Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
199812 American Renaissance

199812 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39 |Likes:
American Renaissance, December 1998. Race and the American Identity, Part I; Book Review: ‘Jungles and Savages’; Lying About Race; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, December 1998. Race and the American Identity, Part I; Book Review: ‘Jungles and Savages’; Lying About Race; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 19, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/19/2010

pdf

 
I
 
To claim that we are a“universal nation” is todeny the past.
by Samuel Francis
n December, 1991, as Pat Buchananannounced his candidacy for the Re- publican presidential nomination, theRepublic was edified by the reflec-tions of columnist George Will. Mr.Will quoted from a column by Mr.Buchanan to the effect that “No onequestions the right of the Arabs tohave an Arab nation, of China to be aChinese nation. . . . Must we absorball the people of the world into our society and submerge our historiccharacter as a predominantly Cauca-sian Western society?” and then pro-ceeded to explain what was wrongwith the candidate’s reasoning. Mr.Buchanan, he wrote, “evidently doesnot understand what distinguishesAmerican nationality—and shouldrescue our nationalism from nativism.Ours is, as the first Republican presi-dent said, a nation dedicated to a proposition. Becoming an American isan act of political assent, not a matter of membership in any inherently privi-leged group, Caucasian or otherwise.The ‘Euro-Americans’ who foundedthis nation did not want anything likeChina or Arabia—or any Europeannation, for that matter.”Mr. Will’s bald assertion thatAmerica is a “nation” defined by no particular racial or ethnic identity andindeed by no particular content what-soever is not unique. The best-knownformulation of the same idea is the phrase popularized by Ben Watten- berg, that America is the “first univer-sal nation,” and indeed only this year the new Washington editor of 
 Na-tional Review
, John J. Miller, has pub-lished a book,
The Un-Making of  Americans
, in which he too asserts theuniversalist identity of the nation anduses that concept as the basis for en-dorsing virtually unlimited immigra-tion. “The United States can welcomeimmigrants and transform them intoAmericans,” Mr. Miller writes,“because it is a ‘proposition country.’“ The proposition by which theAmerican nation defines itself, thesentence fragment from the Declara-tion of Independence that all men arecreated equal, means that the “verysense of peoplehood derives not froma common language but from their adherence to a set of core principlesabout equality, liberty, and self-government. These ideas [Mr. Miller writes] . . . are universal. They applyto all humankind. They know no racialor ethnic limits. They are not bound by time or history. And they lie at thecenter of American nationhood. Be-cause of this, these ideas uphold anidentity into which immigrants fromall over the world can assimilate, solong as they, too, dedicate themselvesto the proposition.” Nor is the idea of America as a uni-versal nation confined to the contem- porary right. Historically, it is basedon a core concept of the left, born inthe salons of the Enlightenment andunderlying the French Revolution’scommitment to a universal “liberty,equality, and fraternity”— which wassometimes imposed at the points of rather unfraternal bayonets. Today itcontinues to inform the American leftas well as the right. Bill Clinton him-self last year cited the projected racialtransformation of the United Statesfrom a majority white to a majoritynon-white country in the next centuryas a change that “will arguably be thethird great revolution in America . . .to prove that we literally can livewithout in effect having a dominantEuropean culture. We want to becomea multiracial, multiethnic society.We’re not going to disintegrate in theface of it.” More recently, in remarksat commencement exercises at Port-land State University in Oregon inJune, Mr. Clinton praised the prospectof virtually unlimited immigration as a“powerful reminder that our Americais not so much a place as a promise,not a guarantee but a chance, not a particular race but an embrace of our common humanity.”The idea of America as a universalnation, then, is an idea shared by andincreasingly defining both sides of the political spectrum in the United States.
Continued on page 3
Samuel Francis
We are seeing the emer-gence, not just of a OneParty State in theUnited States, but alsoof a Single Ideology.
American Renaissance - 1 - December 1998
Vol. 9, No. 12 December 1998
Race and the American Identity (Part I)
There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world. – 
Thomas Jefferson
 
 
Sir - I greatly enjoyed the November issue. For years I have been hearingabout the Front National and I was pleased to get a full report on thatmovement. Bruno Gollnisch's analysisof the right and left in France is al-most perfectly applicable to theUnited States. I believe that the greatlesson for us is that there is no substi-tute for mass organization.Robert Brigg, Punta Gorda, Fla.Sir - I found your article on theFront National's celebration informa-tive and inspiring. I am a registeredRepublican, but if a more conserva-tive and nationalist party were toemerge-something like the FN-Iwould join immediately.Alex McKenzie, Charlotte, N.C.Sir - I was impressed by BrunoGollnisch's analysis of the politicalsituation in France. His remarks showthat the same diseases of the mind arecommon both to Americans and Euro- peans. I believe he is correct in hisdescription of the role of the media inspreading these diseases. As he pointsout, the Frenchman-like the Ameri-can-gets essentially the same limitedviews but with a "liberal" or "conservative" flavor that gives theillusion of debate and disagreement.Even so, French politics cannot beas intellectually sterile as ours. After all, they have not only the FN as anactive and hated movement but actualCommunists in their cabinet. If thereis a dime's worth of difference be-tween the Republicans and the De-American Renaissance - 2 - December 1998
 Letters from Readers
 mocrats the French must have at leasta dollar's worth of difference betweenthe parties they can vote for.Richard Conliff, Eugene, OregonSir - I wanted to congratulate youon the success of your most recentAR conference. I must admit thatwhen I first thought of going I as-sumed I would find 25-30 grumpymiddle-aged white men who hadsoured on America. How pleasant itwas to be totally wrong! To find 200other people like myself all in oneroom with the same grave concernsand the same racial beliefs as my ownwas like a renewal of spirit. I wouldespecially like to compliment Mr.Lubinskas on his tireless enthusiasm.The camaraderie at the sing-alongwas heart-warming and all the speak-ers were excellent. It was wonderfulto talk to all these prominent peopleone-on-one. They are obviously notthe ogres the media make them out to be, but warm people with a sincerewish to see America fulfill her racialdestiny.Perhaps at the next conference wecould hear some more positive newsand views. We must have a plan for action. I'll see you then.Marty Gatliff, St. Louis, Mo.Sir - I was disgusted to learn thatLos Angeles has decided to spendtwice as much money on MexicanIndependence Day (El Grito) as onJuly Fourth. I was struck, though, bythe comments of Adolfo Nodal, man-ager of L.A.'s Cultural Affairs Depart-ment. He says that celebrations of theFourth are just fireworks and rah rahrah. In fact, most Americans just takethe day off, but to the extent that theyactually do celebrate, Mr. Nodal isright. How many citizens reflect onthe fact that fireworks are a symbol of war, that they memorialize the will of our ancestors (well, the ancestors of some of us, anyway) to risk every-thing in the name of nation and free-dom.Mr. Nodal's implication was thatMexicans-perhaps especially thoseliving in the United States-bring moregenuine patriotism to their celebra-tion. That is because Mexicans stillhave a robust sense of nation that hasnot been beaten out of them by traitor-ous intellectuals. To hear Americanliberals talk about nationalism you'dthink they didn't even know that thenation's capital is named after a manwho was prepared to kill thousands of  people to bring into being a new na-tion. They would repudiate as hatefuland intolerant anyone who expressedsuch sentiments today.John Turley, Concord, N.H.Sir - I'm not sure who behavedmore despicably in the exchange be-tween Illinois Senator Carol Mose-ly-Braun and George Will that youdescribed in a November "O Tem- pora" item. Mr. Will writes a columnabout some of the awful things Sen.Braun has been up to. Sen. Braun saysMr. Will called her "corrupt" becausehe couldn't use the word "nigger," andlikens him to a Klansman. When eventhe liberal press clucks about her in-temperateness, Sen. Braun sends Mr.Will an apology. And how does hereply? In four words: "Apology ac-cepted. Go, Sammy!" Not only is he willing to brush thewhole thing aside, he even makes a joke of it by boosting Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs. We can be certainthat if there were a race-related ex-change in which a black had reason to be angry with a white, there would not be anything like immediate forgive-ness. And it is impossible to imaginethe equivalent of a groveling,I-want-to-be-your-friend postscriptlike "Go Sammy." What wimps white people are!Sharon Cummings, Irvine, Cal.
 
Continued from page 1
The fact that the right, in such personsas Mr. Will, Mr. Wattenberg, and Mr.Miller, to name but a few, does sharethat idea with Mr. Clinton helps ex- plain why the right today can think of nothing better to criticize the presidentfor than his sex life and his aversion totelling the truth. Any substantial criti-cism of his globalist foreign policy,his defense of affirmative action, his policy of official normalization of ho-mosexuality, his support for mass im-migration, and in particular his“national dialogue on race” would in-volve a criticism and a rejection of theuniversalist assumptions on whichthose policies are based.The common universalist assump-tions of both left and right, then, are amajor reason for the rapid conver-gence of left and right in our politicallife. They are the reason why, to coina phrase, there is not a dime’s worthof difference between them on somany issues and a major reason whywe are seeing the emergence, not justof a One Party State in the UnitedStates, but also of a Single Ideologythat informs the state and the culture.As I discovered myself, those whodissent from the Single Ideology of aUniversal Nation or Proposition Coun-try are not allowed to express their views even in self-proclaimed conser-vative newspapers [Dr. Francis wasfired as staff columnist for the
Wash-ington Times
because of his speech atthe 1994 AR conference], and it ishardly an accident that Mr. Miller ac-cuses me in his recent book of what hecalls “racial paranoia.” Prior to hiselevation to
 National Review
, he ad-mitted that he had “wanted to run [me]out of polite society for months, if notfor years.” Nor am I the only journal-ist to discover that you get “run out of  polite society” for departing from theSingle Ideology of Universalism. JoeSobran, the
 New York Post 
’s ScottMcConnell, and
 National Review
’sPeter Brimelow have all met the samefate for essentially the same reason,though all of them remain in circlesrather more polite than the ones Itravel in.But the most casual acquaintancewith the realities of American historyshows that the idea that America is or has been a universal nation, that it de-fines itself through the propositionthat “all men are created equal,” is amyth. Indeed, it is something less thana myth, it is a mere propaganda lineinvoked to justify not only mass immi-gration and the coming racial revolu-tion but also the erosion of nationalityitself in globalist free trade and a OneWorld political architecture. It also justifies the total reconstruction andre-definition of the United States as amultiracial, multicultural, and transna-tional swamp. Nevertheless, the mythof the universal nation or propositioncountry is widely accepted, and todayit represents probably the major ideo-logical obstacle to recognizing the re-ality and importance of race as a so-cial and political force.In the first place, it is not true, asMiller writes, that the “Proposition”that “all men are created equal” andthe ideas derived from it are universaland “not bound by time or history.” If that were true, there would never have been any dispute about them, let alonewars and revolutions fought over them. No one fights wars about thereally self-evident axioms of Euclid-ean geometry. Mr. Miller’s proposi-tions are very clearly the products of avery particular time and place—late18th century Europe and America— and would have been almost incon-ceivable fifty years earlier or fiftyyears later. Nor have they ever ap- peared in any other political society atany other time absent their diffusionfrom Europe or America. They are based on concepts of anthropologyand history, including an entirely ficti-tious “state of nature,” a “social con-tract,” and a view of human nature asa
tabula rasa
, that no student of hu-man society or psychology took seri-ously after the mid-19th century.Secondly, it is by no means clear what the proposition that “all men arecreated equal” does mean, either ob- jectively or in the minds of those whodrafted and adopted it in the Declara-tion. Assuming that “men” meanswomen and children as well as men,does it mean that all humans are bornequal, that they are equal, or that theyare created equal by God? If they are born or created equal, do they remainequal? If they don’t remain equal, whydo the rights with which they are sup- posedly endowed remain equal, or 
do
 those rights remain equal? If they arecreated equal by God, how do weknow this, and what does it mean any-way? We certainly do not know fromthe Old Testament that God created allmen equal, because most of it is aboutthe history of a people “chosen” byGod and favored by Him above oth-ers. Does it mean that God createdhumans equal in a spiritual sense, andif so, what does that spiritual equalityhave to do with political and social or even legal equality? Or does it meanAmerican Renaissance - 3 - December 1998
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor James P. Lubinskas Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor  — — — — — — American Renaissance is published monthly by the New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contribu-tions to it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, PO. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
 
The equality clause of theDeclaration is one of themost arcane—ans one of the most dangerous— ever written.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->