatman.

Churchill was different from academ-ics and mushy liberals who theorizeabout multi-racial utopia. He was a braveand practical man who did not go to uni-versity but to the Royal Military Acad-emy at Sandhurst, and later won a com-mission in the Fourth Hussars. As ayoung man he was with Lord Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898,when the British avenged the 1885 mur-der in Khartoum of General Charles“Chinese” Gordon. He was a war corre-

spondent during the Boer War, was cap-tured, held prisoner and escaped. AsHome secretary in 1911, he personallytook charge of the Siege of Sidney Street,when a small gang of Latvian anarchistsholed up at 100 Sidney Street in Stepney,and fired on police. He called in theScots Guards, and when a fire broke outat 100 Sidney Street, he made the deci-sion to let the anarchists burn rather thanhave the fire brigade douse the flames.During the First World War, he com-manded a battalion of the Royal ScotsFusiliers as a Colonel.

Churchill was not taken in by liberalorthodoxy. He knew that different racescompete for power and territory, and hehad seen sub-Saharan slavery first-hand.In 1899, he wrote a book about Kitchen-er’s Sudan campaign called The River War , in which he expressed views thatin today’s Britain would have him up oncharges of inciting racial hatred:

“The qualities of mongrels are rarelyadmirable, and the mixture of the Araband Negro types has produced a debased

and cruel breed, more shocking becausethey are more intelligent than primitivesavages. The stronger race soon began

to prey upon the simple [black] abo-riginals. . . . To the great slave-market atJeddah a continual stream of Negro cap-tives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder andthe adoption by the Arabs of firearmsfacilitated the traffic by placing the ig-

norant Negroes at a further disadvantage.

Thus the situation in the Sudan for sev-eral centuries may be summed up as fol-lows: The dominant race of Arab invad-ers was unceasingly spreading its blood,religion, customs, and language amongthe black aboriginal population, and atthe same time it harried and enslavedthem.”

As for Islam, in the first edition of the book he wrote passages well worth pon-dering today:

“How dreadful are the curses whichMohammedanism lays on its votaries!Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is asdangerous in a man as hydrophobia in adog, there is this fearful fatalistic apa-thy. The effects are apparent in many

countries. Improvident habits, slovenlysystems of agriculture, sluggish methodsof commerce, and insecurity of property

exist wherever the followers of theProphet rule or live. A degraded sensu-alism deprives this life of its grace andrefinement; the next of its dignity andsanctity. The fact that in Mohammedanlaw every woman must belong to someman as his absolute property, either as achild, a wife, or a concubine, must de-lay the final extinction of slavery untilthe faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslemsmay show splendid qualities—but theinfluence of the religion paralyses thesocial development of those who follow

it. No stronger retrograde force exists inthe world. Far from being moribund,Mohammedanism is a militant and pros-elytizing faith. It has already spreadthroughout Central Africa, raising fear-less warriors at every step; and were itnot that Christianity is sheltered in thestrong arms of science, the scienceagainst which it had vainly struggled, thecivilisation of modern Europe might fall,as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

Churchill was an enthusiastic eugeni-cist, and was a sponsoring vice presi-dent—as were the Lord Chief Justice and

the Lord Bishop of Ripon—of the firstInternational Eugenics Conference,which took place in London in 1912.Arthur Balfour delivered the openingaddress with Leonard Darwin—CharlesDarwin’s son—presiding.

Churchill’s papers from this periodshow that he worried that “moral degen-erates” and people of low intelligencewere outbreeding the educated classes.He proposed that “mental defectives” beincarcerated and that the “feeble-minded” be forcibly sterilized. As HomeSecretary, Churchill reportedly told his

government colleagues that:“The unnatural and increasingly rapid

growth of the feeble-minded classes,coupled with a steady restriction amongall the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a race danger. I feelthe source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off andsealed up before another year has passed.”

Churchill was deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their utopian theories.

Churchill as a young man.

“The unnatural andincreasingly rapid growth

of the feeble-mindedclasses . . . constitutes a

race danger.”




In his St. George’s Day address of 1933,he said:

“The worst difficulties from which wesuffer do not come from without. Theycome from within. They do not comefrom the cottages of the wage earne-rs. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our coun-

try who, if they add something to theculture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of un-warrantable self-abasement into

which we have been cast by a powerfulsection of our own intellectuals. Theycome from the acceptance of defeatistdoctrines by a large portion of our poli-ticians. But what have they to offer buta vague internationalism, a squalid ma-terialism, and the promise of impossibleutopias?”

Many of Churchill’s views have goneout of fashion. He was convinced, for example, of Britain’s right to rule thelesser breeds. In a 1931 address at theRoyal Albert Hall he said, “We gave In-dia a civilization, far above anything they

could possibly have achieved them-selves, or could possibly maintain.” Inhis tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936,he explained that Britain was a gift passed from one generation to the next:“Those who do not think of the futureare unworthy of their ancestors.”

Churchill went on to became the em- bodiment of the struggle against Nazism.He would never have been an appeaser.In October 1930, before Hitler had eventaken power, he expressed his views of

Nazis: “If a dog makes a dash for mytrousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.” The fight against Germany did notchange his racial views. During the war,a black official at the Colonial Office hadto stop eating at a London club whenAmerican officers took it over and en-forced segregation. When Churchill

heard of this, he replied, “That’s alright.Tell him to take a banjo; they will think he is one of the band.”

When he resumed power after the war,

he opposed non-white immigration, buthe was 76 years old. His instincts weresound but he no longer had the energyof a young man. Records of a cabinetdiscussion on Nov. 25, 1952 show thathe asked if “the Post Office was employ-ing large numbers of colouredworkers. If so, there was some risk thatdifficult social problems would be cre-ated.” He then “raised the whole issue .. . of whether coloured subjects of theCommonwealth and Empire should beadmitted to the country from now on.”

In 1953 Churchill suffered a stroke

that left him paralyzed on the left side.He went into decline and was not ca- pable of decisive action, but his cabinetcontinued to debate immigration. InMarch 1954, his Home Secretary, DavidMaxwell-Fyfe, told the cabinet “thatlarge numbers of coloured people areliving on National Assistance” and that“coloured landlords by their conduct aremaking life difficult for white people liv-ing in the same building or area . . . .[T]he result is that white people leave

and the accommodation is then con-verted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding andexploitation.” In October 1954, Church-ill warned Maxwell-Fyfe, “that the prob-lems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and se-rious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe re-

plied that they could not be kept out un-der then-current law.Britain allowed all Commonwealth

citizens automatic entry but MaxwellFyfe “did not believe that the problemhad yet assumed sufficient proportionsto justify legislation, which . . . wouldantagonize liberal opinion.” Churchillforesaw, however, that “the rapid im- provement in communications was likelyto lead to the continuing increase in thenumber of coloured people coming tothis country, and their presence herewould sooner or later come to be re-

sented by large sections of the British people.” He, too, was not sure, however,that “the problem had assumed sufficient proportions to enable the Governmentto take adequate counter-measures.”

Churchill once explained to Gover-nor of Jamaica Hugh Foot why he opposed non-white immigration: “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.” Ian Gilmour, then owner and editor of the Spectator , relates that just beforehe stood down because of his health inApril 1955, Churchill told him “It [im-migration] is the most important subject

facing this country, but I can not get anyof my ministers to take any notice.”

In fact, many of his advisers were ap- peasers, though this time it was Indiansand Pakistanis they wanted to placate.

The Commonwealth Relations Officefeared that if Britain kept out non-whites“there might well be a chance of the gov-ernments of India and Pakistan introduc-ing retaliatory restrictions against theentry or residence of members of theBritish business community.” Common-wealth Secretary Earl Home also warnedof possible retaliation.

In Eminent Churchillians, AndrewRoberts quotes people who workedclosely with Churchill, and who prob-

At Yalta with Roosevelt and Stalin.

“We gave India a civiliza-tion, far above anythingthey could possibly haveachieved themselves, or

could possibly maintain.”




ably had the sentiments typical of the period. One of Mr. Churchill’s privatesecretaries remembered that “at that timeit seemed a very good idea to get[coloured] bus conductors and stuff.” A junior minister complained that “it was becoming hard to find somebody to carryyour bags at the station.” As one minis-

ter put it later, “we were just stalling andhoping for the best.” After Churchill re-signed, the internationalist AnthonyEden took over, and any hope of serious

immigration control was lost.In today’s climate what Churchill re-

ally thought is considered so unpalatablethat at least one modern biographer chose deliberately to censor him. AsGretchen Rubin wrote in her 2003 book,

Forty Ways to Look at Winston Church-ill :

“To shield his reputation, this account

has downplayed Churchill’s deplorableattitudes toward race. Churchill usedopprobrious terms like blackamoor ,chink , wop, and baboo and distinguished between the white race and others. [em- phasis in the original] For example, hewrote that at a September 1944 confer-ence, he was “glad to record” that “the

British Empire . . . was still keeping its position, with a total population, includ-ing the Dominions and Colonies, of onlyseventy million white people.” He never outgrew his views. His doctor recalledthat in 1955, Churchill asked whether “blacks got measles . . . . When he wastold that there was a very high mortalityamong negroes from measles, hegrowled, ‘Well, there are plenty left.They’ve a high rate of production.’ ”

Today’s Tories are backing away fromChurchill in other ways, claiming thathis concept of the welfare state is “out

of date.” Tory leader David Cameronrecently asked an advisor, Greg Clark,to rethink “conservative” policy on pov-erty, and this was his conclusion: “Thetraditional Conservative vision of wel-fare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum—that poverty isabsolute, not relative. Churchill’s safetynet is at the bottom: holding people atsubsistence level, just above the abyssof hunger and homelessness.” What doesthis mean? Seaside vacations and cell phones for the poor?

Good sense may run in the Churchill

family. Winston’s grandson, also namedWinston, was a Conservative member of parliament from 1970 to 1997. In 1993he got in trouble for saying that the Brit-ish way of life was threatened by a “re-lentless flow of immigrants” from theIndian subcontinent. Then-Prime Min-

Faces from the Empire Windrush, which ar-

rived in 1948 with the first load of Common-wealth immigrants.

ister John Major piled on in the ensuingcriticism, but Mr. Churchill was unre- pentant, claiming that despite wide-

spread public condemnation, many col-leagues, including government minis-ters, privately expressed their agreement.He left politics when the seat he held wasabolished..

It is tempting to imagine what Britainwould be like if the grandfather hadmaintained his vigor and combativenessthrough the crucial period during whichimmigration policy was set. Perhaps hisforce of personality could have pushedthrough sensible policies. At any rate, itis unlikely he would ever have had to

face shouts of “Fascist!” or “Nazi!” nomatter how strongly he defendedBritain’s right to a European heritage anddestiny.

Mr. Hamilton is a British free-lancewriter.

Grandson Winston also understood what wasat stake.

From Sex Symbol to French PatriotBarnett Singer, Brigitte Bardot: A Biography, MacFarland & Company, 2006, 197 pp., $45.00.

A brave woman takes on

the establishment.

reviewed by Robert Griffin

It all started, reports biographer Barnett Singer, with not-yet-15-year-old Parisian Brigitte Bardot’s prim

and schoolgirlish cover photo in theMay, 2, 1949 issue of Elle magazine.Among the many who took notice wasRoger Vadim Plemiannikov, 21, later to

be known as Roger Vadim, whom Mr.

Singer describes as a “minor league bo-hemian” at the time. Vadim contactedBrigitte, became her mentor and husband, and directed her in a number of films both before and after their divorcein 1957.

The Vadim-Bardot collaboration thatmade Brigitte an international film star and symbol of European sex appeal wasthe racy shocker, “And God CreatedWoman,” in which, Mr. Singer writes,Brigitte removed her clothing to a far

greater extent than audiences were used

to at the time. The movie opened in NewYork in 1957 with a huge poster of MissBardot in Times Square. Religious andother protests only fueled interest, andthe film reaped a $4 million profit, ahuge sum for the day, especially for aforeign-language film. Miss Bardot wenton to a successful acting career thatlasted into the early 1970s, sometimesworking with top-of-the-line directors,including Jean-Luc Godard and LouisMalle. She was a world-wide celebrity,

Ω




and in 1970, Charles de Gaulle did her the honor of naming her as the modelfor the busts of Marianne—the femalesymbol of France—that are displayed inevery French city hall.

Mr. Singer, who teaches at Brock University in Ontario and has writtenextensively on French history and con-

temporary society, spends a good por-tion of the book taking us through MissBardot’s screen career, film by film. Thisis necessary, perhaps, in a biography of a movie star, but her life really becameinteresting when she retired from actingin 1973. BB, as she was known as a childand to her fans, did not retreat to a homein the country and spend the rest of her life giving dinner parties. She decidedto do something that mattered, and, in aremarkable and courageous way she did,despite many obstacles. Now in her sev-enties, she is still doing it. Mr. Singer’s

book would have been better with moredetails about the last three decades of her life, but what he does write is quiteinspiring.

Because she took up with Vadim atsuch a young age, Miss Bardot did noteven have a high school diploma, and inmid-life she took on the task of educat-ing herself. She became an omnivorousreader of the classics and the best of contemporary literature. She also be-came a tireless advocate for the welfareand protection of animals. “Who hasgiven Man,” she asked, “the right to ex-

terminate, dismember, cut up, slaughter,hunt, chase, trap, lock up, martyr, en-slave, and torture animals?” Shelaunched the Fondation Brigitte Bardot(Google “Brigitte Bardot Foundation” tolearn about it) and has traveled the globeon its behalf. She spends her days clean-ing the kennels and taking her mangycrew of rescued dogs for walks. BrigitteBardot is the real thing.

Miss Bardot had been a nationalistsince her days as an actress. At the heightof her career she spurned million-dollar offers from Hollywood so as to remain

a French star, and her love of France onlydeepened after retirement. Beginning inthe 1990s, she began to speak and writeabout the Islamization of France and thedecline of French civility. It was in anarticle in the April 26, 1996 Le Figaroin which she first took a stand. Callingherself “a Frenchwoman of old stock,”she noted that both her father and grand-father had fought foreign invaders. “Andnow my country, France,” she continued,“my homeland, my land, is with the

blessing of successive governmentsagain invaded by a foreign, especiallyMoslem, over-population to which we

pay allegiance. We must submit againstour will to this Moslem overflow. Fromyear to year, we see mosques flourishacross France, while our church bells fallsilent because of a lack of priests.”

She wrote with disgust of the ritualthroat-slitting of millions of sheep byMuslims on feast days, calling such cru-elties intolerable: “Could I be forced inthe near future to flee my country whichhas turned into a bloody and violentcountry, to turn expatriate, to try and find

elsewhere, by myself becoming an emi-grant, the respect and esteem which we

are alas refused daily?”The next year, in light of a five-year

Islamic insurgency in Algeria in whicha number of French nationals, includingmonks, had their throats cut, she said:“They’ve slit the throats of women and

children, of our monks, our officials, our tourists and our sheep. They’ll slit our throats one day and we’ll deserve it.” “AMuslim France, with a North AfricanMarianne?” she asked. “Why not, at this point?”

Anti-racist groups sued her for “in-citing racial hatred” and “provocation to

hatred and discrimination,” and she wasfound guilty and fined in 1997, 1998 and2000. By the end of the 1990s, some cit-ies had smashed the Brigitte Bardot ver-sion of Marianne, and replaced it withone modeled on Catherine Deneuve.

Miss Bardot refused to be silenced.In 2003, she wrote a book called Un cridans le silence ( A Cry in the Silence),an instant best-seller that sold 120,000copies in the first five days. The book reiterates Miss Bardot’s sadness aboutmass immigration and the Islamic influ-ence. France is losing its “beauty and

splendor,” she argues. “For twentyyears,” she writes, “we have submittedto a dangerous and uncontrolled under-ground infiltration. Not only does it failto give way to our laws and customs.Quite the contrary, as time goes by it triesto impose its own laws on us.” She de-cries “[a]ll those ‘youths’ who terrorizethe population, rape young girls, train pit bulls to fight [and] spit on the po-lice.”

Mr. Singer writes that Miss Bardot isan elegant writer—a real accomplish-ment for someone with a limited formal

education—but Un cri dans le silencehas not been translated into English.Amazon sells new and used copies, andthere are four reader reviews. All givethe book the top, five-star rating.

In a television interview to promoteUn cri on the national station France 3,Miss Bardot criticized the authorities for letting illegal immigrants take over churches as protest sites, where theydefecate in dark corners and turn sanc-tuaries into “veritable human pigsties.”She went on to raise eyebrows in cer-tain circles by expressing disgust for sex-

change operations paid for by the Frenchnational health service.

Once again, an anti-racist group at-tacked her. She was convicted of “incit-ing racial hatred,” and ordered to pay afine of the equivalent of $6,000. Duringher trial, she told the court she opposesinterracial marriage. Not surprisingly,Miss Bardot receives many letters fromsupporters who urge her to keep fight-ing.

Brigitte Bardot is among the most




celebrated supporters of the French na-tionalist political party, the NationalFront. Its leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, hascalled her “a great personality, a coura-

geous woman, impartial, free, who sayswhat she thinks, which in our country israre in view of the dominant intellectualterrorism.” She is not a member of the National Front, though her current husband is. As she explained at the time of her marriage, “I married a man, not a party.”

Recently, Miss Bardot has thrownherself back into the campaign for ani-mal welfare. On Nov. 20, 2006, whenthe European Commission proposed atotal ban on commerce in dog and cat products, she was in the audience ap-

plauding. She explained that two milliondogs and cats are slaughtered in Asia for fur, some of which finds its way intoEurope.

In the last year or two, the former filmstar has said little in public about immi-gration, and much of the French pressseems to have forgiven her so long as

she sticks to animal rights. Backingdown, however, is not in her nature. Oneof her most recent in-depth interviewswas to journalist Jacques Guérin, who

published a long account on Sept. 23,2006. It was mostly about animal rights but also about her film career, her health,her loves, her disappointments—a typi-cal celebrity interview. The only passagewith an edge was the following:

“Does she regret the excesses that ledto a few brushes with the law, and gavethe impression that she was sometimesnot far from the positions of the NationalFront? ‘What excesses?’ she replies. ‘Itake responsibility for what I said. It istrue that I am on the right; I was rearedthat way. It is true that on certain sub-

jects I may have expressed myself im- pulsively and therefore clumsily. But Iregret nothing.’ ”

Although I greatly admire MissBardot’s political courage and French patriotism, what most strongly im- pressed me about this book was her con-cern for animals. I will never look at a

dog or a horse in quite the same wayagain. I read and think a lot about West-ern man, and the fate of our Europeanheritage—what’s going to happen to

us—and that is certainly important.But Miss Bardot’s biography remindedme that we are not the only ones wholive and die and endure injustice and

suffer, and that at least we can defendourselves. After I finished the book, I

went to the Humane Society near whereI live, and gazed into the eyes of a black and white cat that looked back at methrough the bars of its tiny cage.

Professor Griffin’s latest book is Liv-ing White: Writings on Race, 2000-2005.

Jean-Marie Le Pen is an admirer.

O Tempora, O Mores!

Not GuiltyBritish National Party (BNP) mem-

bers popped champagne corks outside acourthouse in Leeds, England, Nov. 10,celebrating the acquittal of party chair-man Nick Griffin and publicity director Mark Collett on race hate charges. Anall-white jury reached a not guilty ver-dict on all counts after five hours of de-liberation. Mr. Griffin, a speaker at the2002 and 2006 AR conferences, told 200supporters gathered outside LeedsCrown Court, “We have shown TonyBlair, the government and the BBC, theycan take our taxes but they cannot takeour hearts, they cannot take our tongues,and they cannot take our freedom.”

This was a retrial of the two men, af-ter an earlier jury acquitted them of cer-tain charges but could not reach deci-sions on several others. The casestemmed from a secretly-filmed BBCdocumentary, in which Mr. Griffin tolda West Yorkshire audience in 2004 thatIslam is a “wicked, vicious faith” andsaid Muslims were turning Britain into

a “multi-racial hellhole.” Mr. Collett got

into trouble for telling an audience of BNP members, “Let’s show these ethnicsthe door in 2004.” That prosecutorschose to retry Mr. Griffin and Mr.

Collett, despite having a weak case— only a minority of jurors at the earlier trial voted to convict on any charge— suggests the BNP is right: The prosecu-

tions were politically motivated from the

beginning.After the verdict, Chancellor Gordon

Brown, expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister early next year, drewexactly the wrong conclusions. Rather than recognize the folly of outlawing“hate speech,” he proposed even moreoppressive laws. “I think any preachingof religious or racial hatred will offendmainstream opinion in this country andI think we’ve got to do whatever we canto root it out from whatever quarter itcomes,” he told the BBC. “And if thatmeans we’ve got to look at the laws againI think we will have to do so.” [BNPLeader Cleared of Race Hate, BBC News, Nov. 10, 2006. Brown Hints atLaw Change, Sky News, Nov. 10, 2006.]

More on Michigan

Although supporters of racial prefer-ences cheered University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman’s pro-di-versity diatribe on Nov. 8 (see p. 5),many Michiganders were angry when

Ω




she pledged to use tax-money to fightthe will of the people. She may havegotten the message. Proposal 2 goes intoeffect on Dec. 22, and so far there is noindication U-M is going to court. Astatement issued by the universitynow says it may ask for judicial“clarification” on how to “interpret”

Proposal 2. In late November, Pres.Coleman sent an email message to allstudents and faculty soliciting ideason how to “promote diversity” withinthe guidelines imposed by Proposal2. The tone of the message was muchsofter than her post-election rant,leading both supporters and critics of Proposition 2 to believe the univer-sity may abide by the law.

A frustrated spokesman for BAMN (By Any Means Necessary— one of the main pro-preferencesgroups), Donna Stern, describes Pres.

Coleman’s email as “lame” and“completely inadequate.” She wantsthe university to argue in court thatany admissions system that does not userace preferences automatically discrimi-nates against non-whites. Miss Stern alsoscoffs at Pres. Coleman’s commitmentto “diversity.” “The university hasn’t been arguing that black students are in-tellectually equal. It was saying ‘we needto let some black students in for diver-sity,’ ” she says. “The university will notadmit that standardized tests it uses are biased. Every admissions officer in the

country knows that they are biased.” Asfor the proposal, Miss Stern dismissesthe results as “white men voting to pre-serve white privilege,” adding, “If it had been left to the electorate in Alabamaand Mississippi on whether to eliminateJim Crow, we wouldn’t have eliminatedJim Crow.”

Sharon Brown, a lawyer with the Pa-cific Legal Foundation believes theuniversity’s apparent volte-face is anadmission that any attempt to fight Pro- posal 2 in court would probably fail. Shesays Proposal 2 is the “mirror image” of

California’s Proposition 209, which haswithstood repeated court challengessince voters approved it in 1996. [ScottJaschik, Retreat on Affirmative Action?InsideHigherEd.com, Nov. 28, 2006.]

Ancient Lineage

Scientists have long debated whichancient group gave rise to modern Eu-ropeans: Paleolithic hunter-gathererswho migrated to Europe in two separate

waves between 25,000 and 40,000 yearsago, or Neolithic farmers who arrivedfrom the near East after the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. A new

study, which analyzed Y chromosomes(passed from father to son), finds that80 percent of European men carry the Ychromosome markers of the Paleolithichunters while 20 percent are descendedfrom the Neolithic farmers. The scien-tists further believe that 95 percent of all European men can be classified intoten groups, each representing a distinct paternal lineage. The Y chromosome

results are strikingly similar to those of a study of mitochondrial DNA (passedfrom the mother) that concluded mod-ern European women are descendedfrom seven distinct ancestors (see BryanSykes’ 2001 book, The Seven Daugh-ters of Eve).

Scientists think the ten paternalgroupings represent clans that were iso-lated from each other by glaciers andother geographic barriers. After the gla-ciers melted and hunters took up farm-ing, the clans began to mingle. [Europe’s10 ‘Founding Fathers,’ BBC News, Nov.

10, 2006.]

In the Genes

Important new DNA analysis con-ducted by 13 different research centersin the US and the UK finds that indi-vidual human beings are at least 10 timesmore different from one another than previously thought. Instead of being 99.9 percent identical, it is more like 99 per-cent. That means humans are as differ-

ent from each other as it was previouslyassumed we were all different fromchimpanzees. Instead of 99 percent, thenew research suggests we are 96 percent

identical to chimps.Heretofore, scientists believed hu-

man variation came from differencesin each person’s DNA “letter” se-

quence. It now appears that peoplediffer in the number of copies of keygenes. It was previously assumedthat people got two copies of everygene—one from each parent—butthe new research finds that a childmay receive several copies of cer-tain genes from a parent.

In announcing what they de-scribed as a “breakthrough,” the sci-entists said the new discoveriesshould explain why some people are prone to genetic diseases. Left un-said, except as a passing reference

to “mental variations” between hu-mans, was the question of racial dif-ferences in IQ and other traits. One

suspects that the scientists know morethan they are saying. The research subjects were 270 Europeans, Africans andAsians, and the scientists found enoughdifferences between them to assign all but one to a distinct racial group. [SteveConnor, Genetic Breakthrough ThatReveals the Differences Between Hu-mans, Independent (London), Nov. 23,2006.]

Suffer the ChildrenAs AIDS rages through Africa, witch

doctors continue to promote the sex-with-a-virgin cure. Hymen blood, theyexplain, will cleanse a man. Willing vir-gins are hard to find, so men rape chil-dren. Child rape is so common in Zim- babwe that an organization called theGirl Child Network (GCN) has set up avillage where victims get shelter, medi-cal treatment and advice. The villagerecently invited tribal chiefs, govern-ment officials and “traditional healers”

to a session that was supposed to dispelthe myth of the virgin cure.

Zimbabwe has a National TraditionalHealers Association, and its secretary,Alex Mashoko, says witchdoctors whotell patients to rape virgins are giving his profession a bad name. “The govern-ment must give tough penalties on this,”he says. “I don’t accept things like that.It is not good.” The virgin cure myth iscommon in South Africa, too. Recently,Archbishop Desmond Tutu told his

Your ancestor or mine?




countrymen not to rape young girls for medicinal purposes. The youngest re-corded rape victim in South Africa wasnine months old. [Steve Vickers, Stag-ing Sex Myths to Save Zimbabwe’sGirls, BBC News, Oct. 24, 2006.]

Protecting the Flowers

John Wilson is a former prosecutor and a member of New York’s Conserva-tive Party, who currently serves as acriminal judge in Brooklyn. He’s also theauthor of a self-published children’s book called Hot House Flowers (avail-able on Amazon.com for $15.99), de-scribed by critics as “a thinly-veiled anti-

immigration screed.” The book de-scribes what happens to beautiful flow-ers when dandelions sneak into their greenhouse and begin to hog the water and soil. The flowers begin to wither butdo nothing because they don’t want toappear “intolerant.” The flowers are fi-nally saved by a benevolent gardener who plucks out all the dandelions. Bythe end of the book, the beautiful flow-ers have learned never to let dandelionseeds grow in their greenhouse again.

Judge Wilson says he wrote the book

in order to explain complex issues to hisfour-year-old son in a way a child couldunderstand. “It’s intended to describedefense of home and defense of coun-try, and the reasons for that defense,” heexplains. “I’m not making any politicalstatements here. They shouldn’t call meanti-immigration, because I’m not. Iknow we’re a nation of immigrants. Butillegal immigration is making a mock-ery of the rule of law.”

The usual people are saying the usual

things. Norman Eng, spokesman for the New York Immigration Coalition, says,“It’s a shame that someone would writea children’s book that teaches intoler-ance and hatred of immigrants.” Another dandelion advocate, Margaret Fung of the Asian American Legal Defense andEducation Fund, complains that the

judge is “dehumanizing” immigrants bycomparing them to “weeds” and “invad-ers.” “I would hate to be an immigrantin his courtroom,” she says.

If she’s illegal, she probably would.Judge Wilson says the subject of adefendant’s immigration status comes upin bail hearings. “It’s got to be a factor,”he says. “If a person’s an illegal immi-

grant, how likely is it that he’s goingto come back to court?” [AdamLisberg, Judge is in Immig Groups’Bad Books, New York Daily News, Nov. 27, 2006.]

Poetic Injustice

Ellenor Bland is a ConservativeParty member and a town councilor in Wiltshire, England. She had hopedto become a Member of Parliament, but that hope was dashed when sheemailed several party members a bitof doggerel about scrounging Paki-stani immigrants (see below). Mrs.Bland says her husband sent the mes-sage as a joke, but senior Conserva-

tives were not amused. Claiming to be

“horrified,” Tory leader David Cameronordered Mrs. Bland expelled from the party and her name struck from the can-didates’ list. The Liberal Democrats usedthe incident to portray the Conservativesas hopelessly “racist.” Their campaignchairman, Ed Davey, says, “[T]he Con-servative Party clearly continues to con-tain some deeply unpleasant elements.”The Liberal Democrats have reportedMrs. Bland to the Commission for Ra-cial Equality, which has begun an inves-tigation.

The anonymous poem has been cir-

culating for years (it actually predatesthe Internet), and there are American,Canadian, Irish and Australian versions(in the American version, it is aboutMexicans). This is also not the first timeit has gotten a politician or bureaucratin trouble. In 1993, a California assem- blyman named Pete Knight gave outcopies during a Republican strategy ses-sion. He initially defended it as an “in-teresting poem” but later caved in andapologized. In 2002, the treasurer of

Colorado governor Bill Owens’ reelec-tion campaign resigned after sending the poem to several people. More recently,the director of the Arkansas EmergencyManagement Agency resigned after sending a version to his employees, and both the Irish and British governmentslaunched official inquiries when the

poem began showing up in official email.[Kirsty Walker and Luke Salkeld, ToriesAxe Election Candidate in Storm over Racist Poem, Daily Mail (London), Nov.7, 2006. Alan Connor, The Poem thatEnds Careers, BBC News, Nov. 7,2006.]

‘The Poem’ (UK version)

I cross ocean poor and brokeTake bus, see employment folk Nice man treat me good in thereSay I need to see Welfare.

Welfare say, “You come no morewe send cash right to your door.”Welfare checks they make you

wealthy! NHS—it keep you healthy!By and by, I got plenty moneyThanks to you, British dummy!Write to friends in motherlandTell them “come as fast as you can.”They come in turbans and Ford

trucks.I buy big house with welfare bucks!

They come here, we live together.More welfare checks it gets better!Fourteen families, they move inBut neighbor’s patience wearing thin.Finally, white guy moves away, Now I buy his house, then I say,“Find more aliens for house to rent”And in the yard I put a tent.Everything is very good,and soon we own the neighborhood.

No dandelions in the hothouse, please.




We have hobby, it’s called breeding.Welfare pay for baby feeding.Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?We get free! We got no bills!Britain crazy! They pay all year to keep welfare running here.We think UK darn good place.Too darn good for white man race!

If they no like us, they can scram.Got plenty room in Pakistan!

Disparate Discipline

In Franklin County, Ohio, which in-cludes Columbus, blacks are 29 percentof the public school population but gettwo thirds of all suspensions—usuallyfor fighting or other “disruptions.” Innearby Worthington and Dublin, blacksare more than five times more likely thanwhites to be suspended for fighting anddisruption. Naturally, black parents are

crying “racism” and the NAACP de-mands an investigation.

Education experts say white teachersdo not understand black culture, and lack strong “classroom management skills”which makes them overreact. “We don’tknow what to do, so we suspend kids,”says education professor GwendolynCartledge of Ohio State University. In-diana University professor Russ Skiba,who studies race and discipline, says,“It’s not like we’re talking about bla-tantly racist teachers. It’s more like thereare almost unconscious differences.”

The NAACP is getting what it wants.Reynoldsburg school district AssistantSuperintendent Steve Dacking says hisschools are recruiting black teachers.[Charlie Roduta and Jennifer SmithRichards, Disciplinary Trend UpsetsBlack Parents, Columbus Dispatch, Oct.17, 2006.] No one seems to be able tograsp the fundamental fact that black students make more trouble than whites.

Culture of Corruption

Mexican-style corruption is making

its way north, thanks to dope- and people-smugglers and US officials who put greed ahead of their oaths of office.Since 2004, prosecutors have broughtsmuggling-related charges against morethan 200 government employees, includ-ing Border Patrol agents, policemen,county sheriffs, prison guards, motor ve-hicle clerks, school administrators, sol-diers, and a supervising FBI agent.Thousands more are currently under in-vestigation. “It’s the tip of the iceberg,”

says James “Chip” Burrus, the FBI’sassistant director of criminal investiga-tions. “There is a lot more down there.The problem is you don’t know what youdon’t know.”

What is known is that the border isflush with ill-gotten money, and there are plenty of bureaucrats happy to cash in.

Some bribes have been in excess of $1million. In onecase, senior bor-der patrol agentJuan Alvarez,along with his brother Jose,helped a drug-smuggling op-eration bring inmore than 60,000 pounds of marijuana between 2003 and 2005.The security and scout work

they provided was so sophisticated, saysAssistant US attorney Marina Marmo-lejo, they could have moved “nuclear weapons” across the border. The smug-glers paid the brothers $1.5 million. Inanother case, the Border Patrol discov-ered that one of its agents, Oscar Ortiz,was a partner in an illegal immigrantsmuggling ring. During the investigation,they further discovered that Mr. Ortizwas himself an illegal alien who had been arrested in 2001 on suspicion of smuggling illegals in the trunk of his car.In a separate case in 2005, the FBI ar-

rested 71 members of the Arizona Na-tional Guard, state prison guards and afederal inspector on bribery charges.

One of the highest-level officers cor-rupted by Mexicans was Hardrick Crawford, the FBI Agent in Chargeat the El Paso office. A Mexican ca-sino boss and drug trafficker namedJose Guardia became friends with Mr.Crawford, who is black. He arrangeda job for Mrs. Crawford, set thecouple up as members at a fancy coun-try club, and paid for vacations in LasVegas. He even had Mr. Crawford’s

lawn mowed for free. When other FBIagents told Mr. Crawford that Mr.Guardia runs drugs, launders money,and bribes officials, Mr. Crawford de-fended his friend and tried to concealthe relationship. He now faces five yearsin prison for failing to disclose gifts, andlying to the Inspector General’s office.

Critics blame the spreading corrup-tion on government agencies like Immi-gration and Customs Enforcement, say-ing they are under pressure to hire as

many agents as possible and are skimp-ing on background checks. Others, suchas Michael Maxwell, who resigned fromthe internal affairs unit of the Citizen-ship and Immigration Service, believethe government doesn’t care. “Nobodyis seriously ad- dressing corrup-tion,” he says. “The cor-

ruption is perva-sive,” Paul K.Charlton, US at-torney for Ari-zona agrees, andsays things aregetting worse.“The concern

for me is that we canvery quickly develop a cul-

ture that would be more accept-ing of that kind of misconduct.

You only have to look south of the border to see what happens when a

certain level of corruption is accepted.”[Ralph Vartabedian, Richard A. Serranoand Richard Marosi, Rise in BriberyTests Integrity of US Border, Los Ange-les Times, Oct. 23, 2006.]

‘Green Card’ Army

More and more foreigners are fillingthe ranks of the US military, lured bychanges made by President Bush andCongress that make it easier for soldiersto become US citizens. Until 2002, im-migrants in uniform had to wait three

years before applying for citizenship. Now they can apply after just one dayof active duty. Congress did away withapplication fees, awards posthumouscitizenship to immigrants killed in com-

bat, and extends the citizenship to fami-lies. Nearly 70,000 foreign-born menand women—about five percent of thetotal—are now on active duty. As of October, 25,000 foreigners had becomecitizens by serving in uniform, with an-

Legionnaires are never stationed in France.




other 40,000 eligible to apply. A third of non-citizens are from Mexico and LatinAmerica.

Neo-conservative ideologue MaxBoot of the Council on Foreign Rela-tions thinks filling the military with for-eigners is a wonderful idea. “I would gofurther and offer citizenship to anyone,

anywhere on the planet, willing to servea set term in the US military,” he says.“We could model a Freedom Legion af-ter the French Foreign Legion. Or wecould allow foreigners to join regular units after a period of English-languageinstruction, if necessary.” Mr. Boot also believes the US should open recruitingoffices “from Budapest to Bangkok,Cape Town to Cairo, Montreal toMexico City.” Baghdad might be a nice place to start.

Insanity, say critics who worry that thetrend to sell citizenship for service will

produce a “green card army” of doubt-ful loyalty. “Service to the country isgood. But my concern is that by takingin too many non-citizens into the mili-tary, we separate service and duty fromcitizenship,” says Mark Krikorian, ex-ecutive director of the Center for Immi-gration Studies. “If the Pentagon seeksto save money by seeking a cheap sourceof labor among non-citizens throughaccelerated citizenship, a real potentialexists that we may turn soldiering into a job Americans won’t do. We’re not at a point of concern yet, but if you get mili-

tary units with 20 to 30 percent non-citi-zen, who just signed up for the benefits,what government will they uphold? Wehave to be careful we don’t open thedoors to a pool of applicants who arenot open to American values.”

The Pentagon, looking to fill its thin-ning ranks, is enthusiastic about foreign-ers. A 2005 study from the Center of Naval Analysis concludes that “non-citi-zens are a vital part of our country’smilitary. Demographic trends and newincentives make it likely their numberswithin military ranks will grow. [They]

will provide the service a more richlydiverse force.” [David McLemore, Im-migrant Soldiers Serve the US, DallasMorning News, Nov. 28, 2006.]

Real Hate Crime

On Oct. 31, three white women—two19- and one 21-year-old—attended aHalloween block party in Long Beach,California. As they made their waythrough the crowd, a group of black men

began taunting them with lewd remarksand obscene gestures. The women ig-nored them, but the harassment contin-ued. The situation escalated when the

blacks began pelting the women withlemons and small pumpkins. A number

of young black women then joined in,egging on the men, and the crowd be-came more aggressive. People beganchanting, “We hate white people; fuck whites!” The white women tried to runaway, but the blacks surrounded them.“It was like animals, like a pack of hy-enas,” recalls one of the victims. The blacks separated the white women, whowere frantically trying to call police ontheir cell phones, and the black women began kicking and clawing at them. A black man smashed one of the whites onthe head with a skateboard, knocking her

unconscious. He hit her again while shelay on the ground, as the black womenkicked her.

If a big, strong black passerby had not broken up the fight, the women couldwell have been killed. The woman hitwith the skateboard suffered 12 facialfractures and may lose her vision. Theother women suffered concussions, bruised lungs and broken bones. Their attackers ripped out their pierced ear-rings.

Shortly after the beating, police ar-rested ten young blacks—nine girls and

a boy, aged 12 to 17—but witnesses saythat as many as 40 people took part.Those arrested face charges of felonyhate crime, assault with a deadlyweapon, battery and robbery. The vic-tims say they are so upset they are afraidto leave their homes.

In the weeks following the attack, police arrested more assailants. Incred-ibly, the DA’s office was at first reluc-tant to charge the blacks with hatecrimes. Deputy District Attorney Brian

Schirn said that a hate crime requiresintent from the beginning to target some-one because of race. Shouting racialabuse is “despicable,” he explained, butnot necessarily a hate crime. “I’m notgoing to be pressured into filing hatecrime charges if there is no evidence,”he added

Wiser heads prevailed, and on Nov.22, prosecutors filed hate crimes chargesagainst eight of the black girls. At thearraignment, lawyers told the court thegirls were “good students” who had nohistory of violence or prior criminalrecords. One of them had even won anathletic scholarship to USC and had rep-resented the United States at a track meetin China. Her lawyer urged the judge tolet her out of jail so she could take theSATs.

The victim who was beaten with theskateboard had hoped to become a pro-

fessional photographer. She has nowdropped her college photographycourses because she can no longer seewell enough to take pictures. [TracyManzer, Victims of Attack Share Their Story, Long Beach Press Telegram, Nov.3, 2006. Tracy Manzer, Two More Ar-rested in Attack, Long Beach Press Tele-gram, Nov. 13, 2006. Hector Becerraand Rong-Gong Lin II, Long BeachTeens Face Hate Crime Charges, LosAngeles Times, Nov. 22, 2006.]

Fool, Britannia

Immigrants are already 40 percent of the population of London, and are expected to account for 60 percent in 12years. The shift is accelerating becauseso many whites are clearing out. Morethan 100,000 left the city this year alone,and when they leave, non-whites takeover. Just as South African whites fledJohannesburg, Cape Town and Durbanfor guarded compounds in suburbs andsmall towns, white Britons are abandon-ing London, Birmingham and Bradfordfor rural market towns or even foreign

countries.White flight from Britain overseas is

the subject of a book called Time to Emigrate? by George Walden, whoserved as education minister under Mar-garet Thatcher. He argues that immigra-tion has created “unacceptable” crimeand terrorism risks, and has doomedBritish culture. Mr. Walden describesimmigration as “the greatest gamble thiscountry has ever taken.” As he pointedout in an interview: “Already, we’re see-

Toyz in the hood.



ing the failure of the policy of multi-culturalism, which—as Trevor Phillips,our race relations czar has pointed out— has come down to separate development;in other words, apartheid. We have a

dangerous mixture of people who dohave colonial resentments; who havefundamentalist beliefs; and who haveabsolutely no desire to integrate.” Mr.Walden paints a grim picture of Londona decade hence, which he believes will be “a three-ring circus without thelaughs”—including largely white inner and outer rings bristling with security,and a “multicultural ring” exclusivelymade up of “ethnic immigrants.” “Therougher parts of the multicultural ringwill be ghettoes of crime, poverty andracialism in reverse,” he says. [Rowan

Philips, Immigration Sparks White Exo-dus from UK, Sunday Times (Johannes- burg), Nov. 26, 2006.]

Election Fallout

One result of November’s congres-sional elections, in which Democratswon control of both the House of Rep-resentatives and the Senate, is more in-fluence for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Because black constitu-ents almost never vote out incumbents,many of the 43 members, all Democrats,

are among the longest-serving membersof the House. According to seniorityrules, they can expect to become chair-men of several important committeesand subcommittees. John Conyers of Michigan, a champion of slavery repa-rations, is likely to head the House Judi-ciary Committee. Harlem congressmanCharles Rangel, who wants to bring back the draft in order to send more suburbanwhites to Iraq, is slated to head the Waysand Means Committee. Bennie Thomp-

son of Mississippi will chair the Home-land Security Committee, and JuanitaMillender-McDonald of California willrun the House Administration Commit-tee, which oversees federal elections.Overall, blacks are expected to chair fivemajor committees and 17 subcommit-tees.

“These are committees that have greatinfluence on the concerns of the Afri-can-American community,” says HilaryO. Shelton, of the NAACP. “Commit-tees like the Judiciary, which could touchon hate crimes, civil rights enforcementand voting rights enforcement . . . wecouldn’t ask for a chair that better rep-resents the challenges in the Judiciarycommittee and civil rights than JohnConyers.” “Within the Congress, their influence went from about a one to anine,” says David Bositis, of the JointCenter for Economic Studies in Wash-

ington. “This is by far the peak—ever— for the Congressional Black Caucus.”

What can we expect to see as the CBC begins to push its agenda? Hearings onhate crime laws, reparations, and con-spiracy theories about Katrina relief andvoter disfranchisement. The CBC will

also push for more “diversity” amongCapitol Hill staffers. [Erin Texiera,Blacks Gain Power in New Congress,

AP, Nov. 22, 2006.]One CBC member who will not get a

plum chairmanship is Alcee Hastings of Florida. Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi re-fused to appoint a political foe, JaneHarmon of California, to chair the HouseIntelligence Committee, and Mr. Hast-ings was next in line. Mrs. Pelosi passedhim over, too. Mr. Hastings is a former federal judge who was acquitted oncharges of bribe-taking but was then later impeached by the House and removed

by the Senate in 1989. He is the onlyfederal judge who has ever been re-moved by congressional impeachment.

Instead, Speaker Pelosi has chosenSilvestre Reyes of Texas to chair the sen-sitive committee, and La Raza hails this

as “an important breakthrough for theLatino community.” Rep. Hastings didnot exit gracefully. When it was clear hewas out of the running, he issued a state-

ment that ended with, “Sorry, haters, Godis not finished with me yet.” [KatherineShrader, Reyes to Head House Intelli-gence Panel, AP, Dec. 1, 2006.]

The most fateful consequence of theDemocratic takeover, however, is the probable passage of President Bush’sdisastrous amnesty bill. In a press con-ference the day after the election, the president said he shares the Democrats’approach to immigration “reform” andis looking forward to working with themon the bill that stalled in the last Con-gress because of opposition in the

House.Republicans are pledging to fight, but

cannot promise victory. Says Rep. TomTancredo, “We will fight it, we will lose.It will go to the Senate, it will pass. The president will sign it. And it will happenquickly because that’s one thing theyknow they can pass. I am absolutely hor-rified by this prospect, but I have to facereality.” [Stephen Dinan, Bush EyesDemocrats for Help on Amnesty, Wash-ington Times, Nov. 9, 2006.]

Strike a Blow!

The European/American IssuesForum is seeking

a volunteer webmaster for www.eaif.org. We areone of the oldest Euro-

pean-American civilrights groups in the USAfighting for our rightful

place in the political and

social arena. We needyou! Please contact LouCalabro at:

(650) 312-8284or

[email protected]

No plum for Alcee Hastings.

Ω

200701 American Renaissance

Documents

Transcript of 200701 American Renaissance