200811 American Renaissance

8/7/2019 200811 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200811-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - November 2008

Sarah Palin—a Candidate We Can Vote For?

Vol. 19 No. 11

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

November 2008

American Renaissance

Reasons to vote for theMcCain ticket.

by Reilly Smith

We face a choice inNovember betweena white amnesty-pro-

moter and a black socialist.Many race realists have arguedthat neither Barack Obama norJohn McCain deserves our sup-port, and that we should stayhome or vote for one of thethird-party candidates. Someracially aware whites will actu-ally vote for Mr. Obama, in thebelief that “worse is better.” Iwill vote for Senator McCain.I believe his selection of SarahPalin as running mate actuallygives race realists someone they

can vote for instead of just sit-ting out the election.Needless to say, Mr. McCain

was among the worst of theRepublican candidates. For me,his stance on immigration ruledhim out from the beginning, andI voted against him in the Illinoisprimary. My candidate wasCongressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who came the closest to myviews on race, immigration and the needto support Western Civilization. Unfor-tunately, he dropped out of the race too

early to have much impact.By all means, let us encourage moreTancredos in the next election. But fornow we are stuck with what we have,and faced with the prospect and sym-bolism of an Afro-Leninist in the WhiteHouse, versus a white veteran and afertile “hockey mom,” I reconsideredmy anti-McCain stance. I have begunto think that with Sarah Palin next inline behind an aging president, the cul-tural, political, and racial landscape of

America has been reshaped.I was amazed, rst of all, that John

McCain chose Mrs. Palin. The bêtenoir of the Right and former darling of the liberal media actually reached outto conservatives with this selection. I

would have bet money Mr. McCainwould choose Governor Tim Pawlentyof Minnesota, who was elected twice

in a state that traditionally goes toDemocrats. The Republican conventionwas held there, and a safe, Midwesterngovernor who appeals to the religious

Right could possibly win Minnesota forMr. McCain.

But Gov. Pawlenty would have beena very ho-hum pick, a one-day newsstory like Mr. Obama’s selection of Senator Joe Biden. When I turned on

the television and saw an attrac-tive, white woman standing nextto Mr. McCain I had to admire

his savvy. Mr. Pawlenty mighthave helped Mr. McCain inMinnesota; Sarah Palin can helpin all 50 states. The polls swingup and down wildly, but there isno question Mrs. Palin has rein-vigorated the race and changedits dynamic from a race-realistperspective.

Even if Mrs. Palin’s selectionsmacks of tokenism, and evenif she turns out to be wrong onmany issues, it won’t matter. Theanti-white, leftist rage against her

is based on her conservatism, herwhite fertility, and her muscularevangelical faith, which partlyexplains her family’s willingnessto have a large family.

Whatever one thinks of abor-tion in the context of race real-ism, it is clear that the Left wantsto convince white women thattheir babies are disposable. Mrs.

Palin clearly thinks otherwise, and thisannoys them. She did not have one childthe way feminist heroine Hillary Clintondid—or two—but ve, and seems suc-

cessful and happy. The Left is terriedat the thought that young white womencould start thinking of babies the wayMrs. Palin does. The idea of four yearsof that big, happy Palin family on thenational and international stage makesthe anti-white Left shudder.

Mrs. Palin’s unmarried teenagedaughter Bristol is pregnant, but atleast she is engaged to the father. Whatif white women got the idea that they

Continued on page 3

Mrs. Palin is an implicitappeal to whiteness, andeven if most whites are

not conscious of it,blacks are.




Letters from ReadersSir — I wish to commend American

Renaissance for the interest it takes inthe destiny of South Africa’s Afrikaner

people, including the informative articlein the September issue by Arthur Kempon the Battle of Blood River.

However, the nal part of Mr. Kemp’spiece argues that the use of non-white la-bor alone led to the demise of Afrikaner-ruled South Africa. Without disputingAuguste Comte’s famous dictum, “de-mography is destiny,” I feel one shouldbeware of simple truisms that explainpolitical and social change. Writersas diverse as Arnold Toynbee andFriedrich Nietzsche emphasized the roleof the will in determining outcomes.

Not so long ago, ve million or sowhites in South Africa had the will todefend their sovereignty and their landagainst 30 million blacks inside thecountry as well as 500 million (now600 million) in sub-Saharan Africa. Inthe same way, the classical Egyptians—who were probably a Caucasian race—ruled over a slave state for thousandsof years. The Spartans held their ownamong the Helots who outnumberedthem ten to one for 300 years. In feudaltimes, European aristocrats managedto maintain their supremacy and blood

lines for centuries.In the end demography takes its toll,but we Afrikaners are today strangers inour land because of political, diplomatic,and even military action taken by otherwhite nations. Some of those nationsrepresent exactly the type of all-white,homogeneous societies advocated byMr. Kemp!

In April 2004, the Swedish ambas-sador to this country boasted during aradio interview that without the nancial

and diplomatic support of his country,Nelson Mandela’s African NationalCongress (ANC) would never havecome to power in South Africa. In fact,the Swedish parliament voted a secret

fund of up to $100 million per year forthe ANC, which it used to bomb super-markets and bars, and to set up guerillacamps in Zambia and Angola. It alsofunded the hate campaign against SouthAfrica in the global media.

It seems that an all-white societydoes not necessarily produce whiteconsciousness and can even lead to anti-white policies like those of Sweden inthe 1970s and 1980s. Also, what is theuse of an all-white country if its peoplehave traded its classical Western culturefor one that is black in all but name,

with white youth taking drugs, wearingsneakers and baseball caps back to front,and listening to hip-hop?

Up to some limit, culture and will aremore important than racial demograph-ics. Alain de Benoist also once saidthat the borders of blood were far morefundamental than geographic ones.

The greatest struggle for a nation is toretain its sense of cohesion and kinshipand to refuse absorption by another race,even in times of demographic and politi-cal domination. This is the challenge weAfrikaners face so acutely today.

Dan Roodt, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica

Sir — I admire Arthur Kemp enor-mously as a great speaker and writer inthe cause of white survival, and we herein Britain have been very fortunate tohave him among us. At a recent meet-ing his speech brought tears to my eyes,something I don’t recall happening sinceI was aged about eleven!

That said, I hope he will not mind mychallenging one assertion he made in hisarticle, “When the River Ran Red,” inyour September issue. He writes: “Thosewho form the majority population of aterritory will rule that territory, no mat-ter how powerful a ruling elite may be . .. . A majority-European population willcreate a society that reects Europeanvalues and norms.”

Surely as matters now stand the op-posite is true? Nowhere in the worldis there now a white-majority territorywhere the ruling elite has failed to im-pose essentially non-European and evenanti-European values and norms. Unlessa colossal pro-white counter revolutionsweeps the Western world within thenext few decades, no majority-Europeanpopulations will even remain.

Anthony Young, London, England

Sir — After reading your articleabout Malaysia (see “Preferences forthe Majority” in the October issue), letme say that I have great sympathy forthe Malays. The Chinese are interlopersbrought in by foreign imperialists fortheir own purposes. Left to their owndevices, the Chinese would dominateMalaysian society and the Malayswould become second-class citizens intheir own land. This applies to our owncountry. I recently accompanied my sonon a tour of a University of California

campus. One would have thought wewere in Peking! The 1.5 billion Chineseand their overseas progeny have morethan enough students to dominate uni-versity systems built for our children,and the same is happening in Australiawith the blessings of the Australian elite.I no more want my state or country tobe dominated by the Chinese than dothe Malays.

Name Withheld

Sir — I think you make a good point

in your article on Malaysia, cleverly us-ing the strife in Malaysia as a warningto the US. However, it makes perfectsense for the Malays to run their countryin their own interest. They must alwaysoutnumber the non-Malays living intheir country, and deport foreign felons.Anyone who is not Malay and living inMalaysia is “lucky to be in their coun-try.” Americans should never have lostsight of this attitude.

Name Withheld




could get married and have children ata young age, like Bristol? Even the fact

that Sarah Palin’s youngest child hasDown Syndrome carries a pro-whitemessage—it reminds careerist whitewomen in their 30s that once they arein their 40s, the chances of having aDown Syndrome baby rises rapidly.It’s best to get moving if they want ahealthy family.

Implicit racial appeal

The package Mrs. Palin presents—small town, conservative, Evangelical—is an implicit appeal to whiteness, and

even if most whites are not conscious of

it, blacks are. Whoopi Goldberg thoughtMrs. Palin’s Republican conventionspeech sounded pro-Nazi: “I just foundthe whole thing . . . very much like aBund rally, but maybe that was justme.”

PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill’s

cousin, Sherrilyn Ifl, is a law profes-sor at the University of Maryland. Shewrote: “It’s hard to be an average work-

ing mom, really hard. And when womenwho are privileged present as thoughthey have it all together,it’s offensive to blackwomen.”

Some black men seemto be just as afraid of Mrs. Palin. Black rap mu-sic celebrity “P. Diddy”posted a YouTube inter-net video, in which hecowers at the thought of Sarah Palin in the WhiteHouse:

“Sarah Palin—shescares me. She reallyscares me. . . . Sarah Pa-lin: You scare me. Youcould become the presi-dent of the United States.. . . John McCain is 72.Sarah Palin could be the president. Boysand girls, vote, please, I beg you.”

Black liberal columnist Mary Mitch-ell wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hatethat she was able to steal BarackObama’s mojo just by showing up wear-

ing rimless glasses and a skirt. . . . SarahPalin makes me sick because althoughblack Democrats have been responsiblefor giving white candidates the boostthey needed to beat their Republicanopponents in tight races, these votersare now being insulted by feminists whosay they will cross over into the McCaincamp because of her.”

Palin-haters who are white are usingthe usual technique of sifting every wordshe says, looking for “code.” She recent-

ly attacked Mr. Obama’s associationswith 1960s-era bomb-thrower WilliamAyers, arguing that “our opponent . . .is someone who sees America, it seems,as being so imperfect, imperfect enough,that he’s palling around with terroristswho would target their own country.”She added, “This is not a man who seesAmerica like you and I see America.”

Associated Press writer DouglassDaniel thought these words put so muchdistance between Mrs. Palin and Mr.Obama that she could only have beentalking about the fact that he is black,and the headline of his October 5 articlewas “Analysis: Palin’s Words CarryRacial Tinge.” Mrs. Palin was obvi-ously attacking her opponent’s politics,not his race, but she is, herself, such anembodiment of whiteness that the APman could see little else.

Mrs. Palin’s racial appeal has not

escaped race-realist commentators.The web site, the Occidental Observer,wrote in en editorial thatshe would:

“further the racial po-larization of Americanpolitics—a prospect thatis certainly welcome forus at The Occidental Ob-server. The image of Pa-lin endorsing small townvalues and surroundedby her white children onstage at the Republican

convention is absolutelynauseating to the hege-monic left. . . .

“Needless to say, thisimage of white fertilityand small town values

is not going to appeal toblacks or Latinos either. . . . Palin is apersonication of what [UC Long Beachprofessor] Kevin MacDonald termsimplicit whiteness. She has a whitepolitical and cultural afliation evenif there are still taboos about saying soexplicitly.”

All of this, of course, made her thetarget of lefty viciousness that it isimpossible to imagine the media pour-ing out on a non-white. Vitriol—someof it approaching the pathological—began to ow immediately. Hollywoodleftists sneered at her, and actor MattDamon said she was “like a really badDisney movie.” Former Saturday NightLive performer Chevy Chase urged hisfellow comedians to “decimate” her.“Comedienne” Sandra Bernhard mused

Continued from page 1

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 (rst 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

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, EditorStephen Webster, Assistant EditorRonald N. Neff, Web Site Editor

P. Diddy.

Sherrilyn Ifl.




about Mrs. Palin being “gang raped”by black men while visiting New YorkCity. Democratic activists broke intoher private e-mail account and madeit public.

New York Times columnist MaureenDowd outdid herself in nastiness. Shevisited Mrs. Palin’s town of Wasillaand pronounced it a “soulless stripmall without sidewalks.” She calledMrs. Palin a “a political jukebox,” andreveled in the news that she had put atanning bed in the Alaska governor’smansion. She called her speakingstyle “pompom patois and sing-songy jingoism,” and lovingly transcribedungrammatical answers to interviewquestions. “At Sarah Palin’s old churchin Wasilla, they spoke in tongues,” shewrote. “Maybe that’s where she pickedit up.” Her fellow Times columnist, BobHerbert, wrote that Mrs. Palin was all

bounce and no content, complainingthat if the Republicans were elected andMr. McCain died, “the country could beleft with little more than an exclamationpoint as president.”

The liberal women on the televisionshow The View were so hostile to Mrs.Palin, that the lone conservative voiceon the program, Elisabeth Hasselback,noted that it must be “Hate Sarah PalinDay.”

Washington Post reporter SallyQuinn wrote that Palin should “rethinkher priorities” and concentrate on her

family instead of trying to be vicepresident. It is impossible to imagine aliberal female reporter talking down toa Democratic politician that way.

The hatred for Sarah Palin is visceral,as much because she is a standing insultto aging women’s-libbers as because sheis white. Judah Friedman wrote in the American Spectator about the crazedreactions of Hollywood feminists:

“What could be worse for a womanwho has chosen a barren existence, inthe name of a movement, than to seea woman get ahead who has alreadyactually gotten so many great thingsout of life? If Sarah Plain gets elected it

would sort of imply that their lives havehad no meaning, and would leave openthe question: ‘For what have they doneany of this?’ Sadly, this has to be howthey see it.”

Miss Friedman continued: “Whetheror not Sarah Palin is the next vice presi-dent, one thing is for certain. She hasshown you [the feminists] for the fraudsthat you are, for Pandora’s box has beenopened and you will never be able toclose it. You are not the role modelsfor the next generation of women. Youhave lost all of your credibility. There

is a new type of woman out there whocan juggle both a family and a career.You had your chance to get on boardand you blew it.”

Even Obama supporter and libertar-ian feminist Camille Paglia, wrote withgrudging admiration for Mrs. Palin:

“The gun-toting Sarah Palin is likeAnnie Oakley, a brash ambassador fromAmerica’s pioneer past. She immedi-ately reminded me of the frontier womenof the Western states, which rst grantedwomen the right to vote after the CivilWar—long before the federal amend-

ment guaranteeing universal womansuffrage was passed in 1919. Frontierwomen faced the same harsh challengesand had to tackle the same chores asmen did—which is why men could re-gard them as equals, unlike the genteel,corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard,which fought granting women the voteright to the bitter end.”

Noemie Emery, writing in the WeeklyStandard captured the fury over SarahPalin perhaps better than anyone:

“[I]t may turn out that the main contri-bution she makes to his [Mr. McCain’s]effort is in goading the Democrats intospasms of self-defeating and entirelylunatic rage. Somehow, every elementof her life—the dual offense of beinga beauty-queen and hunter; the Downsyndrome baby who wasn’t aborted;the teenage daughter about to get mar-

ried, whose baby also wasn’t aborted;the non-metrosexual husband work-ing the nightshift; the very fact of vechildren—touched a nerve on the liberaltemplate, and sent the whole beast intoconvulsions, opening an intriguing andsomewhat frightening window into theturbulent id of the left.”

Some mainstream conservatives have

a new name for all this leftist frothing:“Palin Derangement Syndrome.” Any-one who can evoke so much apoplexyin the anti-white establishment is clearlyon to something.

Internet commentator Steve Sailerthinks it is because she is a “tribal fertil-ity goddess:”

“[I]t’s all about … female fertility.Human beings have extremely strongemotions on the topic of fertility. TheBlue Whites are alarmed and outraged to

Hate Sarah Palin day.

No doubt Denis Thatchercould have used

Margaret around thehome a bit more, but

should she have refusedto be prime minister?




Todd and Sarah Palin with the baby theydid not abort.

be reminded that the Red whites can af-ford to outbreed them and are outbreed-ing them. Modern people tell themselvesthey don’t care about stuff like that, butthey do, oh, they do.”

A few traditional conservatives thinkMr. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin iswrong because it smacks of afrmativeaction and shoves her into a place wherewomen do not belong. They say it isnot good to glorify working mothers,that Vice President Palin could not helpbut neglect her family, and that her jobdemeans her husband.

No doubt Denis Thatcher could haveused Margaret around the home a bitmore, but should she have refused tobe prime minister? The “Iron Lady,”as the Soviets dubbed her, was an in-spiration to her nation and proved thatliberalism hardly speaks for all women.What is more, the Palin family seems

to be a happy one despite Mrs. Palin’sprominence.It is unfortunate that liberal fury over

Mrs. Palin—and the entertainment thishas provided conservatives—is farmore common than straightforward,heartfelt praise for Mrs. Palin. Formerpresidential candidate and commenta-tor Pat Buchanan is something of anexception:

“In choosing Palin, McCain may alsohave changed the course of history asmuch as Ike did with his choice of Rich-ard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with

his choice of George H.W. Bush. Forshould this ticket win, Palin will eclipseevery other Republican as heir apparentto the presidency and will have her ownpower base among Lifers, Evangelicals,gun folks and conservatives—whollyindependent of President McCain. . . .

“A traditional conservative on socialissues, Palin has become, overnight, themost priceless political asset the move-ment has.”

Mr. Buchanan also brushed asidecomplaints about Mrs. Palin’s inexpe-rience:

“[T]he lady has more executive ex-perience than McCain, Joe Biden andObama put together. None of them hasever started or run a business as Palindid. None of them has run a giant state

like Alaska, which is larger than Califor-nia and Texas put together. And thoughAlaska is not populous, Gov. Palin hasas many constituents as Nancy Pelosior Biden.

“She has no foreign policy experi-ence, we are told. . . . But from the day

she takes ofce, Palin will get dailybriengs and sit on the National Se-curity Council with the president andsecretaries of state, treasury and defense.. . . And her experience as governor of Alaska, dealing with the oil industry andpipeline agreements with Canada, cer-tainly compares favorably with that of Barack Obama, a community organizerwho dealt in the mommy issues of foodstamps and rent subsidies.”

Mr. Buchanan may have a soft spot

for female vice presidential candidateswith short resumes. When he headedthe Reform Party ticket in 2000, his VPselection was Ezola Foster, a black con-servative activist who had spent 33 yearsas a high-school typing teacher.

Worse is better?

Some on the racial Right will notvote for Mr. McCain because they haveadopted Lenin’s slogan, “worse is bet-ter.” They believe whites will somehow“wake up” if Obama is elected, and theywant to punish Mr. McCain for his manybetrayals. I’m not sure worse is better.That may work for the anarchic Left, butfor conservatives and whites in general,worse is usually worse.

The agonies the feminist Lefthas gone into over Sarah Palinraise once more the question

of the role feminism has played inthe demoralization of whites. Do wewant white women barefoot and preg-nant? Workingand single untilthey are 35?

It is worth not-ing that exceptfor a few brief prosperous peri-ods, such as theVictorian Era orthe Eisenhoweryears, most fami-lies in the Westhave not gotten

by with just onebreadwinner. Un-til the 20th cen-tury, most of theworld, includingthe white world,lived on farms. Women had to workas hard as men just to survive.

In the halcyon days of the 1950s,conditions emerged that freed manywomen from work. This was afterprevious do-gooders had labored toget women out of factories and otherdrudgery. Ironically, it was feminists,

starting with Betty Friedan, whowanted to put women back to work.The challenge facing us is how

best to harness the mental energies of women while preserving their centralrole in family formation. There are

some women, indeed many highlygifted women, who spend all theirtime and energy on their families.Some mix work and family; somechoose neither.

It is the anti-white leftist feministswho convincedmany women thatif they workedt hey cou l dn ’ thave large fami-lies like Sarah Pa-lin’s. Feministswant to shoehornall women intothe same worka-holic life withoutfamilies. When allwomen are just

like the feminists,they no longerhave to justifytheir own narrow

lives.M a n y w h i t e

women have stopped at one childor had none at all in order to pursuedegrees and careers, and worldwidewhite fertility is now well belowreplacement levels. Someone likeMrs. Palin can demonstrate to whitewomen that they can break out of thefeminist mold. If Mrs. Palin were to

move on to the presidency, it wouldbe even more apparent to young whitewomen that their barren feminist el-ders were wrong. While her selectiondoes hint of tokenism, it has a deeper,urgent appeal to white women.

White Women and Feminism

Worse is better? If thewhites in Southern Africa

haven’t woken up, howbad does it have to get?




Whites in Southern Africa, for ex-ample, face the most harrowing condi-tions of whites anywhere, yet many stillparrot the New York Times view on race.If they can’t wake up, how bad does ithave to get?

Some people also think that if theLeft controls all branches of governmentagain, it will prompt conservatives tocome roaring back as they did in 1994when they captured control of the Con-gress, or in 1980 when Ronald Reagantook over after the “malaise days” of Jimmy Carter.

A strategy of “worse is better” isfraught with too many risks. In myhome state of Illinois, some activiststhought that a Democratic sweep of thestate would allow “real” conservativeswithin the Republican Party to mount aheroic counterattack. What actually hap-pened is that Republican fundraising and

candidate recruitment plummeted. For-merly Republican strongholds becamevulnerable. There is nothing in Illinois

now and in the foreseeable future thatwill stop the Democrats, no matter howinept they are.

There are some on the racial Rightwho will join the white liberals in vot-ing for Obama, not because they wantto be absolved of racial guilt but be-cause they think it will take the air outof black hucksters like Jesse Jackson

and Al Sharpton. They think shouts of “institutional racism” will get only ahorse laugh if there is a black man inthe White House. I disagree. Chicagohas had two black mayors, but that neverstopped blacks from putting the screwson whitey.

Nor did the “role models” offered byMayors Harold Washington and EugeneSawyer change black neighborhoods.They were about as violent and crime-ridden after the terms of two black may-

ors as they were before. If “role models”made a difference, black-run Detroit,Washington, and Akron would be full of prosperous, well-adjusted blacks.

A black, Democratic administra-tion will produce at the national levelthe same effects—both political andbehavioral—that similar victories haveproduced locally. Black crime and pov-erty rates will be unchanged, and it willall still be the white man’s fault. At thesame time, Democratic control of theentire federal government will meanfundraising for all Republicans, includ-ing conservatives, will plummet, alongwith Republican candidate recruitment.Democratic administrative and judicialappointments, including Supreme Courtappointments, will chip away our liber-ties faster than ever.

Some commentators say many blackswill riot if Mr. Obama loses. If that is

true, it is perhaps the best reason of allto vote for Mr. McCain. Nothing couldbe more eye-opening, nothing woulddo more to awaken white racial con-sciousness than blacks burning up theirneighborhoods just because the vote didnot go their way.

Liberal white commentators wouldtell us it was all because of “racism,”and would try to keep the worst of theTV images off the air. The media havechanged since the 1992 Los Angelesriots, however, and even if the networkswere squeamish, there would be graphic

footage on YouTube. It would be likethe O.J. Simpson verdict and HurricaneKatrina all over again.

The head of the ticket

To return to the candidates,however, any politician, evenone that inspires the Right asMrs. Palin does, has to be care-fully watched and lobbied. Allpoliticians compromise, andeven someone like Mrs. Palinis not likely to be any differ-

ent. Nevertheless, she standsas a sharp rebuke to liberal,feminist thinking of the past50 years, and could inspire millions of young whites to take on the difculttask of forming new families. She givesnationalists and race realists a reason tovote for the McCain-Palin ticket, and not just against an Obama-Biden one.

One might still argue that it is all verywell to wax enthusiastic about SarahPalin, but what about the man at the head

of the ticket? What about John McCain?It is impossible not to admire the factthat he was counted out so many timesbut kept coming back. Tenaciousness

is one of his better qualities. He wasconsidered “gone for good” after then-Gov. George W. Bush defeated him inthe 2000 Republican primaries. Just lastJuly, his presidential ambitions seemedhopeless after his campaign squanderedall its money. Somehow, he regrouped,lived off the political land, and went onto capture the nomination.

There’s a quality of grit and perse-

verance there, which we have neverseen from Mr. Obama. Everything Mr.Obama ever got was handed to him. He

never overcame anything the way Mr.McCain has, which makes Mr. McCainthe more impressive of the two.

This means Mr. McCain will handlethe presidency better than an untestedMr. Obama. Reluctantly, therefore, Ihave to concede that the stakes of whowill control the White House are higherfor our race and nation than my imme-

Tenacious head of the ticket.

Everything handed to him.




diate disagreement with Mr. McCainover my main issues. A McCain-Palinadministration will be far from perfect,

but it will provide a necessary check onthe Democrats and guarantee that theRight can live to ght another day.

Reilly Smith is has been involved in political campaigns since 1988 either on staff or as a consultant.

How to Avoid Future McCains

In future elections, race realists andnationalists need to roll up theirsleeves and do the hard work neces-

sary to get our ideas on the political map.Second Amendment activists and thereligious right work tirelessly to makesupport for their issues the litmus test forRepublican candidates. We have beenunable to do the same, even with ourmost important issue: immigration.

Republican presidential candidateswho want any chance of winning thenomination have to be acceptable to theNational Rie Association (NRA) andvarious religious and pro-family orga-nizations, such as the National Right toLife Committee (NRTL). Sen John Mc-Cain was no exception, cultivating sup-port among both groups. In many cases,they exert a veto over which candidatewins a primary and who gets re-electedand who gets defeated. Christians andgun owners have developed so muchinuence within the Republican Party

that the GOP elites must accept them,even if grudgingly.

It is very much to our discredit thatpatriotic immigration reform activistshave nothing comparable to the NRAor NRTL. If we did, immigration con-trol would be as essential an issue toRepublican candidates as the SecondAmendment and abortion.

Neither the NRA nor the NRTL wereable to exert pressure on politiciansovernight. It took years of grassroots

activism to build up these or-ganizations, with millions of people donating time and mon-ey, making phone calls, stufngenvelopes and going door-to-

door. As these organizationsgrew, they became listened to,respected, and feared. People arepassionate about their guns andtheir religious beliefs. Patrioticimmigration reform activistsneed to make immigration justas personal.

Having an immigration pres-sure network is a realistic long-term goal for race realists, andwithout such a network, wehave no right to complain thatthe Republicans fail to produce

candidates to our liking.In 2000, no Republican presidentialcandidate talked about immigration. In2004, neither George Bush nor JohnKerry made much of it. In 2008, how-ever, one candidate made it his number-one issue: Congressman Tom Tancredo.Unfortunately, the conservative votesplit between Mr. Tancredo and othercandidates. Former Arkansas governorMike Huckabee got the religious voteand Congressman Ron Paul of Texas gotthe libertarian and anti-war votes.

Mr. Tancredo ran his campaign on

a shoestring but changed the terms of the debate simply by running. Every

Republican debate he appeared in raisedquestions about immigration. All theGOP candidates had to answer thosequestions, and stories were nally writ-ten about them.

Mr. Tancredo dropped out and threwhis support behind former Massachu-setts governor Mitt Romney, hopingthis would help stop Mr. McCain. Inhindsight, it would have been betterfor Mr. Tancredo to stay in until theend and force Mr. McCain to debatethe issue. The liberal media could havebeen counted on to play up the differ-ences between Mr. Tancredo and Mr.

McCain, and this would have kept theissue alive.But what Mr. Tancredo needed most

was better organizational support from

immigration control groups. There aremany such groups, but they do not havethe power to keep politicians in line. Wewill know we have succeeded when anycandidate who calls himself “conserva-tive” will automatically be just as toughon immigration as he is on guns andabortion. But until we have our ownimmigration version of the NRA, in this

election we should support the “implic-itly” white ticket of McCain-Palin.

Why Vote for McCain?by Michael Hart

Isuspect most AR readers will notvote for Barack Obama but are reluc-tant to vote for John McCain either.

I urge you to vote for Mr. McCain,

however, for a very simple reason: If Mr.Obama wins this election it will neveragain be possible to elect a presidentwho supports immigration control. Thisis because a President Obama wouldpromptly push an “immigration reform

act” through Congress to grant amnestyto virtually all of the 14 million illegalimmigrants already here, and would donothing to stop the inow of millionsmore.

The inux of Hispanics has been go-ing on for decades and has drasticallyaltered the electorate, making it more




Sarah Palin’s complete record on race, im-migration, and multi-culturalism.

difcult in each election cycle to end thatinux. California—which was once aswing state—is now completely out of play in presidential elections. If thereis an Obama amnesty, Texas, Florida,and probably several other states couldbe out of play in 2012. Later electionswill be even more hopeless for anycandidate who opposes large-scale im-migration. If we lose this election wemay never have another chance, andour Anglo-American civilization willbe swamped.

You may say Mr. McCain is just asbad, but he is not. It is true that he hasmade it plain he wants a “path to citi-zenship,” that is, an eventual amnesty,for most illegal immigrants. But afterpopular pressure defeated his bills in2006 and 2007, he agreed not to seeka “comprehensive settlement” until

after our borders are secured. He hasmade this promise repeatedly duringthe campaign. He has agreed to put upa border fence, and to enforce exist-ing penalties against businesses thathire illegal aliens. Only when there isgeneral agreement that our borders aresecure will he proceed to comprehensivereform.

The Democrats will oppose theborder fence at every stage, both inCongress and in the courts, so very littleof it will have been built by the time theprimary season for the 2012 electionsbegins in 2011. This means the borderwill not be secure, and if Mr. McCainkeeps his word, that means no “pathto citizenship.” In 2012, we may havean opportunity to elect someone whoopposes both further immigration andamnesty for illegals, and that might be

Sarah Palin.Might Mr. McCain break his word?

Yes, he might, but that is not certain, andeven if he does, it will be easier to thwarta president who is plainly violatinghis campaign promise than one—Mr.Obama—who is only doing what hepromised to do, and will have a clearmandate for it. Voting for Mr. McCaindoes not guarantee victory for those whodo not want our country destroyed bylarge-scale immigration, but voting forMr. Obama certainly leads to defeat.

We are facing a demographic crisisthat threatens our civilization. I don’tlike John McCain either, but votingfor him is the only way to stop BarackObama.

Dr. Hart is the author of Understand-ing Human History , reviewed in the May2008 issue.

A Matter of Perfect IndifferenceEach ticket is as bad as theother.

by Jared Taylor

Ihate to throw cold water on Mr.Smith’s enthusiasm for Sarah Palin,but I fear there is a dose of wishful

thinking and even fantasy in his analy-sis. Let us summarize his reasons for

liking Mrs. Palin: (1) Blacks, leftists,and feminists hate her. (2) She has vechildren. (3) She is white.

This is thin gruel. Please note thatMr. Smith never says a word aboutwhat Mrs. Palin may or may not thinkabout the questions that matter to us. Herrecord on immigration is a total blank.We have no idea of her views on racialpreferences. There is no hint she hasever thought about multi-culturalism.Mr. Smith cheerfully reads into thesevoids whatever suits him.

It may be that the Left hates her as

much as it does because it, too, readssome of the same things into thosevoids, but liberals have plenty of otherreasons to hate her. Also, they havebeen rummaging through her past withgreat energy, and we can be sure that if Mrs. Palin had ever uttered an unortho-dox thought on race or immigration orMexicans or even standardized testing,her enemies would have pounced on itlong ago. Mr. Smith cannot produce forus one scrap of evidence that Mrs. Pa-

lin’s mind contains anything but clichés,and clichés about race are some of thehardest to dislodge.

It is true that we can imagine other-wise. Mr. Todd Palin was once a mem-ber of an Alaska independence party,and that shows an unconventional turnof mind. As a sherman and oil worker,he has spent a lot of time around a class

of men who speak their minds far morefreely than professional Republicanoperatives. But again, if he has everwhispered heresy to his wife, there isno sign of it.

Furthermore, whatever Mrs. Palin’sinstincts may be, she is now in the toilsof party hacks who are, without excep-

tion, stufng her with standard Repub-lican nonsense. If she is ever electedvice president, her limousine will neverget lost in a black neighborhood, herchildren will never be the only English-speakers in their classes, and she willnever read a single word that was notput before her by her handlers.

The most likely reason she has norecord on any of the things we careabout is because she has never thought

about them, and especially now, she isnot going to have a single thought thathas not been pre-digested 17 times bypeople loyal to John McCain. If she haddissident ideas about race, and held themwith enough strength to resist her currentcram coarse in orthodoxy, there wouldhave been some hint of it.

Like Mr. Smith, I can’t help likingSarah Palin. She has an attractive, unpol-ished manner that underlines how wood-en all the Washington place-holders are,and our enemies are practically chokingto death on their hatred for her. Unfor-

tunately, they hate her for the wrongreasons, and when it comes to race, theenemies of our enemies can very wellbe our enemies, too. I fear that on everyquestion that really matters to us, Mrs.Palin is an empty vessel, and does notappear to have the independence of mindto resist being lled with rubbish.

I am not persuaded by Dr. Hart either.Despite Mr. McCain’s promises aboutsecuring the border, he has recentlybeen telling Hispanic audiences that he




will take up border control and amnestytogether , and will make them one of hisrst priorities. Some semi-mainstreamimmigration control advocates think weare more likely to get an amnesty fromMr. McCain than from Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama has not so far shown anyreal passion for anything, and there is nosign he has any more love for Mexicansthan the minimum liberalism requires.Mr. McCain is the one who has theamnesty bit between his teeth and whoseems to take it personally. Republicansfrom heavily Hispanic states—like Mr.McCain and the Bush brothers—seemto have an infatuation with Mexicansthat blinds them to political reality. Mr.Smith reminds us that Mr. McCain istenacious, but when a man is wrong, thatis the last quality you want him to have.What is more, Republicans in Congresscould put their hearts into the fight

against an Obama amnesty, whereasif Mr. McCain pushed one, especiallyduring the “honeymoon,” he could getall the support he needs.

Mr. McCain will also pursue anarrogant, militarist foreign policy,whereas Mr. Obama is likely to be morepragmatic.

None of this is meant to suggest thatI support Mr. Obama. If Mr. Smith isright, and the fact of Sarah Palin on thenational stage for four years will en-courage white women to have families,what will the fact of Barack Obama inthe White House encourage them to do?Get knocked up by an itinerant Africanin the hope that Baby will go to Harvardand then become president of the UnitedStates? I don’t think white women arethat simple-minded, but the symbolismof a black man in the Oval Ofce—especially a black man with the militantrecord and associations this one has—isstill staggering.

The Democrats and Republicans areundoubtedly offering us very differentcandidates. They are so different, infact, that it should be a mathematicalimpossibility for their many defectsto add up to exactly the same level of

badness, which is what it should takefor me to be genuinely indifferent as towho wins—but that is how I feel.

Since Mr. Smith has pointed the way,let us close with a bit of fantasy: TheMcCain-Palin ticket gets a minority of the popular vote but wins by a singleelectoral vote. Blacks burn down their

neighborhoods. Hispanics join the funand burn down theirs. This spectacle ishighly educational to millions of whites;indeed, President McCain is so educated

by watching the evening news that hehas a stroke and dies. Newly inauguratedPresident Palin turns out to have been along-time secret fan of columnist SamFrancis . . .

Oops. Wrong slogan.

Common Sense Uncommonly Well PutMark Krikorian, The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal, Sentinel Books

(Penguin Group), 2008, 294 pp., $25.95.

Why immigrants shouldstay home.

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

Mark Krikorian is the executivedirector of the Center for Im-migration Studies, and prob-

ably the most frequently quoted spokes-man for immigration restriction. Hisgroup does excellent research—fromhow H-1B visas really work to whether

immigrants will bail out the SocialSecurity system—and it was entirely tobe expected that Mr. Krikorian wouldmake strong arguments in his book, The New Case Against Immigration. As wewill see, one of his basic points—thevery one he calls “new”—is hopelesslywrong, but it hardly matters. The morepeople read this book, the better thecountry will be.

One powerful reason to oppose im-migration is that it has driven 80 to

90 percent of our population growthover the past several decades. As Mr.

Krikorian points out, Americans have,in effect, made a collective decision

to have just enough children to keepthe population stable. Our governmenthas overruled that decision by import-ing more than a million people a year,making us the one developed countrythat is growing at Third-World rates. In1945, we had a population of about 125million, and no one thought that wasn’tenough. There are now 300 million of us crammed into the same country, andthe Census Bureau predicts 500 millionby 2050.

Some of the consequences are obvi-

ous: urban sprawl, crowded schools,bad trafc. Mr. Krikorian notes that in1982, 12 percent of all car travel tookplace during times of peak congestion.Twenty-one years later it was 40 per-cent. In the same period, the numberof cities with awful trafc went from 5to 51. We claim to be working towardsenergy independence, yet we keep im-porting more people for whom we willhave to import more oil.

Mr. Krikorian also makes the inter-




esting point that the denser the popula-tion, the denser the laws and the morepervasive the government. Wyoming,one of the most lightly settled states,with a population of only half a mil-lion, has a part-time legislature of 90people that meets no more than 40 daysa year. They get the laws right and thengo home; would that Congress coulddo the same.

Mr. Krikorian also refutes the idea

that immigrant-fueled population growthwill keep Social Security solvent. Manyimmigrants are manual laborers whocontribute little to the system or mayeven work off the books; they are notthe high-wage earners who could actu-ally help. Immigrants also get old andwant benets, so even millions more of them will not do much for the SocialSecurity system.

Mr. Krikorian notes that while im-migrants add to our population theydilute our national identity. Many peoplehave noted that the United States makes

nothing like the effort it once did to as-similate immigrants, and Mr. Krikorianblames “post-American elites” who pro-mote multi-culturalism rather than the“patriotic assimilation” he advocates.Today, our public schools de-American-ize children, and Mr. Krikorian quotesa study that nds that the more yearsimmigrant children stay in school, themore hyphenated they feel.

The law has changed, too. Tradition-ally, Americans could lose their citizen-

ship if they served in a foreign army orvoted in someone else’s election, but in1967 the Supreme Court ruled that noAmerican could be stripped of citizen-ship for any cause. The Supreme Courthas also held that the oath of naturaliza-tion, in which new citizens forswear allloyalty to other nations, need not betaken literally.

Modern travel and communicationsalso make it easy for immigrants to keep

close ties with their homelands, whichis important to the more than 80 percentwho come from countries that permitdual citizenship. At the same time, His-panics have taken root in such numbersthat they create huge foreign enclaveswhere one need hardly be American atall. Loss of native condence combinedwith stronger-than-ever old-country tiesmeans immigrants are “overloading thesociety with more diversity than it canhandle.”

Mexicans

Mr. Krikorian emphasizes the dan-gers of massive Mexican immigration,noting that the 12 million Mexicans herenow account for a greater number thanall the immigrants from the next tenimmigrant-sending countries combined.Sixty-two percent of Mexican immi-grants have not nished high school, andwhen Mexican women come to Americatheir lifetime fertility rises: from 2.4 inMexico to 3.5 here. Mexicans, espe-

cially, are close to their homeland, andtheir loyalties are constantly rejuvenatedby newcomers. Almost 80 percent of Hispanics, whether immigrants or na-tive born, watch Spanish-languagetelevision, and it is the primary form of television for half of them.

The Mexican government has longworked to keep Mexican-Americansloyal to Mexico. The current presi-dent, Felipe Calderon, was rmly inthe national tradition when he said inhis September 2007 state-of-the-unionspeech that “Mexico does not end at itsborders. . . . Where there is a Mexicanthere is Mexico.”

As of 2007, Mexico had 56 consul-ates and consular agencies in 26 Ameri-can states and the District of Columbia,the largest such network anywhere inthe world. Their work goes well beyondlooking after citizens to open meddling

in American affairs. Mexican consularofcers push for driver’s licenses andin-state tuition for illegal aliens, and pro-test any effort by local police to enforceimmigration laws. If there are local gov-ernment deliberations about immigrants,they rally claques to ood the galleryand intimidate elected ofcials.

Mr. Krikorian says there will never bereconquista in the traditional, territorialsense, but that the Mexican governmentwill assume more and more power at alllevels of government over decisions thataffect immigrants. One obvious attemptto subvert our immigration policy is forconsulates to issue a form of identica-tion known as the matricula consular .Legal immigrants all have legal formsof identication, so the only people whoneed the matricula are illegals, and to

One of the fruits of mass immigration.

Felipe Calderon.




recognize it is to recognize them. Tothe delight of the Mexican government,Wells Fargo Bank has opened more than500,000 accounts for people who canshow nothing more than a matricula.

In 2005 the Mexican consulate inLos Angeles gave the school districtnearly 100,000 Mexican textbooks for1,500 schools. The consulate has beendistributing books for years, and thetotal probably runs to millions. The his-

tory books refer to the American ag as“the enemy ag” and say “we love ourcountry because it is ours.” In Salinas,California, a consular ofcial went evenfurther. He organized a “Mexican FlagDay” at a public school, to promoteMexican patriotism.

One of the most blatant demonstra-tions of disloyalty is forAmerican citizens to runfor ofce in foreign coun-tries. Several “Americans”have now won seats in na-tional and state legislatures

in Mexico and are mayors of Mexicans towns.

National security

Since September 11, 2001,Americans are supposedto have taken a heightenedinterest in security, but Mr.Krikorian reports that ourefforts to keep out terroristsare laughable. Part of the problem issheer volume. Every year immigrationofficials process about 180 million

entries by foreigners as well as 240million entries by returning citizensand permanent residents. In 2005, 800visa ofcers issued six million visas, or7,500 per ofcer. It is not humanly pos-sible to give all these visitors and visasthe scrutiny they require. At the sametime, the State Department still thinksin terms of customer service rather thansecurity, and ofcials are rewarded forpushing through lots of applications, notfor keeping out miscreants. The theory

is that visa-granting can be automatedthrough computerization, but a lot of thework involves examining papers fromThird-World countries that have to bechecked by hand.

There is supposed to be an exit-control system—otherwise, we haveno way of knowing whether tempo-rary visitors have actually left—butit is not working yet. There is also aterric amount of fraud. One studyfound false information in a majority of applications for “labor certica-tion,” the process of demonstratingthat there are no Americans who willdo a particular job at a certain wage.The Border Patrol does catch some

one million illegals every year, but manyget through, and once they are past theborder, there is little chance of catchingthem. The biggest joke are the “otherthan Mexicans,” who are caught on the

Southern border. Because Mexico willnot take them back, and because we donot have the space to detain them, weturn them loose inside the Unites Statesafter they promise to turn themselves insome other time.

Not enough people make another of Mr. Krikorian’s arguments: That the

presence of large numbers of foreignersmakes it easy for terrorists to hide out

unobserved. It is only because we havethrongs of Middle Easterners in manycities that the September 11 hijackerswere able to live here for months andget flight training without attractingattention.

Asians are not a crime/poverty/ille-gitimacy problem, but they pose a dif-ferent security challenge. Mr. Krikorianquotes a joint FBI/CIA report: “Whenapproaching an individual of Chineseorigin, the Chinese intelligence services

attempt to secure his or her cooperationby playing on this shared ancestry.”Sometimes it works, of course, but anyattempt to keep Chinese-Americans outof sensitive military work would be metwith howls of “racial proling.”

At the same time, we now have somany Mexicans in the country—andour ofcials are so afraid of offendingthem—that we can hardly press ourinterests rmly upon Mexico. Whetherit is water rights to the Rio Grande orextradition of killers, we humbly seekfavors from Mexico, not the other wayaround.

Yet another consequence of mass im-migration is lowered investment in auto-mation. With so much stoop labor goingbegging, we have made practically noprogress in machine harvesting—to thepoint that Mr. Krikorian warns competi-tors even in some developed countries

who have invested in mechanization willsoon be underselling us. As he explains,“Japan gets robots; we get Mexicans.”

Unlettered immigrants bring downwages for our own high-school drop-outs, especially blacks and earlierimmigrants. One hundred years ago,many immigrants were better off than

natives, and even when theywere not, their children andgrandchildren caught up.Now, every new generationfalls further behind, meaningthat immigration increases

inequality and is building anew, Hispanic underclass togo with the black one.

There is a benefit, of course, to having a reservearmy of labor. The rest of usget services that are a little bitcheaper, with the result that,as Mr. Krikorian explains,we are about two tenths of one percent richer than we

would be otherwise. That gain is morethan wiped out by the increased taxeswe pay to support immigrants.

Mr. Krikorian persuasively makesthe point that welfare of the kind wehave today simply cannot coexist withmass immigration: Millions of poorpeople would love to come just to goon the dole. He points out that a cen-tury ago, the federal government spent$178 per American in today’s dollars.Now it spends $9,000 per person. In1900, government spending at all levelsaccounted for 5.5 percent of the totaleconomy whereas it is 36 percent today.

Foreign enclaves: the Pilsen area of Chicago.




Much as we may hate it, big govern-ment and massive transfer paymentsare here to stay; it will be much easierto curb immigration than to throttle thenanny state.

Mexican prune pickers may thereforeseem like a good deal for the growers butthey are a terrible deal for the country

because they and their families pay verylittle in taxes and soak up government

services. Mr. Krikorian cites two stud-ies: “The average immigrant-headedhousehold in California used almost$3,500 more in state and local servicesthan it paid in taxes, amounting to anextra tax burden for each native-headedhousehold of nearly $1,200 per year,”and “the average lifetime cost to thetaxpayer of each low-skilled immigranthousehold is $1.2 million.” In a rationalsociety, these facts alone would beenough to close the borders.

Here are some of the details thataccount for these gures: It costs $12

billion a year to educate illegal-alienchildren, and another $17 billion toeducate the US-born children of illegals.Half of all Mexican immigrant house-holds are eligible for the Earned IncomeTax Credit (a kind of reverse income taxfor the working poor) compared to only

15 percent of native families. From 1998to 2003, immigrants accounted for 86percent of the growth in the medicallyuninsured, and in California the majorityof the uninsured are immigrants.

When the uninsured need patchingup they go to emergency rooms—themost expensive form of rst aid—andhospitals are required by federal law to

New citizens need not really mean it when they take the oath.

treat them. Some cannot afford to. From1993 to 2003, the number of hospitalswith emergency rooms declined by 9percent. In Los Angeles, no fewer than60 hospitals closed emergency roomsover the last decade. As Mr. Krikorianexplains, “Mass immigration is almostperfectly designed to overwhelm mod-

ern America’s wel-fare system.”

Mr. Krikorian hasgood ideas aboutwhat we should doabout all this. As heexplains, the realproblem is not illegalas opposed to legalimmigration, but thefact that we have im-

migration at all. Herecommends letting in just enoughpeople—about 250,000 a year—to

make up for Americans who leave. Hewould also sharply cut back on familymigration and refugees: “Only the mostdesperate people on the planet shouldbe offered resettlement in the UnitedStates,” and they should be sent back assoon as things calm down at home.

Another good recommendation is forCongress to force the IRS to share taxinformation with immigration authori-ties. Every year, it accepts millions of returns from people who are not eligiblefor a Social Security number and usean individual tax identication number

instead. The overwhelming majority of those people don’t belong here, but theIRS refuses to identify them.

As for the illegals themselves, snuff-ing out their jobs is the best cure. Mr.Krikorian points out that electronicverication of immigration status worksvery well. If all employers were forcedto use it, no one would have the advan-tage of being able to use cheap, illegallabor. Without jobs, a huge number of illegals would save us the trouble of deporting them and would go home. Mr.Krikorian also wants a new enforcement

climate: a few high-prole raids are allit takes to scare millions of illegals andmake the old country seem awfully at-tractive.

Mr. Krikorian has strong views aboutforeign students. He points out that evenif they pay full tariff—and many getnancial aid—they are still enjoyingtaxpayer subsidies that average about$8,000 a head. With 565,000 foreign-ers at our universities, that works out to$4.5 billion—money we should spend

on Americans. Ten percent of foreignersattend community colleges. Mr. Kriko-rian points out that these schools wereestablished for Americans who cannotenroll in full-time or elite institutions,and foreigners should not be allowed.

Mr. Krikorian would limit foreign-ers to 1 percent of the student popula-tion—that would cut their numbers to150,000—and doesn’t want any studentbody to be more than 5 percent foreign-ers. Today, 20 percent of the studentsat Columbia and Stanford are foreign.Mr. Krikorian would ban scholarshipsfor foreigners and charge them doublethe full tariff to make sure they don’tmilk us.

So what is wrong with this book?Surprisingly, it does not call for an endto birth-right citizenship, something

Congress could prob-ably do with an

up-and-down

vote. Ending automatic citizenshipfor the children of tourists and illegalswould be consistent with everythingelse the book proposes. Elsewhere, Mr.Krikorian has written that he actuallyfavors birthright citizenship.

More serious is Mr. Krikorian’sgenuflection to race orthodoxy. His

argument against immigration is “new,”he says, because “what’s different aboutimmigration today as opposed to acentury ago is not the characteristics of the newcomers but the characteristicsof our society.” Mexicans and Haitiansand Hmong would have made fineAmericans back when we needed millworkers and sod busters, but now thatwe have welfare and need people withskills—and have forgotten how to as-similate foreigners—they just won’t do.

No more than ve percent.

If our European fore-bears had missed the boat

and showed up today,they would presumably

be no more use to us thanGuatemalans.




Latrice Bryant plays the race card.

The trouble is us, not them. Likewise, if our European forebears had missed theboat and showed up today, they wouldbe no more use than Guatemalans.

It’s a pity conservatives seem to feel

compelled to write things like that. Thisbook would be just as strong withoutegalitarian protestations, and singing theit’s-our-fault chorus doesn’t work any-way: It will not make Mr. Krikorian’s

other arguments any more palatable toliberals. Fortunately, this is a small,easily overlooked part of an otherwiserst-rate book that has the potential todo a great deal of good.

O Tempora, O Mores!

For the Children

In 2006, before either Hillary Clintonor Barack Obama began campaigningfor the White House, researchers at theUniversity of Texas interviewed 205schoolchildren from “diverse racialand ethnic backgrounds” abouttheir views of the presidency. Theresearchers wanted to know whatthe children thought about the factthat all US presidents have been

white men. According to the study,one third of the children said itwas because of “racial and genderbias.” Another third said no minor-ity has become president becausenon-whites and women “lacked theskills to hold the position.” One infour children said they thought itwas “illegal” for women or non-whitesto be president.

“If Obama loses his bid for thepresidency, there may be little changein children’s attitudes, but it could fueltheir perception that American voters

are racially prejudiced,” says studyauthor Rebecca Bigler, a psychologyprofessor at the University of Kansas.“In contrast, if Obama wins, childrenmay believe that exclusionary laws andracial prejudice no longer shape theoutcomes of the presidential elections.”[Children Aware of Voter Prejudice inthe US, AFP, Oct. 5, 2008.]

Race Card

Latrice Bryant is a top aide to Phila-delphia city councilman W. Wilson

Goode, Jr., son of the former Philadel-phia mayor. She earns $90,000 a year,and the local Fox affiliate has beenlooking into her relationship with herboss. For 10 days during the summer,Fox reporters followed Miss Bryantaround, and found that several timesMiss Bryant arrived at her ofce aroundnoon but claimed on her time sheets thatshe showed up at 9 a.m. They also lmedher leaving her ofce at 12:30 p.m. andgoing to Mr. Goode’s house, where she

remained for three hours.When reporter Jeff Cole tried to

interview the councilman about MissBryant’s work habits, Mr. Goodewarned him, “Don’t you ever disrespect

a black woman again.” Miss Bryantprotested Fox’s interest in her by hold-ing up handwritten signs during a citycouncil meeting on September 18 that

read, “Fox 29 are racist” and “Jeff ColeKKK.” Mr. Cole is white; Miss Bryantand Mr. Goode are black.

This caused a stir, and on Septem-ber 28, Miss Bryant sent a letter of apology—to her boss. “I apologize formy public, albeit silent, display of thehandwritten signs,” she wrote. “What Idid was inappropriate and inexcusable.”She also hinted at a possible libel suitagainst Fox for its “relentless paparazzi-like conduct.”

Fox may have the last laugh. On Oc-tober 1, the station aired photographs of

Mr. Goode and Miss Bryant on vacationtogether at the Grand Lido Negril Resortand Spa in Jamaica. Mr. Goode deniesthe two are romantically involved, butthe photos show them looking verycozy. It isn’t a question of indelity—both are single—but it does raise ques-tions of propriety. The president of thecity council—also black—says she maystart an investigation. [Vernon Clark,Aide to Goode Issues an Apology, Phila-delphia Inquirer, Sept. 29, 2008. Photos

of Goode and Aide On Getaway, Fox 29,Philadelphia, Oct. 1, 2008.]

Savagely Obtuse

As part of our efforts to challengeracial orthodoxy, we occasionallysend media pitches to TV and talkradio. Over the years, AR editor Jar-ed Taylor has appeared on hundredsof TV and radio programs to discussracial issues. This has been one of

our most successful ways to reachnew people, as many subscriberssay they rst heard of AR throughsuch media appearances.

In September, we sent the fol-lowing pitch to a number of radiohosts:

Race and the 2008 Election As one of the most anticipated presi-

dential races in US history heads to atight nish, the issue of race has in-creasingly crept into both campaigns. An AP-Yahoo poll claims that Obamacould lose up to 6 points for being black.

But some conservative commentators point to the almost unanimous black

support for Obama as evidence of black discrimination.

From CNN’s Jack Cafferty statingthat a vote for McCain is a vote for racism to comic Sandra Bernhard’s jokeabout Sarah Palin being gang raped byblacks, this election is turning into a

Michael Savage.




ers such as Air America, NPR, PBSand MSNBC. None reacted as angrilyas Mr. Savage. In fact, many of thesebroadcasters have invited Mr. Tayloron their programs.

While we are happy to drop Mr. Sav-age’s email from out list, his point aboutturning us over to the FBI for harassmentis nothing short of hysterical. Liberalismis, indeed, a mental disorder.

Shaping the Landscape

In the 2004 election, 67 percentof whites cast ballots, as did 60 per-cent of blacks, but just 47 percent of Hispanics. A coalition of Hispanicpressure groups, led by the NationalCouncil of La Raza, and Spanishlanguage media wants one millionmore Hispanics to vote this year.The campaign, Ya es Hora, Ve yVota!

—“It’s Time, Go Vote”—isaimed at newly-minted Hispaniccitizens. Spanish language publisherimpreMedia plans to insert nearlya million voter registration cardsinto its publications in Arizona,California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,New York, and Texas. Univision andother Spanish-language broadcasterswill air commercials urging viewersto vote. “This effort will not only putvoter registration forms in the handsof Latinos, but also may help shapethe political landscape,” says La Raza

president Janet Murgia.Hispanics are expected heavily tofavor Democrats in November, butorganizers say the registration driveis non-partisan. “This is neither a pro-

Democratic or a pro-Republican effort,”says Mike Fernandez, vice president of public relations for State Farm Insur-ance, one of the companies bankroll-

ing the effort. “It’s pro-voting, andpro-American.” [Massive Latino VoterRegistration Drive Launched, AP, Sept.25, 2008.]

Coincidence?

Washington Mutual (WaMu) wasthe largest savings and loan associa-tion in the United States—until it wentbelly-up in September and had to beseized by government regulators in thelargest bank failure in US history. As

it foundered, it was still trumpeting itscommitment to “diversity.” This is fromits last press release, led the day beforeit declared bankruptcy:

“Hispanic Business magazine re-cently ranked WaMu sixth in its annualDiversity Elite list, which names thetop 60 companies for Hispanics. The

company was honored specically forits efforts to recruit Hispanic employ-ees, reach out to Hispanic consumersand support Hispanic communities andorganizations.”

“ ‘Diversity is an integral partof cultivating a welcoming, in-novative and dynamic workplace

here at WaMu. We are proud tobe recognized for the opportunitiesand benets we offer to all of ouremployees, including the specicefforts we have made to engage

Hispanics and the GLBT commu-

nity,’ said Steve Rotella, WaMupresident and COO.” [Kate Stouffer,WaMu Recognized as Top DiverseEmployer—Again, Washington Mu-tual press release, Sept. 24, 2008.]

“Engaging” Hispanic customersthrough mortgages they couldn’tafford helped sink WaMu.

Slavery as Salvation

A Jamaican writes about slavery:

referendum on race. Race relations expert Jared Taylor

is the editor of American Renaissance magazine and the author of Paved WithGood Intentions: The Failure of RaceRelations in Contemporary America. He has a lot to say about race and theelection and can address points suchas these:

Is the election becoming a racialhead count?

Will there be riots if Obama loses?Can the GOP attract Asian and His-

panic votes?Why do almost all blacks support

Obama? Is McCain doing enough to win the

white vote?Will McCain dare to bring up con-

nection to Rev. Wright?Will afrmative action move to the

forefront of the debate? How can both sides use race to their

advantage?One of the programs to which we

sent the pitch was The Savage Nation, hosted by Michael Savage. Mr. Savageis perhaps the most outspoken conserva-tive host on radio. His trademark lineis “Liberalism is a mental disorder,”and he repeatedly touts the importanceof “borders, language and culture” onhis show and in his books. His websitefeatures articles such as “Obama’s pas-tor’s hate speech” and “Obama and Ay-ers pushed radicalism on schools.” Mr.

Savage routinely dresses down blackrace activists such as Jesse Jackson andAl Sharpton and tried to countersue theCouncil on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) after it sued him for supposedlydenouncing Islam.

All of this would seem tomake Mr. Savage at least open toa discussion of politically incor-rect thoughts on the role of racein the 2008 election. Yet here ishis emailed response to our pitch,exactly as he sent it, in all capitalletters:

“STOP YOUR LIES. OBAMA ISTOO GREEN NOT TOO BLACK.DROP MY NAME FROM YOUREMAIL LIST OR I WILL TURNYOUR ORGANIZATION’S NAMEOVER TO THE FBI FOR HARASS-MENT.”

Of course, there are no lies in thepitch we sent to Mr. Savage. And no-where does the pitch say or even implythat Obama is “too black.” We sentthe same pitch to left-wing broadcast-




“Have we ever stopped to considerwhere we black people, especially thoseof us in the West, would be right now if it weren’t for the Atlantic Slave Trade?. . . Do you think that we wouldhave been better off without slav-ery? I don’t think so!”

“When the Europeans went toAfrica to buy slaves, what did theynd? They found a society andpeople vastly inferior to theirs.While the Europeans had emergedfrom their feudal practices, ourancestors in Africa, for the mostpart, had not developed for manycenturies. . . . Science and tech-nology (and innovations in theseareas) were non-existent in blackAfrica of the 15th and 16th centu-ries. . . . In many respects, we wereuncivilized . . . .”

“Our relatively stable societies today,

especially in the West, are testamentsto the benets of slavery. While it istrue that black Africa has, for the mostpart, squandered the opportunities thatslavery offered in the past, the positiveinuence of European civilization can-not be denied. The black nation statesof Africa and the Caribbean have givenblack people a sense of nation, a senseof identity, a sense of order and a senseof purpose—things we never had before. . . .”

“We blacks were changed, for thebetter, I might add, on account of slav-

ery. We are a better race today becauseour ancestors went through slavery.The millions of lives lost were not lostin vain. The Europeans proclaimedthe need for us to be civilized throughslavery and though this may be hardto understand, they were right. Indeed,based on what is happening in blackAfrica today—slavery for us in the Westwas, in many respects, our salvation.”[Michael Dingwall, Slavery Was Goodfor the Black Man, Jamaica Observer,Aug. 9, 2008.]

Hijab and Sash?There are about 2.6 million girl scouts

in the US, about one out of every tengirls. The number of girl scouts mayhave remained steady, but not the com-position. Troop 12119 in Minneapolisis increasingly typical. As enrollmentdeclined, it filled its ranks with thechildren of immigrants, and is now oneof 10 majority-Muslim troops in theMinneapolis area. Muslim scouts are

just like regular girls scouts—exceptthey eat halal hot dogs and pledge ontheir honor to “try to serve Allah andmy country.”

Historian Susan Miller says scouting

has always been a way for immigrantsto assimilate. “These girls can wearthe Girl Scout sash and they can wearthe hijab at the same time. This is nota contradiction.” [Diversity in the GirlScouts, Fox 12 (Mankato, Minnesota),Sept. 21, 2008.]

Bad Aussies

According to a new study, 40 percentof Australians believe certain typesof people—mainly Middle Easternersand Muslims—do not belong in the

country. The study also claims thatup to ten percent of Australians are“outwardly racist.” Study author KevinDunn, a professor of human geographyand urban studies at the University of Western Sydney, says Australian racialattitudes have improved over the yearsbut that the overall level of “racism”is still something to worry about. “It’sonly about one in 10 people now inAustralia across the different states thatwould have that sort of view—the racialsupremacists for instance. That’s stillquite high I suppose—there’s a lot of

concern that comes out of that.”New South Wales (NSW), Austra-lia’s most populous state, is also its most“racist.” The study, Challenging Rac-ism: The Anti-Racism Research Project,found 46 percent of NSW residentsharboring retrograde attitudes towardimmigrants, primarily Muslims. Prof.Dunn believes this is because NSWis home to Sydney, where most immi-grants to Australia settle. “There’s justmore cultural diversity here—there’s

more opportunity for cross-culturalcontact and that means some of themwill not be positive ones,” he explains.[Study Reveals Australian Racist Views,

National Nine News (Sydney), Sept.29, 2008.]

Bad Brits

The British Council, an educationcharity in the UK, conducted a surveyof 2,000 young Britons, aged 18 to35, to learn what they thought aboutimmigration and national identity. Itfound that nearly 60 percent believethe presence of large numbers of for-eigners is diluting the British nationalidentity, 25 percent say immigrantsare a threat to the jobs of Britishworkers, and 12 percent think mass

immigration poses a threat to nationalsecurity and public order. The Council

says its ndings are “worrying.” [YoungPeople ‘Think Immigrants are a Threatto National Identity and Jobs, Daily Mail(London), Sept. 27, 2008.]

Austrian Right Gains

Austria shook the European Unionback in 1999, when the nationalistFreedom Party, led by Jörg Haider, won27 percent of the vote in parliamentaryelections. The press labeled Mr. Haideran anti-Semite and Nazi-sympathizer,and the EU actually imposed short-

lived economic sanctions on Austriafor letting the party serve in a coalition

government. This was a breach of theso-called cordon sanitaire, under whichEuropean parties refuse to work with

A Minnesota scout troop.



Heinz-Christian Strache.

anyone the press calls a “right-wingextremist.” (The cordon sanitaire keepsthe Vlaams Belang out of the govern-ment in Belgium.) The Freedom Partypeaked under Mr. Haider in the 1999election, and while he has achieved per-sonal success as the long-serving gov-ernor of the Austrian state of Carinthia,the Freedom Party was nearly wiped outin the 2004 elections for the EuropeanParliament. Mr. Haider left the FreedomParty shortly thereafter due to inghtingand formed a new party, the Alliance forthe Future of Austria.

Mr. Haider’s successor as FreedomParty chairman is Heinz-ChristianStrache, a one-time Haider protégé. Mr.Strache describes Muslim immigrant

women who wear Islamic dress as“female ninjas” and says “the minarethas no place in Austria.” The FreedomParty wants to keep Turkey out of theEuropean Union, and to take Austriaout of the EU. During the campaign forSeptember’s parliamentary election, asenior party member complained thatimmigration had brought an end tothe good old days when Austrians ateWiener schnitzel and sausages insteadof “kebabs, falafel and couscous, orwhatever that stuff is called.” Mr.Strache pledged to set up a government

ministry with the sole task of deportingunwanted foreigners.On Sept. 28, Austrian voters turned

out strongly for both the Freedom Partyand Mr. Haider’s Alliance for the Futureof Austria, with the former receiving 18percent of the vote, and the latter, 11percent. The combined 29 percent forthe nationalist right was just short of the 30 percent won by the leading party,the Social Democrats. Once again, theEuropean mainstream press was stunned

by what it described as a “bombshell.”Austrian president Heinz Fischer

asked the Social Democrats to form thenew government, but leader WernerFaymann may have trouble forming acoalition. His party previously was incoalition with the center-right People’sParty, but squabbles led to its collapseafter 18 months. Many observers thinkit will be difcult for Mr. Haider andMr. Strache to cooperate politically—the two men reportedly don’t like eachother—but after meeting on October 8both say they will cooperate in order tohave a chance at entering the govern-ment. “If you’re in politics and alsohave responsibility, then it’s not aboutpersonal sensitivities,” Mr. Strache saidafter the meeting. “It was a get-togetherof winners,” said Mr. Haider. “We’renot adversarial brothers who marchagainst each other in strife, we are two

self-confident parties.” If the SocialDemocrats cannot form a coalition,Pres. Fischer is likely to ask the People’sParty to form a government, whichwould almost certainly have to includethe nationalist right. [Tony Paterson, FarRight Leader Claims He is ‘Real Victor’in Austria, Independent (London), Sept.30, 2008. Veronika Oleksyn, AustrianSocial Democrats Asked to Form Gov-ernment, AP, Oct. 8, 2008.]

Silver Lining

Thanks to the economic downturnand stepped up enforcement, the numberof illegal aliens coming to the US hasslowed. The Pew Hispanic Center esti-mates that from 2000 to 2005, the illegalpopulation grew by more than 525,000each year, but since 2005 has grownonly by 275,000 annually. Demogra-pher Jeffrey S. Passel says there arenow more legal than illegal immigrants.Overall, illegals make up 30 percent of the nation’s 39 million foreign-bornresidents. Eighty percent of illegal aliensare Latin American, with Mexico ac-

counting for 58 percent, or seven of thecurrent estimated 12 million. [Flow of Illegal Immigrants Slows, Pew CenterFinds, CNN, Oct. 2, 2008.]

The slowing US economy is slowingMexico’s. The Bank of Mexico saysremittances in the second quarter were$6.28 billion, down 1.1 percent from thesecond quarter of 2007, while in the rstsix months of the year, remittances were$11.6 billion, a 2.2 percent decline fromthe rst half of 2007. Remittances were

a record $24 billion in 2007, and the de-cline is one reason the Bank of Mexicois lowering its forecast for Mexicaneconomic growth. [US Slowdown HitsMexico as Remittances Drop, WallStreet Journal, July 30, 2008.]

One to Watch

This November, voters in most of Westchester and parts of RocklandCounty, New York, will be able to votefor a congressional candidate who wantsto abolish afrmative action and controlimmigration. Jim Russell, a 54-year-oldcomputer consultant, who has the back-ing of both the Republican and Conser-vative Parties, is running against Nita

Lowey, a 71-year-old, ten-term liberalDemocrat who votes against immigra-tion control and in favor of afrmativeaction. She has a grade of D- from

Americans for Better Immigration.Mr. Russell is the founder of West-chester-Rockland Citizens for Immigra-tion Control and the author of Breachof Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis. He opposes hir-ing centers for “day laborers,” wouldenforce current immigration law, andwould deport illegal alien criminalsimmediately after their sentences areserved. He even says he will “work toreform our system of legal immigrationto better accommodate those residents of European nations who wish to emigrate

legally to America, but, because of exist-ing rules, are often unable to do so.” Onracial preferences, he writes: “Afrma-tive action plans in businesses and col-leges which provide unfair advantagesfor some, while penalizing others, mustbe abolished. When hiring and promo-tions in police and re departments arenot based solely on merit, our publicsafety is placed in jeopardy.”

There is more information on hiswebsite at www.Russell2008.com.

Documents

200811 American Renaissance