Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200003 American Renaissance

200003 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 44 |Likes:
American Renaissance, March 2000. Pushing Out Whitey; Whence the Hispanics?; Book Review: The Colorblind Leading the Colorblind; Videos: Our Wandering Ancestors; Freedom Party Enters Austrian Government; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, March 2000. Pushing Out Whitey; Whence the Hispanics?; Book Review: The Colorblind Leading the Colorblind; Videos: Our Wandering Ancestors; Freedom Party Enters Austrian Government; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 20, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


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



American Renaissance - 1 - March 2000
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol 11 No. 3March 2000
Pushing Out Whitey
American Renaissance
Who speaks for the His-panics?
By Joseph E. Fallon
ispanics, as we are so frequentlyreminded, are the fastest-grow-ing minority group in America.At just under 12 percent of the popula-tion, they are poised to overtake blacks,and massive immigration of Hispanicsis the main reason whites are projectedto become a minority sometime in themiddle of the new century. There arenow some 32 million Hispanics in thecountry, and the figure could more thantriple to 98 million and 24 percent of thepopulation in 50 years. Who are thesepeople, what do they want, and whospeaks in their name?The four main Hispanic-interestspressure groups are the League of UnitedLatin American Citizens (LULAC), theMexican American Legal Defense andEducation Fund (MALDEF), the Na-tional Council of La Raza (La Raza), andthe Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano deAztlan (MEChA). They have differenthistories and go about their work in dif-ferent ways, but they are essentiallyunited in their objectives. They promotethe agenda of a racially- and ethnically-conscious group, largely composed of immigrants, whose interests frequentlyconflict with those of the majority. In-deed, these groups exist precisely be-cause of these conflicts, and it is at thosepoints on which Hispanic and Ameri-can interests are
at odds that thegroups are most active.There are several general issues onwhich all Hispanic organizations agree.They want more immigration of theirown people to the United States. Theywant as many government benefits aspossible for non-citizens, whether in thecountry legally or not. They want to stopdeportation of illegal aliens as a preludeto full amnesty. They want to spread therights of American citizenship–somewould include even the right to vote–tonon-citizens. They want official recog-nition of their own culture, language,and national holidays, and as much pub-lic money as possible to promote them.To this end they want public school in-struction and all government services inSpanish. They want place and streetnames, public monuments, and officialobservances to commemorate their his-tory and their culture. They want recog-nition of Spanish as at least co-equalwith English, and they support Spanishas the official language in areas in whichHispanics predominate. They want toexpand all racial preference programs,and gear as many as possible to the ex-plicit benefit of Hispanics.In short, Hispanics want the verythings they would achieve if they wereable to invade and conquer the UnitedStates. Many activists do not hesitate todescribe their goal as
.The League of United Latin Ameri-can Citizens (LULAC), which is the old-est and largest of the groups, was estab-lished in 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas,by the merger of three rival, and oftenfeuding, Mexican-Texan organizations:The Order Sons of American [
], theKnights of America, and the League of Latin American Citizens.Until the 1950s, LULAC was amiddle-class, patriotic citizens’ organi-zation with an agenda of traditional“Americanism”–Mexican-Americansmust learn English and assimilate to“Anglo” culture. It stressed an Ameri-can rather than Mexican identity, and anintegral part of its work was promotionof U.S. citizenship and loyalty to theUnited States. LULAC rejected the ideathat the American Southwest should bereturned to Mexico, and opposed estab-lishment of Spanish-language enclaves.Because illegal aliens from Mexico wereviolating U.S. laws and lowering wagesfor Mexican-Americans, LULAC en-dorsed immigration control and sup-ported President Eisenhower’s “Opera-tion Wetback,” which sent one millionillegals back to Mexico.By the 1950s, LULAC had discov-ered litigation, and in 1954 it took to theU.S. Supreme Court
 Hernandez v. Texas
,the first “Hispanic” civil rights case. TheCourt overturned the murder convictionof a Mexican-American in JacksonCounty, Texas, on grounds that the com-position of the jury was unconstitutional.Although Mexicans were 14 percent of the county, none had served on a juryfor 25 years. LULAC argued that theabsence of Mexicans on the jury violatedthe convicted murderer’s 14th Amend-ment rights. Chief Justice Earl Warrenwrote that “persons of Mexican descentwere a distinct class”–neither black norwhite–and had to be an explicit part of the judicial process.This victory spelled the beginning of the end for the original LULAC. Nolonger were Mexicans trying to be likeAnglos; they were a separate class withseparate goals to be achieved by sepa-rate interest groups. The old shell re-mains: The official colors of LULAC are
Many Hispanics do nothesitate to describe theirgoal as
American Renaissance - 2 - March 2000
 Letters from Readers
Sir – In his February reply to my ar-ticle “Republican or Third Party?” Mr.Mercer writes that GOP endorsement of California’s Proposition 209 banningracial preferences hurt support for 209and contributed to Robert Dole’s defeatin the 1996 election. He says voters re- jected the GOP because they “saw Mr.Dole’s involvement as a cynical ploy”designed to lure voters. Mr. Mercercould be right. But rather than being putoff by a politician who was ready to fightaffirmative action, voters could wellhave rejected Mr. Dole’s feigned oppo-sition to quotas because they didn’t be-lieve he would follow through. UnlikeMr. Dole, Mr. Buchanan’s opposition toquotas is principled and enduring.On immigration, Mr. Mercer writesthat support for restrictions “is broad butshallow. It is simply not something mostnon-border state voters get excited about. . . .” If that really is true why is it true?Could it be because no establishmentRepublican carries the immigration ban-ner as a national issue? To a degree, is-sues are made viable by what politiciansdiscuss–and suppressed by what theyignore. In fact, the big business neocon(i.e. liberal) leaders of the GOP haveadamantly
immigration cut-backs because they want cheap foreignlabor. The GOP leadership installed oneof its own, Spencer Abraham, as headof the Senate committee dealing withimmigration.Mr. Mercer writes that the GOP issurfing its way to power on the ThirdWorld vote. He cites 49 percent Hispanicsupport for George W. Bush in Texas and60 percent for Jeb Bush in Florida. Leav-ing aside the fact that Hispanic supportfor the Bushes does not represent thenorm, Republicans can pander to minori-ties only by adopting positions that makethem more like Democrats. What man-ner of Pyrrhic victory is this, when suc-cess is measured by how many non-white voters Republicans attract by ca-tering to Third-World appetites?“Surely” Mr. Mercer writes in hisconclusion, “no AR reader wants thehavoc Democrats could wreak: worseimmigration laws, an emasculated bor-der patrol, public schools turned intomulticultural indoctrination centers andpro-quota Supreme Court Justices.” Buthow will we fare better under a Bushadministration that is just as firmly com-mitted to the globalist imperative as theDemocrats? In the end, Mr. Mercer’sargument against Pat Buchanan comesdown to one point: Mr. Bush, a memberof the GOP establishment that has all butabandoned us, is “a decent man whomight listen to reason.” Unlike us, Mr.Mercer is willing to invest one lastchance in a rotting GOP before he givesup on it. Therefore, it comes down tothe question, when is enough, enough?The reason why we must not supportthe GOP is because it is dominated
at the top
by interests antithetical to nation-alists. (This by no means precludes sup-port of good Republicans–or even of Democrats like Ohio’s Jim Traficant andVirginia’s Virgil Goode.) The Republi-cans are just as committed as the Demo-crats to nation-destroying globalism,free trade, open borders and the egali-tarian mantra. The inevitable conse-quences are consolidation of govern-ment power, loss of privacy and personalliberty, outlawing of private firearms,loss of national sovereignty, subordina-tion of Americans to global governance,eradication of European heritage andculture, economic and political dispos-session of whites, high levels of immi-gration and, eventually, genetic annihi-lation of our people.Of all the major political figures, onlyPat Buchanan even discusses some of these issues, if not always as frankly aswe would like. He is not without flawsnor is his judgement infallible–as his flir-tation with black Marxist Lenora Fulanishows. But his embrace of nationalistissues puts him head and shouldersabove the artful dodgers on the GOPcampaign trail. If we fail to support can-didates who embrace the issues we holddear, what will compel the cowards,weaklings and imposters who call them-selves Republicans to support our cause?Michael Masters, Fredericksburg, Va.Sir – Pat Buchanan is a 100 percentpatriotic American and Mr. Mercer’s ar-ticle in the Feb. issue expresses, I be-lieve, the views that drove him from theRepublican Party. He has stated–and Ibelieve–that he accepted the support of Lenora Fulani because she sought himout and agrees with his positions onNAFTA and GATT. Pat has accepted herbecause she is a member of the ReformParty. He has not changed his convic-tions one iota to obtain Miss Fulani’ssupport nor will he do so. He is a manof principle.Henry Palfrey, Venice, Fla.Sir – Leaving aside for the momentthe question of Mr. Buchanan’s elect-ability and whether Mr. Bush is even alittle bit trustworthy, the fact is that nei-ther of these wannabes has publiclyfaced the question of race squarely. I forone regard electoral politics as a wasteof our energies, but those of AR’s read-ers who still harbor illusions about elec-tions should at least insist on a candi-date with the courage to announce him-self pro-white, period.
Steve Meisenbach, San Francisco, Cal
.Sir – It was good to see the article inthe January
 American Renaissance
onLothrop Stoddard. I remember him well,having met him many times when he andmy father got together. Mr. Stoddard hada vigor and strength in the way he pre-sented his convictions that was most in-spirational. It is good that he has not beentotally forgotten.John B. Trevor, Palm Beach, Fla.
American Renaissance - 3 - March 2000
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
still red, white, and blue; the official logois still a shield emblazoned with the starsand stripes bearing the name “LULAC;”“Washington’s prayer” is still the offi-cial league prayer; “America” is still theofficial hymn, and members still recitethe Pledge of Allegiance before meet-ings. But the LULAC that so vigorouslychampioned traditional “Americanism”is gone. Today, it is an ethnic pressuregroup that opposes everything itsfounders stood for.While the original LULAC assertedthat Mexican-Americans had no inter-ests other than those of other Americans,today its goal is the group entitlementsclearly spelled out in its Legislative Plat-form displayed on its website (www.lulac.org).Among its objectives: preferences forHispanic small businesses; affirmativeaction hiring policies “to ensure diver-sity in all workplaces;” establishment of “Hispanic Serving Institutions” thatwould have “many of the same benefitsprovided to Historically Black Collegesand Universities;” more Hispanics at alllevels of the federal government, espe-cially in “key positions in the State De-partment, the Foreign Service and theUnited Nations;” appointment of 60Hispanic judges; appointment of a His-panic as the next Supreme Court justice;more “Hispanic-oriented programmingin TV and print” as well as more His-panics in “creative positions” in majormedia companies.U.S. citizenship is no longer impor-tant to LULAC. “Residents of the UnitedStates” are now eligible for membership,and they don’t have to be legal residents.U.S. citizenship is not a qualification forleague positions, whether elected or ap-pointed.In 1954, LULAC supported immigra-tion control and mass deportation of il-legal aliens. Today, it opposes both. JoséVelez, head of LULAC from 1990 to1994, has said that the U.S. Border Pa-trol is “the enemy of my people and al-ways will be.” Needless to say, LULACopposes having the military defend U.S.borders–not even to stop drug smug-glers–because “military personnel arenot trained for border patrolling andmight easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with.”In the 1950s, LULAC recognizedEnglish as the official language of theUnited States. Today, it vigorously op-poses any official recognition of English.In 1996, when the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives passed the “English Lan-guage Empowerment Act” declaringEnglish the official language, the leagueresponded with an “Action Alert” claim-ing that “English-only is incredibly di-visive because it sends the message thatthe culture of language minorities is in-ferior and illegal. With a dramatic in-crease in hate crimes and right wing ter-rorist attacks in the United States, thelast thing we need is a frivolous bill tofuel the fires of racism.”Compared to the multi-million-dollarHispanic organizations funded by theFord Foundation, LULAC is a financialpiker. In 1997, for example, it had rev-enues of only $250,000, of which$67,000 was donations. It received$150,000 in membership fees, whichdoes not exactly square with its claimsto have a membership of “approximately115,000.” That would mean dues of $1.30 a year, whereas annual member-ship is $25.00. At that rate, its $150,000take works out to 6,000 members. The“approximately 115,000” looks awfullyapproximate. At the end of 1997,LULAC had $322,000 in assets, mostlycash. In its IRS filing it listed only twodirectors–a president and treasurer–bothunpaid. At the same time and somewhatmysteriously, it managed to spend$150,000 on salaries and $62,000 ontravel.Every summer LULAC holds a Na-tional Convention & Exposition, whichcan be a big money-maker. In 1996 itappears to have turned a profit of morethan $1 million. According to its IRSreport for the year, it spent more than$390,000 on conferences and conven-tions, which must have been flossy af-fairs.
Ford Steps In
Ironically, one of the reasons LULACdropped middle-class patriotism for theethnic hustle was that it had to competewith the more radical Mexican Ameri-can Legal Defense and Education Fund(MALDEF) and National Council of LaRaza (La Raza)–which were not popu-lar Hispanic organizations but creaturesof the Ford Foundation.Perhaps the best book about MAL-DEF is
 Importing Revolution: Open Borders and The Radical Agenda
byWilliam R. Hawkins, on which this ac-count draws heavily. MALDEF’s found-er, Peter Tijerina, was a disaffectedLULAC chapter chairman who didn’tthink the league had followed up on
 Hernandez v. Texas
with enough legalactivism. He wanted LULAC to copy theNAACP Legal Defense Fund (NAACP-LDF), and in 1966, he sent a leaguemember to the NAACP-LDF’s Chicagoconvention. On the strength of contactsmade at the convention, Jack Greenberg,president of the NAACP-LDF, arrangedfor Mr. Tijerina to meet Bill Pincus, headof the Ford Foundation. Mr. Pincusagreed to fund a new organization topush Mexican interests exactly the waythe NAACP-LDF pushed black inter-ests. Mr. Tijerina was MALDEF’s firstexecutive director, and, in 1970, MarioObledo, former Texas Attorney General,
In 1954, LULAC sup-ported immigration con-trol and mass deportationof illegal aliens.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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