200003 american renaissance

8/8/2019 200003 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200003-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - March 2000

Continued on page 3

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

Vol 11 No. 3 March 2000

Pushing Out Whitey

American Renaissance

Who speaks for the His-panics?

By Joseph E. Fallon

Hispanics, as we are so frequentlyreminded, are the fastest-grow-ing minority group in America.

At just under 12 percent of the popula-tion, they are poised to overtake blacks,and massive immigration of Hispanicsis the main reason whites are projectedto become a minority sometime in themiddle of the new century. There arenow some 32 million Hispanics in thecountry, and the figure could more thantriple to 98 million and 24 percent of thepopulation in 50 years. Who are thesepeople, what do they want, and whospeaks in their name?

The four main Hispanic-interestspressure groups are the League of UnitedLatin American Citizens (LULAC), theMexican American Legal Defense andEducation Fund (MALDEF), the Na-tional Council of La Raza (La Raza), andthe Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano deAztlan (MEChA). They have differenthistories and go about their work in dif-ferent ways, but they are essentiallyunited in their objectives. They promotethe agenda of a racially- and ethnically-conscious group, largely composed of immigrants, whose interests frequentlyconflict with those of the majority. In-deed, these groups exist precisely be-

cause of these conflicts, and it is at thosepoints on which Hispanic and Ameri-can interests are most at odds that thegroups are most active.

There are several general issues onwhich all Hispanic organizations agree.They want more immigration of theirown people to the United States. Theywant as many government benefits aspossible for non-citizens, whether in thecountry legally or not. They want to stopdeportation of illegal aliens as a prelude

to full amnesty. They want to spread therights of American citizenship–somewould include even the right to vote–tonon-citizens. They want official recog-nition of their own culture, language,and national holidays, and as much pub-lic money as possible to promote them.To this end they want public school in-struction and all government services in

Spanish. They want place and streetnames, public monuments, and officialobservances to commemorate their his-tory and their culture. They want recog-nition of Spanish as at least co-equalwith English, and they support Spanishas the official language in areas in whichHispanics predominate. They want toexpand all racial preference programs,and gear as many as possible to the ex-plicit benefit of Hispanics.

In short, Hispanics want the verythings they would achieve if they wereable to invade and conquer the UnitedStates. Many activists do not hesitate todescribe their goal as reconquista.

The League of United Latin Ameri-can Citizens (LULAC), which is the old-est and largest of the groups, was estab-lished in 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas,by the merger of three rival, and oftenfeuding, Mexican-Texan organizations:

The Order Sons of American [sic], theKnights of America, and the League of Latin American Citizens.

Until the 1950s, LULAC was amiddle-class, patriotic citizens’ organi-zation with an agenda of traditional“Americanism”–Mexican-Americansmust learn English and assimilate to“Anglo” culture. It stressed an Ameri-can rather than Mexican identity, and anintegral part of its work was promotionof U.S. citizenship and loyalty to theUnited States. LULAC rejected the ideathat the American Southwest should bereturned to Mexico, and opposed estab-lishment of Spanish-language enclaves.Because illegal aliens from Mexico wereviolating U.S. laws and lowering wagesfor Mexican-Americans, LULAC en-dorsed immigration control and sup-ported President Eisenhower’s “Opera-tion Wetback,” which sent one millionillegals back to Mexico.

By the 1950s, LULAC had discov-ered litigation, and in 1954 it took to theU.S. Supreme Court Hernandez v. Texas,the first “Hispanic” civil rights case. TheCourt overturned the murder convictionof a Mexican-American in JacksonCounty, Texas, on grounds that the com-position of the jury was unconstitutional.Although Mexicans were 14 percent of the county, none had served on a juryfor 25 years. LULAC argued that theabsence of Mexicans on the jury violatedthe convicted murderer’s 14th Amend-ment rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren

wrote that “persons of Mexican descentwere a distinct class”–neither black norwhite–and had to be an explicit part of the judicial process.

This victory spelled the beginning of the end for the original LULAC. Nolonger were Mexicans trying to be likeAnglos; they were a separate class withseparate goals to be achieved by sepa-rate interest groups. The old shell re-mains: The official colors of LULAC are

Many Hispanics do nothesitate to describe their

goal as reconquista.




Letters from ReadersSir – In his February reply to my ar-

ticle “Republican or Third Party?” Mr.Mercer writes that GOP endorsement of

California’s Proposition 209 banningracial preferences hurt support for 209and contributed to Robert Dole’s defeatin the 1996 election. He says voters rejected the GOP because they “saw Mr.Dole’s involvement as a cynical ploy”designed to lure voters. Mr. Mercercould be right. But rather than being putoff by a politician who was ready to fightaffirmative action, voters could wellhave rejected Mr. Dole’s feigned oppo-sition to quotas because they didn’t be-lieve he would follow through. UnlikeMr. Dole, Mr. Buchanan’s opposition to

quotas is principled and enduring.On immigration, Mr. Mercer writes

that support for restrictions “is broad butshallow. It is simply not something mostnon-border state voters get excited about. . . .” If that really is true why is it true?Could it be because no establishmentRepublican carries the immigration ban-ner as a national issue? To a degree, is-sues are made viable by what politiciansdiscuss–and suppressed by what theyignore. In fact, the big business neocon(i.e. liberal) leaders of the GOP haveadamantly opposed immigration cut-

backs because they want cheap foreignlabor. The GOP leadership installed oneof its own, Spencer Abraham, as headof the Senate committee dealing withimmigration.

Mr. Mercer writes that the GOP issurfing its way to power on the ThirdWorld vote. He cites 49 percent Hispanicsupport for George W. Bush in Texas and60 percent for Jeb Bush in Florida. Leav-ing aside the fact that Hispanic supportfor the Bushes does not represent the

norm, Republicans can pander to minori-ties only by adopting positions that makethem more like Democrats. What man-ner of Pyrrhic victory is this, when suc-cess is measured by how many non-

white voters Republicans attract by ca-tering to Third-World appetites?

“Surely” Mr. Mercer writes in hisconclusion, “no AR reader wants thehavoc Democrats could wreak: worseimmigration laws, an emasculated bor-der patrol, public schools turned intomulticultural indoctrination centers andpro-quota Supreme Court Justices.” Buthow will we fare better under a Bushadministration that is just as firmly com-mitted to the globalist imperative as theDemocrats? In the end, Mr. Mercer’sargument against Pat Buchanan comes

down to one point: Mr. Bush, a memberof the GOP establishment that has all butabandoned us, is “a decent man whomight listen to reason.” Unlike us, Mr.Mercer is willing to invest one lastchance in a rotting GOP before he givesup on it. Therefore, it comes down tothe question, when is enough, enough?

The reason why we must not supportthe GOP is because it is dominated at the topby interests antithetical to nation-alists. (This by no means precludes sup-port of good Republicans–or even of Democrats like Ohio’s Jim Traficant and

Virginia’s Virgil Goode.) The Republi-cans are just as committed as the Demo-crats to nation-destroying globalism,free trade, open borders and the egali-tarian mantra. The inevitable conse-quences are consolidation of govern-ment power, loss of privacy and personalliberty, outlawing of private firearms,loss of national sovereignty, subordina-tion of Americans to global governance,eradication of European heritage andculture, economic and political dispos-

session of whites, high levels of immi-gration and, eventually, genetic annihi-lation of our people.

Of all the major political figures, onlyPat Buchanan even discusses some of these issues, if not always as frankly aswe would like. He is not without flawsnor is his judgement infallible–as his flir-

tation with black Marxist Lenora Fulanishows. But his embrace of nationalistissues puts him head and shouldersabove the artful dodgers on the GOPcampaign trail. If we fail to support can-didates who embrace the issues we holddear, what will compel the cowards,weaklings and imposters who call them-selves Republicans to support our cause?

Michael Masters, Fredericksburg, Va.

Sir – Pat Buchanan is a 100 percentpatriotic American and Mr. Mercer’s ar-

ticle in the Feb. issue expresses, I be-lieve, the views that drove him from theRepublican Party. He has stated–and Ibelieve–that he accepted the support of Lenora Fulani because she sought himout and agrees with his positions onNAFTA and GATT. Pat has accepted herbecause she is a member of the ReformParty. He has not changed his convic-tions one iota to obtain Miss Fulani’ssupport nor will he do so. He is a manof principle.

Henry Palfrey, Venice, Fla.

Sir – Leaving aside for the momentthe question of Mr. Buchanan’s elect-ability and whether Mr. Bush is even alittle bit trustworthy, the fact is that nei-ther of these wannabes has publiclyfaced the question of race squarely. I forone regard electoral politics as a wasteof our energies, but those of AR’s read-ers who still harbor illusions about elec-tions should at least insist on a candi-date with the courage to announce him-self pro-white, period.

Steve Meisenbach, San Francisco, Cal.

Sir – It was good to see the article inthe January American Renaissance onLothrop Stoddard. I remember him well,having met him many times when he andmy father got together. Mr. Stoddard hada vigor and strength in the way he pre-sented his convictions that was most in-spirational. It is good that he has not beentotally forgotten.

John B. Trevor, Palm Beach, Fla.




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 $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers 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 Electronic Mail: [email protected]

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor

still red, white, and blue; the official logois still a shield emblazoned with the starsand stripes bearing the name “LULAC;”

“Washington’s prayer” is still the offi-cial league prayer; “America” is still theofficial hymn, and members still recitethe Pledge of Allegiance before meet-ings. But the LULAC that so vigorouslychampioned traditional “Americanism”is gone. Today, it is an ethnic pressuregroup that opposes everything itsfounders stood for.

While the original LULAC assertedthat Mexican-Americans had no inter-ests other than those of other Americans,today its goal is the group entitlementsclearly spelled out in its Legislative Plat-

form displayed on its website (www.lulac.org).

Among its objectives: preferences forHispanic small businesses; affirmativeaction hiring policies “to ensure diver-sity in all workplaces;” establishment of “Hispanic Serving Institutions” thatwould have “many of the same benefitsprovided to Historically Black Collegesand Universities;” more Hispanics at alllevels of the federal government, espe-cially in “key positions in the State De-partment, the Foreign Service and theUnited Nations;” appointment of 60

Hispanic judges; appointment of a His-panic as the next Supreme Court justice;more “Hispanic-oriented programmingin TV and print” as well as more His-panics in “creative positions” in majormedia companies.

U.S. citizenship is no longer impor-tant to LULAC. “Residents of the UnitedStates” are now eligible for membership,and they don’t have to be legal residents.U.S. citizenship is not a qualification for

league positions, whether elected or ap-pointed.

In 1954, LULAC supported immigra-tion control and mass deportation of il-

legal aliens. Today, it opposes both. JoséVelez, head of LULAC from 1990 to1994, has said that the U.S. Border Pa-trol is “the enemy of my people and al-ways will be.” Needless to say, LULACopposes having the military defend U.S.borders–not even to stop drug smug-glers–because “military personnel arenot trained for border patrolling andmight easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with.”

In the 1950s, LULAC recognizedEnglish as the official language of theUnited States. Today, it vigorously op-

poses any official recognition of English.In 1996, when the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives passed the “English Lan-

guage Empowerment Act” declaringEnglish the official language, the leagueresponded with an “Action Alert” claim-ing that “English-only is incredibly di-

visive because it sends the message thatthe culture of language minorities is in-ferior and illegal. With a dramatic in-crease in hate crimes and right wing ter-rorist attacks in the United States, thelast thing we need is a frivolous bill tofuel the fires of racism.”

Compared to the multi-million-dollarHispanic organizations funded by theFord Foundation, LULAC is a financialpiker. In 1997, for example, it had rev-enues of only $250,000, of which

$67,000 was donations. It received$150,000 in membership fees, whichdoes not exactly square with its claimsto have a membership of “approximately115,000.” That would mean dues of $1.30 a year, whereas annual member-ship is $25.00. At that rate, its $150,000take works out to 6,000 members. The

“approximately 115,000” looks awfullyapproximate. At the end of 1997,LULAC had $322,000 in assets, mostlycash. In its IRS filing it listed only twodirectors–a president and treasurer–bothunpaid. At the same time and somewhatmysteriously, it managed to spend$150,000 on salaries and $62,000 ontravel.

Every summer LULAC holds a Na-tional Convention & Exposition, whichcan be a big money-maker. In 1996 itappears to have turned a profit of morethan $1 million. According to its IRS

report for the year, it spent more than$390,000 on conferences and conven-tions, which must have been flossy af-fairs.

Ford Steps In

Ironically, one of the reasons LULACdropped middle-class patriotism for theethnic hustle was that it had to competewith the more radical Mexican Ameri-can Legal Defense and Education Fund(MALDEF) and National Council of LaRaza (La Raza)–which were not popu-

lar Hispanic organizations but creaturesof the Ford Foundation.

Perhaps the best book about MAL-DEF is Importing Revolution: Open Borders and The Radical Agenda byWilliam R. Hawkins, on which this ac-count draws heavily. MALDEF’s found-er, Peter Tijerina, was a disaffectedLULAC chapter chairman who didn’tthink the league had followed up on Hernandez v. Texas with enough legalactivism. He wanted LULAC to copy theNAACP Legal Defense Fund (NAACP-LDF), and in 1966, he sent a league

member to the NAACP-LDF’s Chicagoconvention. On the strength of contactsmade at the convention, Jack Greenberg,president of the NAACP-LDF, arrangedfor Mr. Tijerina to meet Bill Pincus, headof the Ford Foundation. Mr. Pincusagreed to fund a new organization topush Mexican interests exactly the waythe NAACP-LDF pushed black inter-ests. Mr. Tijerina was MALDEF’s firstexecutive director, and, in 1970, MarioObledo, former Texas Attorney General,

In 1954, LULAC sup-ported immigration con-

trol and mass deportationof illegal aliens.




became General Counsel. The Founda-tion then awarded the organization afive-year grant of more than $2 million.

Ford handled more than just themoney. It appointed the executive direc-tor, decided where the headquartersshould be, and the type of legal cases topursue. At first, MALDEF brought cases

about education, school desegregation,voting rights, job discrimination, com-position of draft boards, and the statusof anti-Vietnam war protesters. Fordthought this wasn’t radical enough. Itwanted precedent-setting cases to go allthe way to the Supreme Court for rul-ings that would change the country.MALDEF duly redirected much of itsefforts towards bilingual education andimmigration.

In one of its most famous cases,MALDEF supported the plaintiffs in Lau v. Nichols, in which the Supreme

Court required that non-English speak-ing students be taught in English or“other adequate instructional proce-dures.” MALDEF brilliantly misinter-preted this to mean education in lan-guages other than English. The fund alsosued for free public education for thechildren of illegal aliens, and got whatit wanted in the 1982 ruling, Plyer v. Doe. These are perfect examples–justlike Brown v. Board of Education–of clever, foundation-sponsored lawyersgetting the courts to do things no demo-cratically-elected legislative body would

do.MALDEF cases are exactly the kind

one would expect. It fought California’sProposition 187 that denied social ser-vices to illegals, and once it was votedin, filed a class-action suit challengingevery provision. It filed suit in 1997 toabolish the requirement that Texas highschool students pass the Texas Assess-ment of Academic Skills (TASS), claim-ing that the “test contributes to the highdrop out rates among Mexican Ameri-cans and African Americans.” The fundsued in California, claiming school text-

books were biased against minorities. Anumber of figures associated withMALDEF have demanded that U.S. citi-zenship be eliminated as a requirementfor voting. The fund successfully lob-bied for the “motor-voter” bill of 1993that allows voter registration at welfareoffices or when applying for a driverslicense, and discourages states from veri-fying an applicant’s eligibility or citizen-ship. Needless to say, it is now defend-

ing racial preferences at the Universityof Michigan at Ann Arbor.

MALDEF opposes securing theMexican border even to stop the flow of illegal drugs. When the Federal govern-ment launched “Joint Task Force Six”to combat drug smuggling along theborder, MALDEF filed suit to halt the

project, arguing that “it would cause ir-reparable damage to the human and

physical environment in the area.” Whatdoes MALDEF want? According toMario Obledo, who rose to become headof the fund, “California is going to be aHispanic state. Anyone who does notlike it should leave.” In 1998, PresidentClinton awarded Mr. Obledo the Presi-dential Medal of Freedom.

MALDEF gets funding from corpo-rations–AT&T and IBM in particular–and foundations. For the period 1991-

1995, the total amount of “gifts, grantsand contributions” to MALDEF wasover $17 million. Between 1996 and1998, MALDEF received over nine mil-lion dollars from just three foundations:the vast majority–over six million dol-lars–from the Ford Foundation;$1,200,000 from the Carnegie Corpora-tion, and another $1,525,000 from theRockefeller Foundation. The fund doesnot even pretend to be a membershiporganization. Other than gifts, its mainsource of income is settlements andawards of attorneys’ fees in court cases.

In 1995, for example, it collected over$1.1 million spread over a number of different cases. The largest award was$299,000 in something called Lopez v. Del Valle.

Another important source of incomefor MALDEF is fund-raising dinners,which it holds in places like San Anto-nio, San Francisco, Los Angeles, andChicago. In 1996, the Los Angeles din-ner brought in gross revenues of

$306,000 but cheapskates in Chicagocame through with only $135,000.

At the end of 1996, MALDEF hadtotal assets of over $7 million, most of which was money in the bank. It reported$2.7 million in securities and another$2.7 million in short-term cash accounts.This was after it had splashed out

$120,000 in salary and benefits to itspresident, Antonia Hernandez, and$93,900 to vice president Teresa Fay-Bustillos. Three other vice presidents–all Hispanics–got just over $50,000each. A hired gringo, Al Kauffman, wasthe Senior Litigator who ran the legalwork. He got $85,000, and his four best-paid staff lawyers got $50 to $60,000.

MALDEF spends some of its moneytraining Hispanic law students to takeover Al’s job. In 1996, Ruth Flores atColumbia Law School got the ValerieKantor Memorial Scholarship and Chris-

tina Mireles at Northwestern School of Law got the Helena Rubenstein Schol-arship. Thirteen other Hispanic law stu-dents got lesser scholarships; two thirdsof the recipients were women, as are thetop two officials at the fund.

MALDEF also wants more Hispan-ics in the media. As it explains, becauseof “the powerful position the mediamaintains in shaping and molding thebeliefs and attitudes of the general pub-lic,” this important work cannot be leftin the hands of gringos. The fund there-fore dishes out $3,000 and $4,000 schol-

arships to promising young propagan-dists who fit the right ethnic profile. In1996, the fund granted a total of 25scholarships, all to Hispanics. It is prob-ably safe to assume that citizenship oreven legal residency are not require-ments for MALDEF grants. If there werea similar organization that boasted aboutgiving scholarships only to whites,MALDEF would file a discriminationsuit.

MALDEF is an aggressive, well-funded group designed to advance ex-plicit racial-ethnic interests at the ex-

pense of the white majority. Ironically,its support comes almost entirely from“Anglo” sources, without which itwould collapse. Ford Foundation andIBM would be indignant at the idea of an organization that promoted white in-terests.

Ford’s other raven-haired child is theNational Council of La Raza (“theRace”), which was established originallyin 1968 as the Southwest Council of LaRaza. According to its IRS filings La

Cartoon from a La Raza publication.




Raza’s purpose is to “improve life op-portunities for Hispanic Americans.” In1996, its biggest single expenditure forthis purpose was to throw fancy parties.Every year it has a CongressionalAwards Dinner, a national conference,and an American Latino Media Arts(ALMA) program at which it gives

“Alma” awards. In 1996, these soiréescost no less than $3.9 million, or morethan a quarter of the budget. La Razasays the hoopla is “designed to commu-nicate the needs and concerns of theHispanic community.”

Its other most expensive program isdistribution of money to “Hispanic com-munity-based organizations.” In 1996 ithanded out cash to dozens of groups noone has heard of: $126,000 to El Hogardel Niño, $9,000 for Chicanos por la

Causa, $30,000 to Cabrillo EconomicDevelopment, etc. etc. The boodle addedup to $1.3 million, but La Raza appearsto have spent another $2 million justadministering the distribution. La Razaalso spent more than $1 million “to im-

prove education by placing academicconcepts and skills in a context familiarto Hispanics, and forming a network of interactive community-based Hispanichealthcare providers.” It was no doubtin this latter context that it carried on itsbooks a $81,000 ten-year loan to a den-tist by the name of Carlos de la Peña.

La Raza operates a Policy AnalysisCenter, which claims to be “the pre-emi-nent Hispanic ‘think tank’,” and uses itsfindings to lobby for the usual: affirma-tive action, bilingual education, massimmigration, more hate crimes laws. In

1996, the pre-eminent Hispanic think tank had a budget of about $700,000, orless than one fifth the party budget.

On policy, La Raza sings the sameHispanic song. It says increased immi-gration control violates civil rights, andthat Congress’ 1996 cutback on hand-outs to immigrants was “a disgrace toAmerican values.” It wants another am-nesty for illegals and is willing to makethreats to get it: “Our elected officialsshould not be surprised if their failure

to act on reforms of these terribly unjust[immigration] laws is met with a firmresponse at the ballot box.”

In 1999, La Raza made a big noiseabout anti-Hispanic hate crimes, warn-ing about “a growing pattern of harass-ment, hate violence, and law enforce-ment abuse against Hispanics.” In a re-

port called The Mainstreaming of Hate,it fussed about such people as SamuelFrancis, “member of a number of hategroups,” and Jared Taylor, who arguesthat “the existence of civil rights orga-nizations [like La Raza] require Whitesto organize in self-defense.” The glossy,50-page report never mentioned that theFBI lists Hispanics as a hate crime vic-tim category but not as a perpetrator cat-egory; any Hispanic who commits a hatecrime is officially “white.”

La Raza is the richest of the Hispanicorganizations, with total revenue in 1996

of no less than $14 million, of which$8.5 million was private contributions,$3.2 million was government grants, and$2 million was largely government feesand contracts. In other words, the U.S.government gives millions of dollarsevery year to an ethnic advocacy groupthat criticizes immigration legislation as“a disgrace to American values.” Theorganization makes no pretense of grass-roots or even Hispanic support, and likeMALDEF would disappear if its gringopatrons came to their senses.

From 1992-1996, La Raza got a total

of $38 million in “gifts, grants and con-tributions,” and this doesn’t even includemillions in government fees and con-tracts. Over three years, 1996-1998, LaRaza received over $5 million from justthree foundations: the majority–nearly$4 million–from the Ford Foundation,$850,000 from the Carnegie Corpora-tion, and another $850,000 from theRockefeller Foundation. In 1996, thepresident of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre,got over $180,000 in pay and benefits,and his two senior vice presidents got$115,000 and $85,000. Four other em-

ployees made more than $50,000.La Raza literally has more money

than it knows what to do with. At theend of 1996 it reported $2.6 million sit-ting in non-interest-bearing cash ac-counts and only $114,000 in securities.It listed total assets of $7.8 million, of which $3.8 million were grants receiv-able.

At La Raza, the ethnic hustle is notas tightly focused or subversive as it isat MALDEF. La Raza likes to throw

parties and give money to Hispanic ten-ants’ organizations. However, any orga-nization that can raise $14 million in asingle year has the means for seriouswork.

Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano deAztlan (MEChA) is the youngest, mostincendiary, and unabashedly anti-white

of the four Hispanic organizations. It ismainly a student group, and its firstchapter was established at UC SantaBarbara in 1969. It now has chapters of varying size and effectiveness at a num-ber of universities and high schools. It

In a 1999 report calledThe Mainstreaming of Hate, La Raza fussed

about people likeSamuel Francis and

Jared Taylor.

MALDEF Grantees?

Charles Truxillo is a visitingprofessor of Chicano stud-ies at the University of New

Mexico. He calls the creation of aHispanic nation in the southwest-ern part of the United States withinthe next 80 years “an inevitability.”“I may not live to see the Hispanichomeland,” he says, “but by the endof the century my students’ kids willlive in it, sovereign and free.” Hesays this homeland, to be composedof California, Arizona, New Mexi-co, Texas, and southern Colorado,should be established “by anymeans necessary,” but does notthink there will be any fighting. The“electoral pressure” of the futuremajority of Hispanics will do thetrick. “We will one day be a major-ity and reclaim our birthright,” hesays. As a teacher of Chicano stud-ies, he considers it his role to helpdevelop a “cadre of intellectuals”who will help bring about secession.

Prof. Truxillo was born in Albu-querque and educated up throughhis Ph.D. in the United States. Heagrees that the Civil War settled themilitary question of secession butnot the moral question. He believesstates have the right to secede andthat the federal government will not

prevent the establishment of a His-panic homeland. “It could happenwith the support of the U.S. gov-ernment,” he adds.

Prof. Truxillo has an ally in JuanJosé Peña, vice chairman of the Al-buquerque Hispanic Round Table.“I’ve studied lots of civilizations,”he says. “The United States is justlike any other empire. It’s not go-ing to live forever. Eventually it willbreak down because of stresses.”




only lead to eventual domination, cul-tural and demographic, of the UnitedStates. Hispanics have a strong, entirelynatural sense of peoplehood, of la raza,and want to refashion America in their

own image. They are different fromother groups only in that they havestumbled onto an incredibly rich coun-try full of people who not only accedeto their ethnic demands but actually help

Whence the Hispanics?

pay for them. These are heady times forthe reconquistacrowd, and will continueto be until the majority comes out of itstrance.

There is a great deal of mumbo-

jumbo about who “Hispanics” areand just what their history is in

this country. First of all, “Hispanic” and“Latino” are recent, artificial terms thatdescribe no clear racial, ethnic, linguis-tic, or cultural group. “Hispanics” haveconsistently shifted definitions in waysto maximize political power.

From 1820 to 1910, there was essen-tially no immigration from the WesternHemisphere. Only about 350 Mexicans

arrived every year, and Mexican-Ameri-cans were officially “white.” In 1930,however, they were reclassified as “non-white” in response to two events. Onewas a sudden upsurge in Mexican im-migration and the other was a combinedMexican and Mexican-American mili-tary uprising against the United States.

Between 1910 and 1930, approxi-mately 700,000 Mexicans (three percentof the population of Mexico) crossedinto the United States–principallyTexas–fleeing the chaos of the MexicanRevolution. This dramatic growth in the

size of the Mexican population gave riseto an early “reconquista” movement thathoped to retake the entire Southwest,from California to Texas. Mexicanirredentists drew up the “Plan de SanDiego,” according to which insurrectionwas to begin at 2:00 a.m. on February20, 1915. Mexican-Americans hoped tokill every white man over the age of 16,and expel all other whites. The leadersof the insurgency sought an alliance withblacks, American Indians, and Asians,proposing that most of the United Statesbe divided among these groups, withwhites confined to the Northeast andMidwest. Blacks and American Indiansrejected the offer but a half-dozen Japa-nese joined the “Liberating Army forRace and Peoples,” allegedly acting asweapons experts.

The insurrection made no headwayanywhere but in Texas. Mexicans and

Mexican-Americans waged a guerrillawar from bases in Mexico for 16months–from February 1915 to June1916–during which time they launched27 raids into the United States. Beforethe Texas Rangers and the U.S. Armydefeated them, the insurgents killed 33whites, wounded 24 others, drove thou-sands of Texans off their land, and de-stroyed considerable amounts of publicand private property.

After this irritating experience, both

the federal government and the state of Texas decided it would be a good idea

to know how many Mexicans were liv-ing in the United States. “Mexicans”were therefore counted separately from“whites” for the first time in the 1930

Census. Texas was segregated at thetime, and once they lost their status as“whites,” Mexicans became potentiallysubject to the same conditions as blacks.During the 1930s, one of LULAC’smajor projects was opposition to the newcategorization of Mexicans as “non-white.” Mexican-American leaders didnot oppose segregation itself; they justdidn’t want the same treatment as blacks.Within a few years, LULAC succeededin having Mexicans once again recog-nized as “white” and treated as such forpurposes of segregation.

Ironically, 40 years later in the 1970s,after affirmative action programs hadbeen introduced for blacks, LULAC andLa Raza successfully lobbied the federalgovernment to recognize their membersas “non-whites” for racial preferencepurposes. When there were advantagesin being white, that’s what they insisted

they were; when there were benefits tobeing non-white they changed color.

What later became the official “His-panic” category was established by lawin 1976. Public Law 94-311 asserted thatwhat it called “Americans of Spanishorigin or descent” were victims of “ra-cial, social, economic, and political dis-crimination,” and ordered the CensusBureau to collect and publish statistics“which indicate the social, health, andeconomic condition” of this group. It

even ordered the Census Bureau to startan affirmative action program to hiremore of them.

At the time, LULAC and La Razasupported the new designation, butquickly decided “Spanish origin anddescent,” and US citizenship were toorestrictive. The next year, 1977, the Of-fice of Management and Budget adoptedthe shorter label of “Hispanic” and de-cided it meant: “a person of Mexican,Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or SouthAmerican, or other Spanish culture ororigin, regardless of race.” By throwing

in anyone of “Spanish culture or origin,regardless of race,” OMB made “His-panics” out of all the people from formerSpanish colonies, such as Western Sa-hara, Equatorial Guinea, the Philippines,Guam, the Northern Marianas, MarshallIslands and Micronesia.

Internationally, the Hispanic designa-tion has the odd effect of including a lotof people who clearly aren’t. There aremany Indians in Latin America, and theyare the majority populations of Guate-mala and Bolivia. A great many of themspeak no Spanish at all, but they are still

“Hispanic,” and get racial preferencesif they can manage to get to America.Italians from Argentina would likewisebe surprised to know they are “Hispan-ics.”

Hispanic organizations love to pro-mote a “we were here first” version of American history–a claim the U.S. gov-

Central AmericanIndians who don’t

even speak Spanishare “Hispanic.”

ΩΩΩΩΩ




The Colorblind Leading the Colorblind

David Horowitz, Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, Spence Publishing Company,1999, 300 pp., $24.95.

Former lefty gets it half-right.

reviewed by Samuel Francis

David Horowitz first made a namefor himself as the radical–in-deed, communist–co-editor,

with Peter Collier, of Ramparts, the NewLeft’s leading magazine in the 1960s,

and later as a born-again conservative.He is the founder and editor of Hetero-doxy, a monthly magazine devoted toexposing and dissecting “Political Cor-rectness,” and chronicler of his own mis-adventures as a red-diaper baby in hisautobiographical Radical Son. In the lat-ter part of his career as a neo-conserva-tive, Mr. Horowitz has become wellknown also as one who does not sparethe literary rod in chastising “black rac-ism” and the transparent double standard

by which liberals, white or black, typi-cally evaluate racial injustice when com-mitted by blacks rather than whites. Thisis the theme of the essays that make uphis most recent book, Hating Whitey.

Hating Whitey is composed of ratherbrief columns from Salon, the on-linemagazine for which Mr. Horowitz regu-larly writes, and one of the few non-con-servative magazines of any kind that willallow him to write for it at all. As a kind

of literary treasure trove of reflections onsuch subjects as black racism and doublestandards, the fraudulence of the Estab-lishment Left, and the sheer viciousnessof black criminals, especially when hid-den under radical garb as “Black Pan-thers,” Mr. Horowitz’s collection can’t bebeat. He offers chilling accounts of HueyNewton and the Panthers, for whom inhis leftish days Mr. Horowitz served asan adviser, and of the black murdererGeronimo Pratt, also a Panther until New-

ton and his pals kicked him out and whowas released from prison in 1999 due tothe efforts of his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran.But neither the brutality of black racialhatred these essays recount nor the silenceof the establishment press about it is iso-lated. As Mr. Horowitz explains:

“In the wake of the Million ManMarch, blacks burned a white man alivein a Chicago neighborhood, with no ac-companying press comment. In Illinois,

three blacks murdered a pregnant whitewelfare mother and her two white chil-dren, while ‘rescuing’ her black fetus bycutting it out of her womb. No one calledthe attack racial even though a secondblack child of the woman was spared. Ablack city worker in Fort Lauderdalegunned down five white co-workers,again without the press intimating a ra-cial element might be involved, eventhough several survivors testified thekiller had used anti-white epithets in the

ernment endorses. In the introduction toWe the American Hispanics–part of theCensus Bureau’s “We the American[s]”series of demographic profiles of blacks,Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders,American Indians, and even the ForeignBorn, but not whites–the Census Bureauwrites: “Our ancestors were among the

early explorers and settlers of the NewWorld. In 1609, 11 years before the Pil-grims landed at Plymouth Rock, ourMestizo (Indian and Spanish) ancestorssettled in what is now Santa Fe, NewMexico.”

Of course, the first permanent Englishsettlement in the New World was notPlymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, butJamestown, Virginia, in 1607. The factthat this predates the Santa Fe colonyno doubt accounts for why it goes un-mentioned. Nor was Santa Fe settled by“mestizos” but by Captain-General Don

Juan de Onate who was, along with hisparty of priests and settler-soldiers, awhite Spaniard. Nor, for that matter, didSanta Fe amount to much. As T.R.Fehrenbach explains in his definitivehistory of Mexico Fire and Blood :

“ It had a thin, isolated populationscattered along the river [Rio Grande].When Anglo-Saxon explorers and trad-ers found it early in the nineteenth cen-

tury, New Mexico was still living in theseventeenth century . . . .”

The Spanish settlement of St. Augus-tine, Florida, in 1565 does predate theEnglish at Jamestown by nearly half acentury and is often cited by Hispanicsas proof they were here first. Whydoesn’t the Census Bureau mention it?

Probably because St. Augustine is anembarrassment that reflects Spanish in-tolerance of New World rivals, espe-

cially if they weren’t Catholic. Admiral

Pedro Menendez de Aviles arrived in1565 for the express purpose of exter-minating the French Huguenots who hadfounded Fort Caroline in northeasternFlorida. After killing all of them, includ-ing children and pregnant women, theSpanish renamed the colony “SanMateo,” a name it still bears. Needlessto say, Admiral de Aviles was no mes-tizo either.

Hispanics like to claim not only thatthey were here first, but that they werepresent in large numbers in the South-west when the United States annexed itin 1848. In fact, in 1821, the Spanish-speaking population in the Mexicanprovince of Texas numbered only 3,000–and this was a vast territory of 389,000

square miles that included most of present-day New Mexico and part of Colorado in addition to Texas. By 1834,ten years after the Mexican Governmentfirst invited Americans to settle in Texas,Americans outnumbered ethnic Mexi-cans ten to one. In 1860, ethnic Mexi-cans were less than two percent of thetotal population of Texas–an estimated12,000 out of a total population of 600,000. By 1900, the number of ethnicMexicans had risen to 70,000 but wasstill less than three percent of a Texaspopulation exceeding three million. In

fact, in San Antonio, home of the Alamoand cradle of Texas Independence, therewere more German immigrants than eth-nic Mexicans.

It was the dismantling of immigrationrestrictions in 1965 that brought in largenumbers of people who now claim tohave been here all along.

Mr. Fallon lives in Rye, New York.

Now you don’t even have to leave El Paso.

ΩΩΩΩΩ




workplace before. In Harlem, sevenwhite customers were burned alive in astore torched by a black racist after AlSharpton and other racial demagogueshad led protests against its presence inthe neighborhood because the ownerwas white. This did elicit some editorialcommentary, but without a single ac-

knowledgment by any public figure of any color that the black communitymight have its own racial problem.”

One wonders which is more chilling–black racial hatred itself or the outrightmendacity and deliberate indifferencewith which the press and the fashionableleft cover it up.

Yet there is a major problem with Mr.Horowitz’s account, which is that for allhis candor in discussing such matters andfor all his rethinking of the leftism inwhich he was bred, to this day he still just doesn’t get it about race per se. Thus,

as he tells us in his introduction, “Thetolerance of Salon’s editors for the viewsin this book should not be surprising,since they are the same views once ad-vanced by the civil rights movement[Martin Luther] King led.” Mr. Horowitzstill seems to thinks that “race” is largelya fiction, and nowhere in the book doeshe mention, much less discuss, The BellCurve or the work of Philippe Rushton,Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, RichardLynn, and others on racial differences inmentality and behavior.

Nor, for all his exposure of the lefties

whom he knew and worked with in hisred days, does he have anything to tell usabout the “civil rights movement” itself–although we know very well that it wasno less a collection of crooks and fraudsthan the New Left. Mr. Horowitz is ex-clusively concerned with what he be-lieves is the “betrayal” of the civil rightsmovement by black leaders today andtheir indulgence of black racism or theiroutright endorsement of it. Hence, hiscolumns center only around black-whiteantagonisms and ignore the impact of immigration and the emergence of anti-

white Hispanic racism.What Mr. Horowitz does not appear

to grasp is that his beloved “civil rightsmovement” was merely the opening stageof a continuing and ever-intensifyingrevolution–Lothrop Stoddard’s “RisingTide of Color,” or what the late sociolo-gist Robert Nisbet called the “racial revo-lution” in which “color has come closeto replacing nationality and economicclass as the major setting for revolution-ary thrust, strategy, tactics, and also phi-

losophy . . . .” Like all opening stages of revolutionary movements, that of the ra-cial revolution was fairly moderate, de-manding only “equal rights” and “colorblindness” in law and policy. King wasthe leader and hero of this stage of therevolution, and in this respect it was littledifferent from analogous stages of the

French, Russian, and other revolutions.But, again like all revolutions, itquickly moved on. Once legal racial bar-riers had been dismantled and equalitybefore the law granted, the revolutionbegan to unmask itself as a demand forracial power pure and simple. Equalityof result and outcome as well as “toler-ance,” “diversity,” and “racial reconcili-ation” have now come to serve as ratio-

nalizing slogans that are useful for dis-crediting “white supremacy” and “insti-tutional racism” but are conveniently

muted or abandoned entirely when non-white racial power and interests are atstake.

The movement from King’s “colorblindness” to present-day Afro-racism isno more bizarre than similar transitionsin other revolutionary processes; Orwell’s“All animals are equal–but some are moreequal than others” is the classic satire of this pattern. Nevertheless, non-revolu-tionary power structures are constantlybefuddled by it, as is the white establish-ment today. Having granted the legiti-macy of the early stage of the revolution

and swallowed the sugar-coated rhetori-cal and ideological premises of egalitari-anism and environmentalism, the old re-gime finds it all but impossible to resistthe demands of the later stages of therevolution that exploit those premises foranti-white racial purposes–even if itwanted to resist those demands in the firstplace.

Of course, it is to Mr. Horowitz’s creditthat he has resisted and refused to em-brace the more extreme anti-white impli-

cations of the “color blindness” he es-pouses, and it is because of his resistancethat he exposes the racial revolutionariesat all. But because he does not really seemto understand that it is a revolution con-tinuous with the civil rights movement,he misses much of what needs to be saidabout it and in the end has very little to

tell us about how to resist the revolutioneffectively.In fact, pretty much all that Mr.

Horowitz can do, given his continuingcommitment to King’s “color blindness”and his satisfaction with present-dayAmerican society, is bemoan and expos-tulate about the trends that have made“color blindness” a bad joke, and exhortus all to get back to good old Dr. King’swisdom. Of course, the reason colorblindness has become a bad joke and thereason that what King preached waswrong (whether he knew it or not) is that

race is real. It is precisely because it isreal, rooted in nature and evident in be-havior, that normal human beings cannotbe “blind” to it and cannot pretend in-definitely that it doesn’t exist or isn’timportant.

That is also why just about every otherrace has now rediscovered it and is in theprocess of using it to build a mass basemobilized around racial consciousness forthe revolt against the civilization thatwhites have created and ruled. Since Mr.Horowitz’s commitment to “color blind-ness” and his denial of race mean that he

cannot and will not invoke white racialidentity and consciousness as a counter-weight to non-white racial forces, aboutall he can offer with which to resist theanti-white racial hatred and quest for non-white racial power he accurately per-ceives are expostulation, exhortation, andbemoaning. The damage his insistence oncolor blindness does is that it preventswhites who become aware of the racialrevolution from understanding that theconstruction of their own racial con-sciousness–not the denial of it–is the onlyrealistic means of resisting a revolution

directed against them that will certainlylead to their political and cultural dispos-session and may eventually result (if con-temporary anti-white racial hatred andviciousness is any indication) in theirphysical destruction.

Mr. Horowitz has written a compel-ling and often powerful account of therising tide of color that, as it becomes amajority in the United States and threat-ens to engulf other white societies, willpaint a dark future for white people ev-

David Horowitz.




erywhere in the world. It is unfortunatethat as well informed about it and as ex-perienced as he is in its inner circles, he

does not more fully understand the forcethat really drives the racial revolution heat first assisted and later deserted.

Samuel Francis, a nationally syndi-cated columnist, can be reached throughhis website at www.samfrancis.net.

Our Wandering Ancestors Mysterious Mummies of China, NOVA Videos, WGBH Boston, 1998, 60 mins. $19.95. Homicide in

Kennewick , Channel Four International (U.K.), 1998, 60 mins.

Remarkable discoveriesnow on video.

reviewed by James P. Lubinskas

Recent discoveries of Caucasianmummies and skeletons haveraised the possibility that whites

took their civilization well beyond Eu-rope far earlier than previously thought.Two recent videos offer evidence, some-times in amazing detail, of our globe-

trotting ancestors. Mysterious Mummies of China is part

of the science and nature NOVA televi-sion series, and describes the remarkablywell-preserved 3,000-year-old mummiesdiscovered in the Takla Makan desert of Central Asia. The bodies were preservedby the arid climate and not by any hu-man means. Several clearly have red andblond braided hair, white skin and otherunmistakably European features. Thediscoveries first came to the attention of the West when a visiting American an-thropologist named Victor Mair saw

some of the mummies at a local museumin Chinese Central Asia. Intrigued, heassembled a forensic archeology teamto return to China and identify the an-cient remains. The video follows thegroups efforts to learn who the mummypeople were.

The most impressive mummy wasfound by a Chinese archeologist identi-fied as “Mr. Hua,” who discovered itstomb in the Takla Makan. Along with ayoung female and a baby who appear tohave been sacrificed for the burial, Mr.Hua found a tall, white-skinned, blue-eyed (the color of her eyes is clearly vis-ible in the video), blond-haired, womanwith braids, who was probably a noble.She died at about age 40 and was buriedin skillfully woven, tartan-like cloth. The3,800-year-old mummy looks so life-like that Mr. Hua, who has found 17similar corpses in the area says, “WhenI brought her out of the ground and heldher in my arms, I realized that she wasthe most beautiful woman on earth.”

Where did these ancient whites comefrom and what happened to them? Theteam thinks they may have been relatedto the Tokharians, a people that foundedseveral settlements along the ancient“Silk Road.” Mummies and skeletons of the Tokharians show striking similari-

ties to the Takla Makan mummies. Amummy of a Tokharian man clearly hasred, braided hair and is wearing tartancloth. Facial reconstruction’s from skullsshow a resemblance to the Celtic peopleof Europe. Grave artifacts like saddlesand bread ovens are similar to ones usedby the people of western China today.

The video shows the team in areas of China formerly closed to the West, dis-covering eye-opening rock carvings andcave paintings that show the Tokhariansas tall, red-haired, and white. Their writ-ing was in a European script. Interest-ingly, some are shown with Indian castemarks, which suggest the region was amixing bowl with the Tokharians tak-ing on characteristics of other people.Prof. Mair says the drawings are con-sistent with early Chinese accounts of

“barbarians” described as red-haired,with blue-green eyes and long noses. Hebelieves the Tokharians were the descen-dants of the mummy people who, them-selves, came from the Urals. Prof. Mairbelieves they introduced the wheel andcertain types of weaving to China; theChinese may even have built the GreatWall to keep them out. They disappearedafter the 10th century and seem to havebeen absorbed by Asians. Still, the videonotes that many people in western Chinado not consider themselves racially Chi-

nese. They call themselves “weggers”and while Asian in appearance, someappear in the video with light hair, whiteskin, and blue-green eyes.

There is little doubt that whites hadan early presence in Asia and an influ-ence on the development of China,cracking its isolation thousands of yearsbefore Marco Polo. The video concludesthat “the region on the doorstep of Chinawas continuously populated by whitesfrom 1800 BC.”

Kennewick Man

There is persuasive but inconclusiveevidence that whites were the originalinhabitants of North America. Homicidein Kennewick , released in 1998 by theEnglish television station Channel Four,describes the discovery of a skeletonknown as Kennewick Man, named afterthe little town in Washington state nearwhich he was found. Outdoorsmen dis-covered the skeleton in July, 1996 (seeAR , Jan., April and June, 1997), and ithas been a source of controversy be-tween scientists and Indians ever since.

The police asked Jim Chatters, a lo-cal anthropologist, to investigate themostly intact skeleton. He knew it wasnot recent, but the long, narrow skull,prominent nose, and long limbs indi-cated it was not an American Indianskeleton either. He also discovered anarrowhead in the pelvis of the type usedby Indians over 5,000 years ago. Despitethe arrowhead, he thought he had theskeleton of an early white pioneer, whichwould make it about 200 years old. He

ΩΩΩΩΩ




was astounded by carbon-dating teststhat showed the bones to be over 9,000years old.

Another anthropologist, Katie Mac-millan, agrees the skeleton was Cauca-sian. “I don’t believe that the personcould have been an Indian,” she says,“but how could a white person have been

present that many years ago? How couldhe get here? Where are some of the restof them?”

The discovery rocked the anthropol-ogy community, and the SmithsonianInstitution asked for the bones for fur-ther analysis and DNA testing. However,before Dr. Chatters could get the skel-eton to the Smithsonian local Indians gotthe police to confiscate Kennewick Man.A 1990 law gives Indians the rights toall ancient bones found in America. Itassumes all bones more than 500 yearsold must be Indian and forbids tamper-

ing with Indian graves. Homicide in Kennewick interviews

two Indian leaders who try to make thecase that Kennewick Man was their an-cestor. Chief Yellowbird is the leader of an unidentified tribe near where the skel-eton was found. He calls Kennewick Man “The Ancient One” and says thatwhat science says doesn’t matter. Hiselders say Indians were the originalpeople of the area, and that’s that. AnIndian professor of religion named VinceDeloria doesn’t believe in DNA testing,and says anthropologists have no right

to disturb Indian bones. He does admitthere are legends among Indian tribes in

Nevada of “red-haired giants” who usedto live in the area.

The confiscation and reburial of oldbones has been a problem ever since the1990 law, and several anthropologistsdecided to sue the government to getKennewick Man back. While the wran-gling continues the bones are in storage.

Testing has been halted and partial DNAtest results are locked in a safe. It ap-pears that the government is letting In-dian tribes in to perform rituals overKennewick Man and that some of therituals could contaminate the bones andhamper further study.

Indians are obviously afraid testingwill prove they are not so native toAmerica after all, but with the excep-tion of a pre-Christian religious groupcalled the Asatru Folk Festival, none of the people suing to get Kennewick Manback seems to have much interest in the

racial angle. Anthropologists just wantto study the bones.

Some of the scientists on the videohedge their bets about whether Kenne-wick Man was European. At the end of the video Dr. Chatters and a colleaguesay they believe the skull matches thoseof the Ainu, a Caucasian-type peoplewho were the original inhabitants of Ja-pan. Others talk of Kennewick Mancoming perhaps from Central Asia.None of the experts believes he was anAmerican Indian.

NOVA and Channel Four have done

an excellent job producing these videosbut neither seems to have given much

thought to their political impact. TheChinese have known about the Cauca-sian skeletons for years but were reluc-tant to tell anyone about them. As forKennewick Man, if he turns out to havebeen Caucasian and killed by Indians,whites may be a little less willing to lis-ten to lectures about how whites com-

mitted “genocide” against “NativeAmericans.” These videos suggestwhites have a far-flung history that isonly now being uncovered.

To order Mysterious Mummies of China call (800) 255-9424 or go towww.wgbh.org to order on-line. Infor-mation on Homicide in Kennewick isavailable on-line at www.c4interna-tional.com or by calling 44-171-396-4444 in England. Channel Four ignored repeated efforts to get purchasing in-

formation so the video may not be for sale in America.

Freedom Party Enters Austrian Government

Europe panics as national-ists join coalition.

by Jared Tayor

AR was just going to press as JörgHaider’s Freedom Party wassworn in as a coalition partner

in Austria’s new government. Mr.Haider himself will not serve in the cabi-net, but the very presence of his party inseveral key ministries has set off an un-precedented outcry and plunged the Eu-ropean Union into a crisis that only un-derlines the conformist spitefulness of liberalism. It should be utterly unremark-able when a party that wants Austria tostay Austrian should take power. It is

only in these benighted times–with Eu-rope and America in frenzied opposi-tion–that it is significant. The step Aus-tria has taken to reclaim its heritagepoints the way for all of Europe.

The Election of 1999

Since the end of the Second WorldWar, Austria has been dominated by twoparties, the People’s Party–convention-ally conservative–and a typically Euro-pean socialist party, the Social Demo-crats. For the last 13 years, they havefinished first and second at the polls, andhave ruled together in coalition, but theelection of last October 3rd blew up thatcozy arrangement. Jörg Haider’s Free-dom Party finished second, just ahead

of the conservatives, winning 52 seatsin the 183-seat parliament (see AR, Dec.,1999 for a full account). The SocialDemocrats got 65 seats, the People’sParty also won 52 (it got slightly fewertotal votes than the Freedom Party), andthe Greens, who vote with the social-ists, won 14 seats. Since then–for fourmonths–Austria has been without a gov-ernment.

It would have been logical for thePeople’s and Freedom parties to form acoalition, since they have much more incommon with each other than either doeswith the socialists. With 104 seats be-tween them they would have had a handymajority. However, the “conservatives”did not want to appear to be playingfootsie with a “racist” (see sidebar, page

Is this what happened to Kennewick Man?

ΩΩΩΩΩ




13) and tried to cobble together yet an-other coalition with the socialists. It wasonly after negotiations failed–mostlyover how to fix the budget deficit–thatthe People’s Party leader and currentForeign Minister Wolfgang Scheusselturned to the Freedom Party to hammerout a common program of budget-bal-

ancing, privatization, and deregulation.

Mr. Haider was well aware that hispresence in an Austrian cabinet wouldruffle a lot of feathers so he agreed noteven to take a portfolio. Mr. Scheusselwould be chancellor, the rest of the min-istries would be split evenly between theFreedom and People’s parties, and Mr.Haider would continue as governor of the province of Carinthia, to which hewas reelected last year to a five-yearterm. Even this was too much for a con-

tinent that has been demonizing the “farright” for decades.

The whooping started well before thenew government was even sworn in,with French President Jacques Chiracexpressing “deep concern” at the merethought of Haider people in the govern-ment. The French president of the Eu-ropean Parliament Nicole Fontaine wentone better, saying, “The party of JörgHaider is a vehicle for an ideology polesapart from the humanistic values that arethe basis of every democratic society.”

At a January 27th press briefing of

the European Commission–the execu-tive branch of the European Union–jour-nalists insisted that officials say some-thing about Austria. A spokesmanhauled out the European Union treatyand read that “the Union is founded onthe principles of liberty, democracy, re-spect for human rights and fundamentalfreedoms and the rule of law.” He addedthat members can be expelled for any“serious and persistent” breach of theseprinciples. A journalist from Austria,

which joined in 1995, said he neverimagined he would ever be considereda citizen of an undemocratic country.Someone even asked a commissionspokesman how the EU would be judged, 50 years from now, if it did noth-ing about Jörg Haider, especially in lightof a solemn message the commission had

released that very day commemoratingthe 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz!

Pressure began to build on Mr.Scheussel of the People’s Party to break off coalition talks with Mr. Haider. Hisparty sits in the European Parliamentwith a bloc of ideological cousins calledthe European People’s Party, and a fewbloc hotheads threatened to expel theAustrian members. Israel’s former PrimeMinister Shimon Peres warned thatHitler was an Austrian and “came topower by so-called democratic means.”

Israel threatened to withdraw its ambas-sador, saying that “in a country where agovernment symbolizes and backs opin-ions that would upset any Jew and non-Jew, there cannot be an Israeli ambassa-dor.” Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal,whose office is in Vienna, warned Aus-tria would suffer severe economic dam-age if the Freedom Party entered gov-ernment. “Austria doesn’t produce any-thing that can’t be obtained elsewhere,”he said, predicting world-wide boycotts.

No less a figure than Hillary Clintonpiled on. She made public a letter to

Edgar Bronfman, president of the WorldJewish Congress, in which she wrote:“Haider’s record of intolerance, extrem-ism and anti-Semitism should be of con-cern to all of us.” Her campaign madeno secret that the letter was a swipe atRepublican opponent Rudolph Giuliani,who appeared at the same Martin LutherKing Day celebration in New York asthe evil Austrian. “Why didn’t he throwJörg Haider out of the room?” demandedClinton spokesman Howard Wolfson.Mr. Giuliani explained weeks ago thathe didn’t even know Jörg Haider was

there. How did Mrs. Clinton celebrateMLK Day? At a rally hosted by AlSharpton.

Back in Europe, pressure mounted forthe EU to do something. French presi-dent Jacques Chirac said “Mr. Haider’sparty is inspired by an ideology opposedto the humanitarian values and respectfor human dignity which are foundingvalues of the EU.” His Foreign MinisterHubert Vedrine said Austria was on “anabsurd and mistaken path . . . greeted

throughout Europe with disapproval andrepugnance.” The Belgian Foreign Min-ister Louis Michel called Mr. Haider “adangerous man,” saying that if his partyentered the government it could easilyset a precedent for the rest of Europe.“There would come a time when wewould have to take an extremely deter-

mined action,” he said, refusing to ruleout the possibility Belgium would recallits ambassador.

On January 31st, after an emergencymeeting of the European commission,the EU announced unprecedented politi-cal sanctions if Austria let the FreedomParty into the government. It would dealwith Austrian ambassadors strictly at the“technical” rather than political level, itwould refuse to back any Austrian can-didates to posts in international organi-zations, and it would put Austria on astrict monitoring program in view of

expelling it from the EU if it misbehaves.Even Austrians who don’t care much

for Jörg Haider were amazed. One major paper, Kurier , complained that “onlythe regime of the mullahs in Iran wastreated like this.” The country’s largesttabloid, Kronenzeitung, wrote that Aus-tria had been put into quarantine “as if it had political leprosy.” Ordinary Aus-trians were furious. Werner Fasslabend,Austrian defense minister and a mem-ber of the People’s Party, said “We ab-solutely reject the possibility of accept-ing that foreigners can decide over us.”

Wolfgang Scheussel commented that“Austria does not need lessons in democ-racy.” In the midst of it all, the charis-matic Mr. Haider celebrated his 50thbirthday at a ski resort, where he handedout beer, did traditional folk dances, andbathed in the adoration of young sup-porters.

European papers took the tone thatMr. Haider must be watched but that toannounce sanctions before Austria hadeven formed a government was a littlehasty. Only in Italy, where editors per-haps had an eye on their fascist past, did

papers generally support the threat of quarantine. La Stampa entitled its leadeditorial “The Courage to Say ‘Enough’ ”and wrote that “The European Unionyesterday made a courageous gesture.”

Meanwhile, polls show that Austri-ans are reacting to foreign pressure justas they did when Kurt Waldheim ran forpresident of Austria in 1986. Mr.Waldheim, former UN Secretary Gen-eral, was accused of complicity in Naziatrocities, and the United States declared

Mr. Haider arrives for a meetingwith president Klestil.




him ineligible even for a tourist visa butthe Austrians cocked a snook at theworld and elected him anyway. Moresnooks may be cocked. Even before theEU started panicking, polls were show-ing the Freedom Party would probablywin 33 percent of the vote if anotherelection were held, well up from the 27

percent that caused hand-wringing lastOctober. The Freedom Party would thenbe in first place and Jörg Haider couldexpect to become chancellor.

This has not been lost on his shrewderenemies. The deputy speaker of the Eu-ropean Parliament, Ingo Friedrich of Germany, argued that all the shriekingis playing into Mr. Haider’s hands. “Tointervene at this sensitive stage, whennearly a third of voters have backed hisparty, is not very clever politics,” he

observed.On February first, Mr. Scheussel andMr. Haider announced the formation of a new government, which required ap-proval by the Austrian president Tho-mas Klestil. Mr. Klestil had the optionof calling for new elections rather thanapprove the new government, but fearedeven better results for Mr. Haider’s partyif there were elections. He did insist,though, that Mr. Scheussel and Mr.Haider sign a humiliating “Declarationof European Principles,” which includednot only the usual salaaming to democ-

racy and human rights, but a pledge towork for an Austria where “xenopho-bia, anti-Semitism and racism have noplace” and to oppose “every way of thinking which seeks to denigrate hu-man beings.” The declaration went onto say:

“Austria accepts her responsibilityarising out of the tragic history of the20th century and the horrendous crimesof the National Socialist regime. . . . Thesingularity of the crimes of the Holo-caust which are without precedent inhistory, are an exhortation to permanent

alertness against all forms of dictator-ship and totalitarianism.”

This sort of crawling does no moregood in Europe than it does in America.The German Defense Minister dismissedthe statement as “lip service.” NicoleFontaine of the European Parliament,sweet-tempered as ever, said the decla-ration would “clearly not be able to makeus forget the insulting, xenophobic andracist statements of Jörg Haider.” Mr.Haider himself was annoyed to have toput his name on the document, saying,“it is an affront for the [Austrian] public

that such matters-of-course have to besigned time and again.” The declarationdid not prevent the Euro-Parliamentfrom overwhelmingly passing a resolu-tion supporting the EU sanctions andcalling on EU leaders to bounce Austriaif it acts up.

The Israeli reaction grew yet moreshrill, with a Knesset member from theIsraeli Labor Party, Avi Yehezkel, call-ing Mr. Haider a “modern incarnation”of Hitler. Prime Minister Barak said that

a government with the Freedom Party“should outrage every citizen of the freeworld.” Opposition Likud leader ArielSharon said, “We all agree that Israelmust, with the entire free world, fightagainst a manifestation of renewed Na-zism.” Speaker Avraham Burg openedthe February 3rd Knesset session by de-

nouncing Mr. Haider, saying, “55 yearsafter the Holocaust, the Austrian peoplerefuse to recognize the terrible tragedythat the racist Nazi ideology inflicted onhumanity.”

Vienna-based Simon Wiesenthal’sDocumentation Center announced itwould pull out of a joint project withAustria to teach tolerance to youngpeople. In a letter to Mr. Scheussel of the People’s Party, the center wrote: “[I]twould be unthinkable to pursue such aproject which is aimed at combating thevery positions of your new partner. . . .

Neither Mr. Wiesenthal nor his centrewill allow his name and reputation to beexploited as legitimisation for xenopho-bia and demagoguery.”

The Belgian Foreign Minister LouisMichel raged that “the new Austriancoalition would force an unacceptablebreach in the resistance to a resurgenceof fascist ideas in Europe,” and said theFreedom Party’s appeal was based on“xenophobic, simplistic, malignant anddiscriminatory ideas which attack thedemocratic principles on which our po-

litical system is founded.” He said itwould be “immoral” for Belgians to goskiing in Austria.

The White House said it would con-sider following the European lead indowngrading relations with Austria. TheEuropean Commission, however, said ithad no plans to move the headquarters

of the European Monitoring Centre onRacism and Xenophobia, which is lo-cated in Vienna.

Less than an hour before the new gov-ernment was installed on Feb. 4, Finlandbroke off relations. “Anti-Nazis” riotedwhile the ministers were sworn in, andthe United States annouced it would re-call its ambassador for consultations.Israel duly withdrew its envoy “for anindefinite period,” and said Jörg Haiderwould not be allowed to visit Israel. The

The Belgian foreign min-ister said it would be

“immoral” for Belgians togo skiing in Austria.

Foul ContagionSpread

Why does Jörg Haiderstrike such fear in European hearts? Reuters

News Service obligingly did a care-ful search of all his public utterancesand came up with the most horrify-ing. The complete collection, whichwas also published in the New York Times, follows:

Oct., 1990, in an address to warveterans: “Our soldiers were notcriminals, at most they were vic-tims.”

June, 1991: “. . . in the ThirdReich they had an ‘orderly’ employ-ment policy . . . .”

Feb., 1995, during a parliamen-tary debate he referred to “the pun-ishment camps of National Social-ism,” which was taken to mean hethought the inmates deserved to bethere. Later that day he said hemeant to say “concentrationcamps.”

Sept., 1995, in an address to vet-erans including former Waffen SSsoldiers: “. . . there are still decentpeople of good character who alsostick to their convictions, despitethe greatest opposition and haveremained true to their convictionsuntil today.”

Dec., 1995: “The Waffen SS wasa part of the Wehrmacht [Germany

army] and hence it deserves all thehonor and respect of the army inpublic life.”

And, of course, the FreedomParty has campaigned against the“over-foreignization” of Austria.The context of some of the quota-tions is unclear, and Mr. Haider hasapologized for them all, but HillaryClinton is sure that Jörg Haider has“a record of intolerance, extremismand anti-Semitism.” ΩΩΩΩΩ




Vienna embassy stayed open, though,and trade was not expected to be af-fected. The Belgian Defense Ministry,however, said it would cancel a $1 mil-lion order for armored ambulances froman Austrian firm, Steyr-Daimler-Puch.

Not all was frothing and hysteria. Inthe European Parliament, the People’s

Party, which is the largest conservativeparty and is aligned with Mr. Scheussel’sparty, denounced the threats againstAustria as foolish, unwarranted, andpossibly illegal, saying it would supportthe new government. Edward McMillan-Scott, who leads the British Tory Euro-MPs blasted the Freedom Party but op-posed sanctions and noted an obviousdouble standard: “[N]ot a word was saidby these same EU governments aboutcoalitions involving fellow-travelingcommunists in the French or Italian gov-ernments, or in German state govern-

ments, or even the British government’swillingness to promote those with ter-rorist associations as ministers in North-ern Ireland today.” The French NationalFront had made the same point even ear-lier: “It is repellent to see the EuropeanUnion isolate Austria, which it consid-ers heretical, while at the same time tol-erating France, Italy and tomorrowSpain, where the comrades of Stalin,Mao, and Pol Pot parade at the heart of coalition governments.”

Others noted that when the NationalAlliance party–widely denounced as

“neo-fascist” and of which Mussolini’sgranddaughter Allesandra was a promi-nent member–briefly entered the Italiangovernment in 1994 there was no out-

cry. Austrians have not failed to note thatthe EU is on friendly terms with Chinaand Cambodia, and chides the UnitedStates for its hostility to Cuba.

There has also been a brazenly po-litical flavor to the Euro-wailing. For thefirst time in 13 years, the Social Demo-crats will be out of the Austrian govern-

ment. As it happens, Social Democrats

and their allies now run the governmentsof Germany, England, France, and otherEuropean countries. There is little doubtthat the Austrian socialists got theirfriends to act as if the sky would fall if the Social Democrats got the boot. Many

a puffed-up demonstration of moral out-rage was also a calculated boost for theAustrian socialists. European votershave not failed to notice. Despite theirown government’s self-righteous wheez-ing, a Feb. 4 poll showed that no fewerthan 79 percent of Germans opposed theEU sanctions against Austria.

So what are we in America to makeof all this? Mr. Haider himself summedit up best: “To claim that acting for yourown people is racism is incomprehen-sible–it is Austro-masochism.” Indeed,it is incomprehensible, and it is a great

day when a public figure not afflictedwith masochism takes the stage. All thiscondescending blather about “democ-racy” could not be more contemptible.

As Mr. Haider has repeatedly pointedout, the success of his party is what de-mocracy is all about. It is not the Free-dom Party that threatens democracy orportends tyranny, but the socialists allacross Europe who see people slippingaway from their ideological control andwant to veto the desires of the Austrian

people. As usual, pious talk about “tol-erance,” “diversity,” and “democracy”turn out to be nothing more than power-hungry spitefulness when liberals don’tget their way.

As we wish Mr. Haider every success,AR will risk a few predictions. Therecould well be high-profile acts of “boy-cott” like the Belgian cancellation of ambulances. A few international con-ventions and tourist groups will huffilytake their business elsewhere. Althoughthe rating agency Standard and Poor istalking about downgrading Austria’s

AAA credit rating, there will be no seri-ous harm to the Austrian economy.

Members of the new government mayexchange testy words with officials whohave insulted them, but Austria will con-tinue to be one of the most civilized andcultured places on earth. The Israeliambassador may hold out, but within theyear other countries will wake up to howchildish they have been and will restorefull diplomatic relations. Needless to say,no one will apologize. There will behysteria but in smaller doses when Mr.Haider himself enters the cabinet or even

becomes chancellor, as he could well doafter elections in 2003. There will besetbacks, but Europe has taken a vitalstep on the road back to sanity.

“To claim that acting foryour own people is racismis incomprehensible–it is

Austro-masochism.”

O Tempora, O Mores!

The Harp That Once

South Africa’s National SymphonyOrchestra, the country’s number-oneclassical orchestra, is shutting down af-

ter 75 seasons. It used to be supportedby the South African Broadcasting Cor-poration, but three years after blacksstarted running the network they cut theorchestra off. It lived meagerly on cor-porate sponsors for two years before col-lapsing. The musicians asked the gov-ernment for help but the governmentnow has money only for African arts.(Daniel Wakin, Top South African Or-chestra Closes, AP, Jan. 20, 2000. AntonLa Guardia, South African Orchestra

Closes asFunds End, LondonTelegraph, Jan. 25,2000.) Similar things have happenedhere. Oakland, California, used to havea top-flight recording symphony, butwhen the city went black the orchestrawent dark. The New Orleans symphonyalso went under as city demographicschanged, though it managed to revive

after promising to put on hip concertsthat would attract blacks.

“Same Kind of DNA”

Many Jews are worried by the highrate at which Jews marry gentiles–anestimated 50 percent world wide, and 52percent in the United States. CharlesBronfman of Seagram Co. and WallStreet millionaire Michael Steinhardthave founded an organization calledBirthright, which has already raised$210 million to sell Jewishness to Jewsand persuade them to marry each other.It’s main activity is bringing diasporaJews to Israel, where they go on tours

ΩΩΩΩΩ




and get courses in everything from Jew-ish sex to Jewish business opportunities.In January, Birthright flew no fewer than6,000 young Jews to Israel–4,000 fromNorth America and 2,000 from Europe,the former Soviet Union, and SouthAmerica. Any young Jew who had neverbeen to Israel was eligible for the 10-

day, all-expenses-paid trip. Applicantswere chosen by lottery.Mr. Bronfman, who explains that the

program’s success will be judged bywhether it reduces intermarriage, says:“I’m trying to make Jews. You can livea perfectly decent life not being Jewish,but I think you’re losing a lot–losing thekind of feeling you have when you knowthroughout the world there are peoplewho somehow or other have the samekind of DNA that you have.” Last weheard, Judaism was supposed to be areligion rather than a sub-race, but never

mind. People certainly do care whetherfriends and neighbors have DNA simi-lar to their own. No doubt Mr. Bronfmanwill now understand why Jörg Haiderand so many other Austrians want tokeep Austria Austrian. (Lee Hockstader,‘Selling’ Jewishness, WashingtonTimes, Jan. 17, 2000, p. A1.)

More Mush From theWimp

In his State of the Union speech, theGreat White Father said the following:

“Within 10 years–just 10 years–therewill be no majority race in our largeststate of California. [He got it wrong;whites became a minority some time inthe late 1990s.] In a little more than 50years, there will be no majority race inAmerica. In a more interconnectedworld, this diversity can be our greateststrength. Just look around this chamber.Look around. We have members in thisCongress from virtually every racial,ethnic, and religious background. And Ithink you would agree that America isstronger because of it.” The White

House press release reports that at thispoint, Mr. Clinton’s speech was inter-rupted with applause. (White Housepress release, President William J. Clin-ton State of the Union Address, Jan. 27,2000.)

More Mush From theTimes

It’s worth dipping occasionally intothe New York Times Magazine to see

whether liberals ever learn. Alas, a re-cent article called “What No School CanDo” shows they do not. It starts with anadmission that the 1960s convictionsabout the surefire ways to make ghettoblacks as smart and productive as whiteshaven’t worked. School integration,Head Start, and $100 billion in federal

school money have made a barely per-ceptible dent in the racial gap. “Com-prehensive school reform” and everyconceivable new teaching gimmick stillleave the typical black 17-year-old read-ing at the level of a white 13-year-old.Could unequal outcomes be part of hu-man nature?

Impossible. The mistake, says theTimes, was to assume schools by them-selves could do the trick. Even middle-class black children are already behindby the time they start kindergarten be-cause, say the experts, of “difference[s]

in child-rearing habits and peer culturebetween the black and white middleclass.” Unfortunately, “these are formsof private behavior that are both over-whelmingly important and extremelydifficult to reach through conscious actsof intervention.” As for ghetto children,we must change “the ecology of thelower-class child in order to increase theprobability that he will be more success-ful in attaining normative skills.” Thesolution? Get black children out of theirhomes and into the hands of liberals assoon as possible. Lather them with up-

lift for hours a day–from birth, if pos-sible. Since Head Start didn’t work, su-per-intensive Head Start will. The fail-ures of liberalism can only be correctedwith more liberalism. No mention of genes, of course, in an article that is likea physics textbook that never mentionsgravity. (James Traub, What No SchoolCan Do, New York Times Magazine,Jan. 16, 2000, p. 52.)

More Mush From UpNorth

The Lewiston-Auburn area of Mainehas a treat in store: Some time this springabout 30 refugees from the West Afri-can country of Togo will arrive in thisoverwhelmingly white community. Noone knows if they speak English or canhold down a job. Never mind, saysJames Carignan, a Lewiston city coun-cilman and dean of Bates College, sim-ply having them around will be wonder-ful. “Great cities are diverse cities,” heexplains. “They are multicultural in

character. We are too homogenous atpresent. We desperately need diversity.”He is sure that “the 30 new neighborsfrom Togo and those from around theworld who will follow them will bringus the diversity that is essential to ourquest for excellence.” (James Carignan,Refugees Bring Skills, Ideas and At

Little Cost to Residents, Sun Journal(Lewiston), Jan. 2, 2000.)

“Inviting Vandalism”

Last year there was much shriekingwhen the city of Richmond decided toinclude Robert E. Lee in a series of out-door portraits of famous Americans.There were plenty of blacks on display,of course, but a special committee had

to be appointed to wrestle with the gi-gantic moral problem of memorializingthe South’s best-loved general. Now

someone has burned the mural with amolotov cocktail on the same day some-one scrawled “kill white devil” on Lee’sstatue on Memorial Avenue. “I wouldsay if you put it [the portrait] back upyou are inviting another act of vandal-ism,” says City Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin (birth-name not reported), whowas against putting up the portrait in thefirst place. A committee of wise men isnow pondering what to do. It’s not hardto imagine the national outcry that wouldfollow if an image of Martin Luther Kingwere burned and a white official said

fixing it would only invite more vandal-ism. (Richmond’s Mural Burners, Wash-ington Times, Jan. 22, 2000, p. A11.)

Babel in the Court

Last month we reported on a localcourt decision that forbad the exclusionof non-English-speakers from jury dutyin Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Dis-trict Judge Robert Robles based his de-cision on the New Mexico constitution,



which clearly states that no one can bekept off juries because of an “inabilityto speak, read or write the English orSpanish languages.” The state SupremeCourt has now ruled that Judge Robleswas right, and all courts in New Mexicomust provide interpreters to deaf-mutesand illiterate Somalis. Aside from the

cost and trouble of hiring interpreters,their presence in the jury room couldchange the dynamic of jury delibera-tions, which are supposed to be invio-late. Simultaneous interpretation is nevercompletely accurate, either, but aspokesman for the state airily explainsthat if there are beefs about language,the parties can always appeal. (LoieFecteau, Justices: Language No Barrierfor Jury Duty, Albuquerque Journal, Jan.20, 2000.)

Same Old Story

Al Lipscomb is a Dallas city councilmember and longtime black activist wholikes to turn everything into an AlSharpton/Jesse Jackson-style racial is-sue. Mr. Lipscomb has just been con-victed of 65 counts of bribery. He ad-mitted taking 33 $1,000 monthly pay-ments from a local taxicab company, butsays these were just gifts and had no ef-fect on his vote. He also appears to havetaken $7,000 from a notorious nudie barin exchange for trying to get the policeto leave it alone. His conviction and

prosecution are being widely denouncedin “the community” as more evidenceof white racism. (Robert Ashley, Dal-las’ Most Well-Known Civil RightsActivist Convicted of Bribery, DallasExaminer, Jan. 28, 2000.)

A black teenager in Lancaster, Cali-fornia, has admitted he lied when heclaimed skinheads beat him up. The boy,whose name has been withheld becausehe is only 15, picked a fight with a black classmate, but got the worst of it whenanother boy pitched in against him. Thefight banged up his braces, on which his

mother had spent a lot of money, so he

decided to blame the damage on “rac-ists.” His mother promptly phoned theauthorities, who put out an all-pointsbulletin. The teenager confessed whenhis tale began to fall apart and his friendsstarted telling a different story. (Solomon

Moore, Black Youth Admits He LiedAbout Hate Crime, Los Angeles Times,Jan. 27, 2000.)

Unknown but Famous

Remember Patricia Roberts Harris?We didn’t. She was Jimmy Carter’s Sec-

retary of Housing and Urban Develop-ment. Since she was a black woman, she just had a commemorative postagestamp issued in her honor, making herthe 23rd in the Black Heritage series. She joins others we had forgotten or neverheard of like Jan Matzeliger, PercyJulian, Allison Davis, Ernest Just, andJean Baptiste Point Du Sable. (US PostalService Press Release, Unsung Hero forCivil Rights and Public Service Honoredon latest Black Heritage Series Stamp,Dec. 27, 1999.)

Buchanan SpeaksOn a campaign swing through the

West, Reform Party contender Patrick Buchanan has been talking more senseabout immigration than any other poli-tician in years. At the Arizona-Mexicoborder he called illegal immigrationnothing less than “an outright invasionof the United States,” and walkedthrough a hole in a dilapidated borderfence to show that the Clinton admin-istration’s idea of enforcement is “a dis-grace.”

In a major address at the RichardNixon Library in Yorba Linda, Califor-nia, Mr. Buchanan warned that Third-World immigration is giving rise to“separate ethnic nations within a na-tion.” “If we want to assimilate newAmericans–and we have no choice if weare going to remain one nation–we mustslow down the pace of immigration,” headded. He pledged that as President hewould crack down hard on illegal im-migration and would cut legal immigra-

tion from 800,000 a year to 300,000. Hewent on to say those parts of the coun-try with many immigrants suffer from ahost of social problems, such as highcrime rates, depressed wages, andstretched social services. He is one of the few public figures with the courageto point out that the obvious solution is

to stop letting in so many people. (ScottLindlaw, Buchanan Targets Heavy Im-migration, AP, Jan. 19, 2000.)

NO FEAR

David Duke has started a white rightsgroup called National Organization ForEuropean-American Rights (NOFEAR). He announced the founding ata press conference at the National PressClub in Washington, D.C. on January21st. The next night, 75 members of thegroup joined him for an inaugural din-

ner in Philadelphia. Mr. Duke’s speechat the dinner was taped by C-SPAN andcovered by local media.

NO FEAR will be based in Mande-ville, Louisiana but already claims mem-bership in 30 states. In his press confer-ence Mr. Duke explained the focus of his new group: “European-Americansface a situation where we’re going to beoutnumbered and outvoted in our owncountry. . . . If the present immigrationrates continue . . . the European-Ameri-can people will basically be lost as anentity. We are losing our heritage and

our way of life.” (Janelle Carter, DavidDuke Forms White Civil Rights Group,Boston Globe, January 22, 2000.)

NO FEAR can be reached at (504) 626-7714 or on-line at www.davidduke.org.

Segregation Gets the OK

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruledthat state prison systems may practicesegregation–of inmates with AIDS. InJanuary, it let stand an Alabama appealscourt decision under which authoritieskept AIDS carriers out of certain recre-

ational and educational activities. Ala-bama, Mississippi, and South Carolinaare the only states that systematically testall inmates for AIDS and segregate theinfected. Prison authorities note thatthere is violence, sex, bloody fights, andintravenous drug use going on in pris-ons, and healthy inmates should be pro-tected from the risk of infection. (JamesVicini, U.S. High Court Allows AIDSSegregation in Prisons, Reuters, Jan. 18,2000.)

Door Prizes

There is still time to registerfor what should prove to bethe best AR conference ever.

We are pleased to announce thatseveral supporting organizationswill be offering valuable packages

of complimentary books and videosthat will be of particular interest toparticipants. If you need more in-formation on the conference, pleasecall (703) 716-0900.

ΩΩΩΩΩ

200003 american renaissance

Documents