Recent News

I can already see the headline in the Tennessean: “White Supremacists Meet in Nashville.”

It might be “Racists Meet in Nashville,” but “racism” is so passé, such a cliché, so 20th century. Nowadays, when liberals want to work up a really satisfying hate for someone, they have to call him a “white supremacist.”

What will provoke these sinister headlines? The 11th American Renaissance conference, which will be held the first weekend in April—April 5-7. We will be talking about things that interest VDARE.com readers: what immigration is doing to America; nationalist movements in Europe; what kind of country we’d like to leave to our children.

Terrifying stuff, to be sure. But these days you can be called a white supremacist for a lot less than that.

Take the case of Noah Steadman. Last fall, he was a 17-year-old freshman at a school you never heard of: Bard College at Simon’s Rock. It is a tiny place, with not even 400 students, in the Massachusetts Berkshires. Simon’s Rock, as it is called, loves diversity. It even puts up bar graphs on its website bragging that non-white enrollment went from 10 percent to 30 percent in the last 10 years; and that 90 percent of seniors said “diverse” viewpoints were worked into class assignments “very often.” You can imagine what the place must be like.

Young Mr. Steadman wasn’t convinced by all the ballyhoo about diversity. He put up flyers on campus offering a reward to any student who could list five benefits of diversity other than ethnic food and music. Instead of answers, he got on-line threats.

• “Go punch him in the gut.”
• “Do we have a flag pole we can duct tape him to? Preferably naked.”
• “I just consider this f----r fresh meat.”
• “Drop him off in some housing projects somewhere, I’d say kick his ass.”

And, of course, there was the usual name-calling. He was a “white supremacist” who, as one black student explained “would’ve supported slavery.”

Students raged that Mr. Steadman should be expelled—and it actually looked like the school might do that, until his parents threatened to sue .[Bucking the College Diversity Cult Noah Steadman, American Renaissance, December 28, 2012]

So the “white supremacist” stayed at school, much to the fury of just about everyone else.

A group of non-whites issued a statement saying that, since the administration failed to expel this horrible person, it was “essentially legitimizing white supremacist ideologies on this campus.” They then boycotted Simon’s Rock’s annual and very earnest Diversity Day solemnities, claiming that if the school were serious about diversity, every day would be diversity day.

All this amounted to a very edifying answer to Mr. Steadman’s question about the benefits of diversity. I congratulate Simon’s Rock for making the case so clearly.

Mr. Steadman’s question was simple and factual question. But instead of answers, he got threats of violence and was called a “white supremacist.” Students at Simon’s Rock clearly had no answer to his question—but the very elites of American society have no answers either.

If you want to know what’s so great about diversity, or why whites would want to become a minority, or what’s wrong with preferring the company and culture of whites, you don’t get answers. You get screamed at. Being called a “white supremacist” is just one part of a long, moronic

The following is from a speech given by Patrick J. Buchanan during the Richard M. Nixon Centennial celebration in Washington, D.C., on January 9, 2013.

We are here tonight to celebrate the centennial of a statesman, a profile in courage and an extraordinary man we are all proud to have served: the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon.

When a gang of some eighteen self-styled anarchists, part of the Anti-Racist Action leftist militant network, launched an unprovoked assault with deadly weapons on alleged members of Stormfront, a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/whatever group and wreaked havoc in a Tinley Park IL restaurant last May 19, VDARE.com’s James Fulford pointed out that the controversial British historian David Irving had twice had meetings similarly attacked in the Chicagoland area—but the perpetrators has been let off with slaps on the wrist. With the result that it was happening again. [Tinley Park Attack: Anarcho-Tyranny In America].

Fulford contrasted this with the practice of “exemplary sentencing”—for example, the British Establishment has long congratulated itself that the long jail terms imposed on whites involved in the 1958 Notting Hill Riots crushed working class resistance to Third World immigration. (Similarly, I’ve reported that in the U.S. the Federal government has been savagely attacking blue collar symbolic speech about white dispossession a.k.a. “hate”).

Now, for the first time to my knowledge—and apparently greatly to their own and their lawyers’ surprise—five of the Leftist terrorists have been sentenced to jail:

• Jason Sutherlin, 33, was sentenced to six years in prison (he had a previous felony conviction).
• His brothers Cody, 24, and Dylan, 20, were each sentenced to five years.
• John Tucker, 26, and Alex Stuck, 22, were each sentenced to three-and-a-half years.

All pleaded guilty on January 4 to three counts of Armed Violence in Cook County Circuit Court. All had been charged with 37 felonies, all but one for crimes of violence (multiple counts each of “armed violence, aggravated battery using a deadly weapon causing grave bodily harm, mob action,” etc.), as well as one felony count of “knowingly destroying property in value of $10,000-200,000.”

The five—all white—were part of an Indiana group calling itself the “Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement” (“HARM”). They were caught when a Tinley Park police officer saw that their vehicle matched the radioed description of one that had just fled the scene of the crime. According to a press release from the office of Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez:

…officers observed hooded black sweatshirts, scarves and ASPs in plain view in the car.

A GPS device was later recovered from that car and it showed that the defendants’ car was at the scene of the crime during the time period of the attack.

[Five defendants plead guilty in Ashford House incident, January 04, 2013. VDARE.com links]

Contending that the stop of the vehicle was illegal, attorneys for the terrorists had sought to have all evidence from, and statements made at the time of the stop suppressed. [See "Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird"—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule]

The suppression hearing was due to take place Friday morning

From a distance i.e. from the Main Stream Media’s viewpoint, the December employment report released Friday [PDF] shows an economy continuing to expand at a gradual pace. The 155,000 jobs added by U.S. employers were enough to keep up with growth in the labor force (although millions are still unemployed or are too discouraged to even look for work).

But the “other” employment survey, of households rather than employers, which also reports immigration and ethnicity, provides troubling details. Household employment crept up by a minuscule 28,000 in December—with the gains redounding exclusively to Hispanics.

In December 2012:

• Total Household survey employment rose 28,000 (+0.02 percent)
• non-Hispanic employment fell by 58,000 (-0.05 percent)
• Hispanic employment rose by 86,000 (+0.39 percent)

Over the past 12 months the number of employed Hispanics grew by 7.2%, or 8.5-times the 0.85% growth reported in non-Hispanic employment.

Put differently, Hispanics are 16% of the labor force but they received 60% of the jobs created in the past year.

Hispanic employment is, of course, a proxy for our primary interest: the displacement of native-born workers by immigrants. Since January 2009—the month Barack Obama took office—data on foreign- and native-born employment has been included in the monthly employment report. Coincidence or not, this means we can piece together the monthly points to track the long-term impact of Mr. Obama’s policies:

The blue line tracks native-born job growth; the pink line immigrant job growth; while the yellow line is the ratio of immigrant to native job growth, which we call the New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI).

NVAWDI rose in December, indicating that immigrants received a larger share of the jobs created that month than in November. In fact, our analysis of Household Survey data finds that immigrants garnered the entire 28,000 rise in December employment while native employment remained unchanged.

 Conclusion: immigration explains as much as one-third of December’s rise in Hispanic employment.

Resurgent American worker displacement is also confirmed by comparing

Majority white Notre Dame is pitted against mostly black Alabama in Monday night’s national championship college football game.

Despite having a black quarterback, Everett Golson—whose performance had to be salvaged several times this year by his white backup, Tommy Rees—Notre Dame starts up to twelve whites at a time and probably has a 70 percent white roster (judging from the sidelines). Alabama starts only four whites (out of 22 starters) and sports a roster that is over 70 percent black.

College football has long been an obsession in America. A new book examines the racial politics behind the game—both on and off the field—and shows how we arrived at the point where Alabama’s storied football team—all white until the 1970s— is now overwhelmingly black.

Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White is a collection of essays by Paul Kersey, who runs the popular Stuff Black People Don’t Like blog and writes frequently for VDARE.com. Kersey is a keen observer of pop culture and often devotes his blog to racial trends in music, movies and sports.

His book starts off with the 1960s, describing how white coaches, fans and administrators reacted to the demands of black players and the black power movement.

Kersey goes into painstaking detail about controversies at Oregon State, the University of Washington, Syracuse and other colleges where white coaches tried to enforce the rules of their teams on black players. Seemingly minor things like asking a black player to shave his moustache or benching a black player in favor of a white athlete would spur protests and race activism—all supported by the (exceptionally liberal) sports media.

At the University of Washington (UW), Jim Owens was a popular coach who led his team to numerous conference titles and Rose Bowl wins throughout the 1960s. UW had long played black players but that was not enough to save Owens from constant harassment from his own black players starting in 1968.

The thirteen blacks on the roster presented Owens with a list of racial demands, such as hiring a black coach, firing a white trainer they didn’t like, and having a four man “black athletic committee” oversee any roster changes made by the coaching staff.  Owens, like most of the supposedly authoritarian white coaches profiled in the book, meekly gave in to the black power demands. A Sports Illustrated article from 1969 notes,

“Owens lives in a glass house. His every move is catalogued. The University’s Student Athletic Committee grills him on student seating and other procedural matters and on the athletic department’s requests for funds. Owens is questioned about black athletes, about discrimination, about jobs.”

[Shave Off That Thing! By John Underwood, September 1, 1969]

Only one coach didn’t give in so easily.  The University of Wyoming (of all places) used to recruit black players from the South. During the 1969 season, a group of black Wyoming players wanted to wear armbands during their game with Brigham Young University (BYU) to protest the Mormon Church’s racial theories. Coach Lloyd Eaton—known as a stern disciplinarian— denied this request and simply threw the fourteen disgruntled blacks off the team.

(Eaton and the University refused to back down, but  with 14 players suspended, Wyoming started losing games, and Eaton resigned and took a job with the Green Bay Packers.)

In the Southeastern Conference (SEC) many of the top schools such as Georgia, Louisiana State (LSU), Arkansas and Auburn remained all-white until the early 1970s. This was a sore point for black “civil rights” leaders, since these all white teams from Dixie routinely defeated integrated sides with black athletes.

Of course, these teams paid a price for fielding all-white rosters. The Ole Miss team of 1962 and the Alabama team of 1966 went undefeated yet were not named national champions due to the biases of the sports reporters of the day, who vote for the national champions.

The complexion of the SEC started to change in the 1970s. By the 1980s, teams were often half white and half black.

Main Stream Media sports reporters make a big deal out of a 1970 game between all-white Alabama and an integrated Southern California (USC) team. USC crushed Alabama which purportedly made legendary Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant decide to recruit black players.

But Kersey points out that the 1970 Alabama team was in a down year anyway. The very next year Alabama—with only two blacks on the team—defeated the same integrated USC team.

Nevertheless, the idea that blacks are superior athletes is

[VDARE.com note: His what? Helpful definition of vade mecum here).

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens, observes one of Schiller’s characters sagely: “Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.”

We all know the feeling.

And those of us in the tiny minority who keep up with race-realist and patriotic immigration reform websites know the feeling particularly well. So comprehensive is the Main Stream Media [MSM] blackout that policies we have been patiently promoting for years, facts we have long since uncovered, ideas we have worn so threadbare with discussion that we can no longer be much bothered with them, strike too many unreflective ordinary Americans as: astonishing! Radical!! Impossible!!!! Outrageous!!!!!!!! (I have been reading Tom Wolfe.)

Contrariwise, when we engage in discussion on these topics with that Ordinary American, we know with dreary certitude the slogans we shall hear:

Nation Of Immigrants! Culture of poverty! Fix the schools! Etc.

This is what the Ordinary American has heard from the MSM and not bothered to reflect upon. From Fox News or MSNBC, the New York Times or Weekly Standard, it makes very little difference—any more than it makes a difference which party’s politician he most recently heard them from. Seven years ago, a Republican Administration was vowing to “reform our immigration system” (by which it meant amnesty). Now a Democratic Administration is vowing the same thing, in well-nigh the same words.

We live in a one-party state, adrift on an ocean of clichés.

Readers often ask me how to counter the commonest points that opponents make.

There is a misconception there: I am a retired and uncourtly scholar with only meager argumentative skills and a tendency—fatal to success in verbal combat—to see the other guy’s point of view.

A couple of years ago I was invited on The View to discuss something or other. The opportunity for a moment’s fame tugged at me briefly; then I realized what easy meat I would be. I all too clearly saw myself ineffectually mumbling “Well, yes, you may have a point, but...” to some snarling Gyno-American gargoyle who wouldn’t know a database from a dildo. I politely declined the invitation.

But in arenas less fevered than daytime-TV screech-fests, the clichés are, in fact, easy to refute. Here are counters for the half-dozen commonest. I have kept the wordage low enough that you can print them up on a two-sided sheet to laminate and carry round with you as a vade mecum.

But that just shows my age: you will actually bookmark it on your iGadget.

It’s not race, it’s poverty. (By far the most common assertion when black-white gaps in school achievement or criminality are discussed. A third to a half of all race-denial arguments are some version of this. Vast multi-billion-dollar federal programs are premised on it.)

Of our 40 million self-identifying blacks, 25 percent are on food stamps; of our 268 million self-identifying whites-plus-Hispanics-plus-Asians-plus-Amerinds, nine percent are. Put it another way, blacks “commit poverty” at 2.8 times the rate of non-blacks, if we take food-stamp usage as the proxy and ignore the one-in-seven Americans who write “human” or “Klingon” in the census race box.

So if blacks commit crimes at 2.8 times the rate of non-blacks, then crime-wise it could indeed be that “it’s not race, it’s poverty.” But if the multiplier is much different, then the assertion is false.

Guess what? The multiplier is way different, depending on the crime. For homicide it’s about seven; for robbery, eight and a half. Even for white-collar crimes like fraud and bribery, it’s in the four-to-five zone. The statistics are easy to find.

For school achievement, you can remove the poverty factor. Just study test results in an integrated middle-class suburb. It’s been done, years ago. John Ogbu wrote a book about it. Years ago.

And empiricism aside, pure logic tells us that if the poor are more characteristically X (criminal, low-achieving, addicted, whatever) than the non-poor, three possibilities are in play:

(1) Poverty causes X;

(2) X causes poverty;

(3) Some underlying factor causes both poverty and X.

For crime I’d guess all three are at work, weighted about 10-20-70, with feedback loops from one to another. (Try getting a job when you have a prison record).

It’s not race, it’s culture. Notwithstanding that it’s one of the phrases most commonly heard from the inattentive, this is in fact empty of meaning—what logicians call a tautology, like “All bachelors are single.”

“Culture” in the properly anthropological sense, means “the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.” So if you say: “This group characteristically behaves and thinks like this because of their culture,” you are saying “they behave and think like this because this is how they behave and think.”

This invoking of culture as an “explanation” of culture is a bastard child of some genuine anthropology. The sire of the bastard seems to have been Alfred Kroeber, fl. 1900-1950. Prior to Kroeber’s time—and indeed in his own early writings—what we nowadays call “culture” in this context was called “history.”

Fine, OK: then it’s not race, it’s history. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. If there’s a big, long migration in your group’s history, then geography comes into play, affecting subsequent history—more feedback loops. So it’s history and geography.

And then, if the environment in which your group lives—geographical, climatic, zoological, nutritional, or social—undergoes some big change, the group’s genetic profile may be affected. But then it is race, because that’s what race is: the genetic profile of a mostly-inbreeding group.

One of the greatest advances in our understanding this past few years is that group genetic change can happen more quickly than was previously thought. Dmitry Belyaev bred the wildness out of Siberian foxes in just ten years.

That’s anecdotal. (Said in rebuttal when you mention some particular anti-white outrage by illegal aliens or other malefactors.)

Oh, you don’t like anecdotal? Fine, let’s talk statistical, then. Which database would you prefer to use: NCVS, Uniform Crime Reports, Supplementary Homicide...? I’m pretty familiar with them all, as I’m sure you are…

The guy who shot up a school just recently was white. Anecdotal!

OK, but serial killers and spree killers are predominantly white. Americans are predominantly white, so if all else were equal, this is what you’d expect.

But all things aren’t equal. Justin Cottrell’s book Rise of the Black Serial Killer does a proper statistical analysis.  Conclusion: Per capita, there are at least twice as many black as nonblack serial killers. VDARE.com has reported extensively on the topic: here, here, here...

The only people with any right to be in this country are the Native Americans. If true, this suggests two possible courses of action: