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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200004 American Renaissance

200004 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 44 |Likes:
American Renaissance, April 2000. Don’t Write Off the Liberals; Non-white Liberals?; Turkey Should Not Join Europe; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, April 2000. Don’t Write Off the Liberals; Non-white Liberals?; Turkey Should Not Join Europe; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 20, 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

12/20/2010

pdf

 
American Renaissance - 1 - April 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. 4April 2000
Don’t Write Off the Liberals
American Renaissance
A real racial movementcannot be exclusively con-servative.
by Melinda Jelliby
I
am a liberal. I am also a whitewoman committed to my race andcivilization. I am in favor of muchof what is called “big government,” Ithink the Second Amendment is ananachronism, and I have been reading
 American Renaissance
for more thanfive years. This may appear to be ashocking contradiction but, as I willshow, it is not. Nor am I alone in myviews. Admittedly, there are not verymany of us liberals-cum-racial nation-alists, but I predict there will be more.The white consciousness movementneeds friends–from across the politicalspectrum–if it is to succeed, and it shouldnot structure itself in a way that discour-ages potential allies needlessly.To read AR is to get the impressionthat racial consciousness is a packagedeal based mostly on opposition; oppo-sition to welfare, gun control, big gov-ernment, women’s liberation, homo-sexuals, the United Nations, free trade,and maybe even public schools and so-cial security. There is no logical reasonracial consciousness has to be tied tothese things, and to do so as explicitlyas AR does risks failing to be–dare I sayit?–inclusive. It is true that a clear un-derstanding of race is today more likelyto be found among people who also takecertain positions generally called “con-servative,” but there is nothing inherentor inevitable about this.
The Historical Perspective
As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually everyaspect of what is today called “racism”was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be nec-essary to note that that fabric has alwaysbeen made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were “liberal”by today’s standards. “Liberalism,” inthat sense, was perfectly compatible witha healthy understanding of the meaningof race.Although it probably saddens thehearts of most AR readers, it is possibleto view American history as the steadytriumph of “liberalism,” defined as thesteady dismantling of tradition, hierar-chy, and inequality in the search forequality. The very establishment of thecountry as a republic rather than a mon-archy was in this sense liberal, as were along list of Constitutional and legalchanges: abolition of the property quali-fication for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, votingrights for women, compulsory educa-tion, the income tax, social security, or-ganized labor, inheritance taxes, etc.,etc., all the way up to the AmericansWith Disabilities Act and homosexualmarriage.Whether one sees this as the marchof progress or the march of folly, mypoint is that however bitter the debatesmay have been over these policies, upuntil just a few decades ago neither sidedoubted that America was a Europeannation that could not survive if it ceasedto be European. The suffragettes, for ex-ample, wanted votes for women–a radi-cal idea at the time–but they were not“liberal” about race. And of course,many abolitionists, including AbrahamLincoln, wanted to free the slaves andthen expel them from the country. In thatsense, he was more “conservative” onrace than the supporters of slavery; hedidn’t want blacks in the country under
any
circumstances. My point is that eversince the founding of this country, it hasbeen possible to work for far-reaching,even revolutionary change without up-setting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.It is easy to find “liberals” fromAmerica’s past who were also “racists.”Take William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), certainly no reactionary. Hethought blacks should be prevented fromvoting “on the ground that civilizationhas a right to preserve itself.” At the1924 Democratic convention he spokestrongly against a motion to condemnthe Ku Klux Klan, and helped defeat it.His Populist Party running mate in 1886,Tom Watson (1856–1924), went evenfurther, calling blacks a “hideous, omi-nous, national menace.” In 1908 Watsonran for public office “standing squarelyfor white supremacy.” “Lynch law is agood sign,” he wrote. “It shows that asense of justice yet lives among thepeople.” When he died, the leader of theAmerican Socialist Party Eugene Debs(1855–1926)–certainly no conservative–wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic soul
It is racial nuttiness thatis our enemy, not liberal-ism, and they are not thesame thing.
Eugene Debs . . . sensible socialism.
 
American Renaissance - 2 - April 2000
 Letters from Readers
AR is Hiring!
W
e are looking for anassistant editor to work in our Virginia office.The ideal candidate writes well, hasa strong commitment to what westand for, understands computers,and knows something about man-aging an office.Please send your resume to:PO Box 527Oakton, VA 22124Sir–In the February issue there is asurvey on diversity in which you expresssome surprise at the results. Why? I hatediversity but would never say so in pub-lic. In my almost entirely WASP, gatedcommunity near Houston there arepeople who whisper how they feel butnever say it out loud because:1. They could be ostracized.2. Their husbands could get fired.3. Their families could be branded asracists.4. It might hurt their children.Do you need a better example of whathappens than John Rocker? To be pro-white is to be psychologically unbal-anced. You need a head shrink if youdon’t like to see your country filling upwith foreigners.Name Withheld, Houston, Tex.Sir–In your last issue you mentionedthat President Clinton praised diversityagain. He claimed that all races share99.9 percent of their genes, suggestingthere are no important racial differences.We also share 98.9 percent of our geneswith Chimpanzees. The 0.1 percent dif-ference should be multiplied by the num-ber of decisive genes, which give hun-dreds of thousands of possible varia-tions. We know that such group differ-ences have been generated over thou-sands of generations and we see the im-portance of those differences every day.Dr. H.F. Matare, Malibu, Cal.Sir–Once again the GOP is telling usvia Shawn Mercer’s February article:“We should not support Pat Buchanan.”Instead of voting our own interests Mr.Mercer wants us to have faith that some-where down the pike the Republicanswill hear us out.This is not the first time they said this.Remember Bob Dole? The GOPscreamed at us that Buchanan had nochance of winning in 1996 and that weshould support Mr. Dole. Some of usvoted for him even though he did notunderstand the immigration issue, andat one point his campaign degeneratedinto telling children not to use drugs.Well, I’ve learned a lesson. Never voteagainst your own best interests and nevervote for candidates who lack commit-ment to those interests.I’ve been burned before. It’s Buchan-an or nothing.Robert Simmons, San Rafael, Cal.Sir–I cannot help being amused by thedispute over whether to support Patrick Buchanan or the Republicans. The is-sues are not complex and can be sum-marized as follows: (1) Though neitherparty cares about our race, it is betterfor us to have Republicans rather thanDemocrats in office. (2) Patrick Buchan-an cannot win even if he does get theReform Party nomination and the $13million. (3) A vote for Mr. Buchanan isa vote taken away from a Republican andincreases our chances of being governedby the people who will do us the mostharm. Therefore, if you care deeplyabout who rules us, vote for the Repub-licans and not for Patrick Buchanan.However, you may view the electionas a huge opinion poll rather than achoice of rulers. Even if you know Mr.Buchanan cannot win and even if youknow that voting for him makes a Demo-cratic administration more likely, youmight vote for him because that sendsthe country a message.
 But what mes-sage?
The people who tell us what tothink have called Mr. Buchanan a Naziso many times that if he gets 20 percentof the vote, logically they should tell usthat 20 percent of Americans are Nazis.But they won’t. They will say peoplevoted for him because of his stand onabortion, trade, or foreign policy. Theywill get away with this partly because itis true but also because Mr. Buchanandoes not consistently carry the bannerof our race. If you could cast your pro-test vote for David Duke or Jared Tay-lor or Michael Levin
that 
would send aclear message–but you can’t.Our choice is unpleasantly simple:Vote for a Republican because you knowMr. Buchanan cannot be elected, or casta protest vote that may be dismissed asan anti-feminist assault on abortion. I donot believe there is any other way toview our options.Ira Halberg, Philadelphia, Pa.Sir–Sam Francis gets to the heart of the racial issue in his review of DavidHorowitz’s
 Hating Whitey
. I have readthe book and agree with Dr. Francis’analysis. Mr. Horowitz does a great jobchronicling the racism and obviousdouble-standards used against whitestoday but he has a blind spot. Does hereally believe griping and appealing to“the best angels” of blacks will stop themfrom “hating whitey”?Kevin Farmer, Columbus, Ohio
There’s Still Time...
. . . to register for the AR confer-ence and spend the weekend of March 31 - April 2 with people who
think the way you do.
Please call(703) 716-0900.
 
American Renaissance - 3 - April 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
who fought for power over evil hiswhole life long in the interest of the com-mon people, and they loved and honoredhim.”The common people, certainly as rep-resented by the Socialist Party, were notliberal on race. The socialists reachedthe height of their power during the earlypart of this century and at one time couldclaim 2,000 elected officials. They weresplit on the Negro question, but the anti-black faction was probably the stronger.The party organ,
Social Democratic Herald 
, argued on Sept. 14, 1901 thatblacks were inferior, depraved degener-ates who went “around raping womenand children.” The socialist press dis-missed any white woman who consortedwith blacks as “depraved.”In 1903, the Second Internationalcriticized American socialists for notspeaking out against lynching and otherviolence against blacks. The SocialistNational Quorum explained that Ameri-cans were silent on the subject becauseonly the abolition of capitalism and thetriumph of socialism could prevent thefurther procreation of black “lynchablehuman degenerates.” At the 1910 Social-ist Party Congress, the Committee onImmigration called for the “uncondi-tional exclusion” of Chinese and Japa-nese on the grounds that America al-ready had problems enough dealing withNegroes. There was a strong view withinthe party that it was capitalism thatforced the races to live and work to-gether, and that under Socialism the raceproblem would be solved for good bycomplete segregation.In their racial views, American social-ists were in complete agreement withKarl Marx. He and Friedrich Engels bothdespised blacks and used the Englishword “nigger” in private correspondenceeven though they wrote in German.Marx called his rival for leadership of the German socialism movement, Ferdi-nand Lassalle, “the Jewish nigger,” anddescribed him thus, in a letter to Engels:“It is now entirely clear to me, that,as his cranial structure and hair typeprove, Lassalle is descended from theNegroes, who joined Moses’ flight fromEgypt (that is, assuming his mother, orhis paternal grandmother, did not crosswith a nigger). . . . The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”Samuel Gompers (1850–1924) epito-mizes old-school American liberalism.He was a Jewish immigrant who found-ed the American Federation of Laborand worked constantly for “progressive”causes, but when it came to race, he wasfirmly in the white man’s corner. In a1921 letter to the president of HaverfordCollege explaining the AFL’s positionon immigration, he wrote: “Those whobelieve in unrestricted immigration wantthis country Chinaized. But I firmly be-lieve that there are too many right-think-ing people in our country to permit suchan evil.” In an AFL monograph entitled“Meat vs. Rice: American ManhoodAgainst Asiatic Coolieism,” he wrote,“It must be clear to every thinking manand woman that while there is hardly asingle reason for the admission of Asi-atics, there are hundreds of good andstrong reasons for their absolute exclu-sion.”The author Jack London (1876–1916)was, in his day, the best known, mosthighly paid, and popular author in theworld. He was a committed socialist butalso a white supremacist. He wrote thatsocialism was “devised for the happinessof certain kindred races. It is devised soas to give more strength to these certainkindred favored races so that they maysurvive and inherit the earth to the ex-tinction of the lesser, weaker races.”There were, however, some races thatwere not going to go quietly extinct butwould have to be taken firmly in hand.In a little essay called “The YellowPeril,” London worried about whatwould happen if the 400 million Chi-nese were ever taken in hand by the 45million Japanese and led on a crusadeagainst the white man:“Four hundred million indefatigableworkers (deft, intelligent, and unafraidto die), aroused and rejuvenescent, man-aged and guided by forty-five millionadditional human beings who are splen-did fighting animals, scientific and mod-ern, constitute that menace to the West-ern world which has been well namedthe ‘Yellow Peril.’ ”The English philosopher BertrandRussell, (1872–1970) was another well-known socialist free-thinker, and eter-nal gadfly to all things conservativeshold dear–well, almost all things. On therace question he was entirely on Jack London’s side. In a 1923 book called
Prospects of Industrial Civilization
hewrote:“[The] white population of the worldwill soon cease to increase. The Asiaticraces will be longer, and the Negroes stilllonger, before their birth rate falls suffi-ciently to make their numbers stablewithout help of war and pestilence. . . .Until that happens, the benefits aimedat by socialism can only be partially re-alized, and the less prolific races willhave to defend themselves against the
 
Samuel Gompers: “Amerian ManhoodAgainst Asiatic Coolieism”

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)//-->