200301 american renaissance

American Renaissance - 1 - January 2003

Continued on page 3

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

Vol. 14 No. 1 January 2003

What Really Happened?

American Renaissance

Dangerous myths aboutthe Japanese relocationcamps.

Aconviction that we should beashamed about the treat-ment of Japanese-Ameri-

cans during World War II is part ofthe conventional wisdom of ourtime. Columnist Myriam Marquezwrote recently in an entirely typi-cal op-ed piece of the “injustices”and the “abominations” of the “in-ternment camps for Americans ofJapanese descent during WorldWar II.”1 Americans believe withan almost religious conviction thattheir country committed a heinousact, and many take pride in de-nouncing the actions of their fathersand grandfathers.

What actually happened, and why?Before entering into details, here is anoutline of the facts:

As a war-time measure, the federalgovernment required all Japanese-Americans to evacuate a large part ofthe American Pacific coast. They werefree to move from the exclusion zoneon their own, and to resettle anywhereelse in the United States. Those who didnot were taken first to assembly centersand then to ten relocation centers builtfor them as far east as Arkansas. Theycould stay in the centers if they wishedor they could take jobs or attend collegeanywhere in the United States except theWest Coast.

The centers were therefore not intern-ment camps, but living facilities offeredby the government to those who wereforbidden to live in the exclusion areaand who did not make other arrange-ments. The centers, though built in thesame austere style as American Armybarracks, had many amenities and wererun by Japanese-Americans. By the endof 1944, with eight months of war still

to go, several thousand people had al-ready left the camps to find homes andjobs in the central and eastern UnitedStates. The US Army was careful to lookafter the evacuees’ property, and Con-gress appropriated several million dol-

lars soon after the war to compensateJapanese-Americans for losses that didoccur.

Were there any forcible internments?Immediately after the attack on PearlHarbor, the Department of Justice incar-cerated about 3,000 Japanese aliens whohad been on a “danger” list since 1939.2

There were also some Japanese-Ameri-cans in the relocation centers who

openly supported Japan in the war. Theyand their families (since no familieswere split), were sent to a real intern-ment camp behind barbed wire, wherefor the duration of the war they paradedwith rising-sun armbands and celebratedDecember 7 as a holiday. The govern-ment actually locked up only a small

minority of Japanese-Americans—thosewho posed a genuine war-time securityrisk.

The Sequence of Events

On February 19, 1942, PresidentFranklin Roosevelt signed Execu-tive Order 9066, authorizing theestablishment of military exclusionareas. The next month, Lt. GeneralJohn L. DeWitt declared a majorportion of the West Coast (approxi-mately the western halves ofWashington, Oregon and Califor-nia, and the southern third of Ari-zona) a military area from whichall people of Japanese descentwould have to move. There was noeffect on Japanese-Americans liv-ing elsewhere, other than that they

could not go to the West Coast. Theevacuation was put in the hands of Col.Karl R. Bendetsen, and Roosevelt cre-ated the War Relocation Authority(WRA) under the direction of MiltonEisenhower, brother of Dwight Eisen-hower, to help the evacuees. Congressvoted to approve the relocation, and theUS Supreme Court considered and up-held relocation no fewer than threetimes.3 Civil liberties groups were silentor supported evacuation, and there wasno opposition in Congress.4

For a short time, the plan was to helpthe Japanese-Americans move inland ontheir own. Col. Bendetsen, who man-aged the evacuation, later testified that“funds were provided for them [and]we informed them . . . where there weresafe motels in which they could stayovernight.”5 Most families were not ableto move quickly, however, and gover-nors of states east of the exclusion zonecomplained about the prospect of thou-sands of people of Japanese descentmoving into their states without over-sight.6

Japanese were free tomove from the west-coast

exclusion area on theirown, and to resettleanywhere else in the

United States.


Letters from ReadersSir — I recently came across Jared

Taylor’s review of No Escape: MaleRape in US Prisons by Joanne Mariner(see AR, April 2002, and AR web page).As a racially-conscious white prisonerwho has been incarcerated in Virginiafor 8 ½ years, it is obvious to me thatneither Miss Mariner nor Mr. Taylor hasany real knowledge of prison life.

It is true that the majority of rape vic-tims in prison are white, and that therapists are overwhelmingly black. How-ever, Mr. Taylor too easily accepts the“victim” label. I think he would be sur-prised to learn that most of these “vic-tims” bring it on themselves, and actualforce is used quite rarely. For the mostpart, prisoners who are raped are youngmen who run up gambling or drug debts,or more commonly, fall prey to the in-timidation game. About 90 percent ofthe time, the intimidator is nothing morethan a grown-up version of the school-yard bully—deep down he is a coward.If you take a swing at him, he will backdown. Just like wolves, they pursuethose who offer the least resistance.

Mr. Taylor is apparently outraged atwhat he calls lack of white racial unityin prison and thinks “whites allow otherwhites to be raped.” While the formeris partially true, the latter is a misunder-standing. When I was incarcerated, therewas a great deal of white solidarity. Thenew generation of prisoners consistsmostly of “whiggers” who listen to rapmusic, and dress and act like blacks.Only a fool would expect them to showany racial solidarity.

As for letting blacks rape whites, as Ipointed out earlier, actual physical forceis seldom used. Usually the victim justgives in to pressure. If force is used, the

victim has the chance to fight. If hefights or at least tries to resist, and he’swhite, I’ll help him—whether he’s ra-cially aware or not. But if he won’t de-fend himself, why should I help him? Ifhe won’t fight for himself, he surelywon’t fight for me in a tight situation ora race riot, and he clearly isn’t going tofight for his white sisters either. We haveno use for men like that.

I doubt the credibility of many of theanecdotes cited by Mr. Taylor. In oneexample he gave, a prisoner claimed hehad “become a man’s sex toy in orderto avoid being constantly gang-raped byother prisoners.” This man obviouslywanted to have a homosexual relation-ship. Ignoring the inmate’s blatant cow-ardice, it is inconceivable to me that thisman was as unwilling as he claims. Hecould easily have avoided all that bygoing straight to a guard and asking tobe placed in protective custody. If thestaff refused to lock him up, all he hadto do was spit on him and he would havebeen guaranteed to go straight to the“hole” where he would have been as safeas at home. He made his choice. I fail tofind the words to describe some of theother men whose stories Mr. Taylortakes seriously.

I served part of my sentence at theGreensville Correctional Center duringthe ’90s, when it was the worst prisonin the state. I was housed in BuildingA1—better known as the infamousHousing Unit #7—where stabbings andmurders were everyday occurrences.Ninety-three percent or more of the2,800 inmates were black. In my entiretime in the system, I have only been ap-proached once by a would-be predator,whom I quickly drove off. And I amneither a large man, nor a great fighter,nor do I belong to a clique or gang.

There are a few things to rememberin prison. Mind your business, don’tborrow, don’t gamble, and limit youracquaintances. Every smiling face is nota friend. And if someone approaches youin a threatening manner, break out yourtrusty sockful of “D” size batteries(when you first come to prison and haveno friends, no status, and no rep, yoursocks and a six-pack of Evereadies areyour best friends) or your nearest ACadapter cord and introduce yourself witha few good licks to his head. Even ifyou lose, at least you fought. You willgain respect. And remember: Nothingcan happen to you that the doctor can’tfix.

Robb Harksen, Red Onion StatePrison, Pound, Va.

Sir — I will never understand the fas-cination Christian groups have withprimitive Third Worlders, like the Ne-braska Dinka mentioned in last month’sissue and the Somalis currently invad-ing Lewiston, Maine (see AR, Oct.2002). Yes, the federal government isultimately to blame for granting thesedubious “asylees” admittance, but wereit not for the pressure put on the gov-ernment by religious activists (in orderto get those hefty resettlement assistancegrants), maybe the State Departmentwould occasionally say no, or woulddirect these people to countries wherethey are more likely to fit in. I ratherdoubt clitoridectomy is commonplace inMaine, but since this is one of the quaintpractices of these new Americans, itmay become what Lewiston is knownfor in the future.

When a company wants to build anew factory, or a utility wants to put upa new power plant, the government re-quires an environmental impact state-ment. I propose that from now on, be-fore any religious organization can spon-sor yet another tribe of stone-age refu-gees, it must produce a cultural impactstatement. This would include the coststo taxpayers for welfare, housing andfood subsidies, educating immigrantchildren, and incarcerating immigrantcriminals. I also think people in the com-munities should be allowed to vote onwhether they want these newcomers ornot. These Christians may have guiltyconsciences, but they have no right toease them on the backs of people whodo not.

Sean Alan Price, Mansfield, Ohio


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 $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. 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 Electronic Mail: [email protected]

Continued from page 1

American RenaissanceJared Taylor, Editor

Stephen Webster, Assistant EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Contributing Editor

George McDaniel, Web Page Editor

Accordingly, by late March the relo-cation effort entered the “assembly cen-ter” phase. Japanese-Americans weremoved into improvised centers on theWest Coast until ten more-permanentrelocation centers could be built furthereast in Arizona, Arkansas, eastern Cali-fornia, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Wyo-ming. The evacuees could choose eitherto live in an assembly center or move

east on their own.7 Public apprehensionlessened over time, partly due to calm-ing efforts by federal officials, and dur-ing the assembly center phase, some4,000 families moved inland “on theirown recognizance” with WRA help.8

The temporary centers were rudimen-tary, but the government and the Japa-nese-Americans made them as pleasantas possible. They were run almost en-tirely by the occupants. With WRA sup-port, the centers quickly set up librar-ies, Boy Scout troops, arts and craftsclasses, musical groups, film programs,basketball and baseball leagues, play-

grounds, calisthenics classes, and evenin one case a pitch-and-putt golf course.Because the occupants did not have jobs(or regular expenses for that matter),men and women were able to devoteconsiderable energy to camp activities.

The assembly center phase was overby the end of summer, 1942, with allJapanese-Americans moved to themore-substantial relocation centers assoon as they were constructed. By No-vember 1, 1942, the relocation centershoused what was to be their largestpopulation: 106,770.9

The relocation centers were built inthe same way as housing for Americansoldiers overseas. Scholar, universitypresident, and eventual United StatesSenator S.I. Hayakawa wrote exten-sively about the centers but was neverin one, having spent the war years teach-ing at Illinois Institute of Technology.He called the centers “dreary places,”but they rapidly became livable commu-nities with many amenities: stores, the-aters, hairdressers, newspapers, ping-pong, judo, boxing, badminton, sumowrestling, basketball and baseballleagues, gardens, softball diamonds, ten-nis courts, hiking trails, classes in cal-ligraphy and other subjects, art compe-titions, libraries with Japanese-languagesections, and worship facilities (for anyreligion except Shinto, which involvedemperor-worship).

The centers had accredited schoolsfrom kindergarten to high school, withmusic classes, school choruses, achieve-ment testing, high school newspapersand annuals, dances, PTA meetings, stu-dent councils and class officers. TheUniversity of Utah lent caps and gownsfor high school graduation at the Topazcenter.10 The education programs were

designed to encourage assimilation, aprocess criticized by multiculturaliststoday as a form of “racism.”11 The WRAhad veto power, but otherwise the inter-nal operation of the camps, like that ofthe assembly centers, was in the handsof evacuees, who elected their own rep-resentatives.12

As their name suggests, the reloca-tion centers were camps from whichJapanese-Americans could dispersethroughout the United States, other thanto the West Coast, and S.I. Hayakawawrote that about half chose to do that.13

(David D. Lowman, a war-time intelli-gence officer who has written about theinternments, sets the figure slightlylower at “about 30,000.”14)

Hayakawa tells us that by September1942 “hundreds of Issei [first-generationimmigrant] railroad workers were re-stored to their jobs in eastern Oregon.”15

The WRA operated field offices in cit-ies in the mid-west and east to find jobsfor anyone who wanted to leave.Churches maintained hostels in four cit-ies for job-seekers.16 The governmenteven appropriated four million dollarsto help evacuees start businesses awayfrom the centers. Many, particularlythose who had worked in agriculture, leftthe camps to do seasonal farm work.Five thousand left the centers to harvestsugar beets in various western states.17

College-age young people attendeduniversity during the war. Two hundredand fifty were already attending 143

colleges by the fall semester of 1942,just nine months after Pearl Harbor.Eventually, 4,300 attended 300 differ-ent universities.18 Some won scholar-ships, and a “relocation council” fundedby foundations and churches helpedwith college expenses.19

In early 1944—with a year and a halfof war still remaining—the governmentbegan to let those who had passed secu-rity investigations return to the WestCoast. The exclusion order was endedfor all Japanese-Americans on January2, 1945, well before V-J Day in August.Except for the internment camp at Tule

The government appro-priated four million dol-

lars to help evacuees startbusinesses away from the

relocation centers.


Lake, all the centers were closed byDecember 1, 1945.20

Tule Lake held three kinds of people:Those who had applied to be repatriatedto Japan, those who had answered “no”to a loyalty questionnaire and had notbeen cleared by further investigation,and those for whom the government hadevidence of disloyalty.21

Concentration Camps?

It is common to write of the reloca-tion centers as if they were concentra-tion camps. One author evokes the “par-allel experience of the German Jews,”and it is common to speak of the cen-ters as “concentration camps,” as if theywere no different from Dachau orBuchenwald.22 Critics often refer to“barbed wire and armed guards.” If therelocation centers actually had these itwould certainly suggest forcible incar-ceration. This is therefore an importantfactual question, and Col. Bendetsenwas adamant during Congressionalhearings in 1984 that there were nowatchtowers or barbed wire: “That is100 percent false . . . . Because of the

actions of outraged U.S. citizens [afterthe Pearl Harbor attack], of which I donot approve, it was necessary in someof the assembly centers, particularlySanta Anita, . . . to protect the evacuees. . . and that is the only place whereguards were used.” As to “relocationcenters . . . there was not a guard at allat any of them. That would not be trueof Tule Lake” [which had guards afterit became an internment center].23

Three years earlier, Col. Bendetsenhad given similar testimony before thehighly partisan commission that even-tually recommended paying reparationsto the evacuees. During those hearings,Senator Edward Brooke asked about theconflict between his account and those

of others. He replied: “A great part ofthe testimony was given by people whowere not yet born then. . . . You had tes-timony available from many people whowere not given an opportunity to presentit, some of whom werephysically intimidated bythe people who were in at-tendance day after day . . . .I have received a barrageof mail. . . . There weremany people who in goodfaith wanted to testify thatthey thought the condi-tions were nowhere closeto some of the testimony[claiming there was intern-ment] you have heard.”24

Neither in 1981 nor in1984 did any of Col. Ben-detsen’s questioners con-tradict his testimony or of-fer to produce evidence thathe was mistaken.

There are many books about the cen-ters that include photographs of fencesand watchtowers, but they rarely explainwhere the pictures were taken or when.What are offered implicitly as photos of

scenes common to all the reloca-tion centers may well be picturesof Tule Lake.

There have been equally ten-dentious claims about theft or de-struction of evacuees’ property.No doubt some Japanese-Ameri-cans suffered at the hands of un-scrupulous opportunists in early1942. However, the army tookgreat care to protect property. AsCol. Bendetsen testified:

“When you are told that thehousehold goods of the evacueesafter I took over were dissipated,

that is totally false. The truth is that allof the household goods of those whowere evacuated or who left voluntarilywere indexed, stored, and warehouse re-ceipts were given. And those who settledin the interior on their own told us, andwe shipped it to them free of charge. Asfar as their crops were concerned, theallegations are totally false. I used theAgriculture Department to arrange har-vesting after they left and to sell thecrops at auction, and the Federal ReserveSystem, at my request, handled the pro-ceeds. The proceeds were carefully de-posited in their bank accounts in theWest to each individual owner. Andmany of these farms were farmed thewhole time—not sold at bargain prices,

but leased—and the proceeds werebased on the market value of the har-vest.”25

Losses that occurred despite this ef-fort were compensated by means of the

“Claims Act” enacted by Congress in1948. Evacuees received a total of $38million for property losses.

Reasons for Relocation

What were the military reasons forthe exclusion order? The destruction ofthe American fleet at Pearl Harbor leftthe West Coast of the United States opento attack. A Japanese submarine shelleda California oil refinery on February 23,1942, and Los Angeles imposed a black-out two days later when five unidenti-fied planes appeared in the sky. Draft-ees hurried to make up for the country’slack of preparation, even training withwooden guns Louisiana.26

In late 1941 and early 1942, the Japa-nese swept across Asia, attacking HongKong, Malaysia, the Philippines, Wakeand Midway islands, Thailand, Guamand Singapore. In February 1942, theJapanese won a brilliant naval victoryin the Battle of the Java Sea. The Japa-nese advance seemed unstoppable.

It is ludicrous to argue that there wasno military justification for the reloca-tion. Local officials worried about thevulnerability of the water supply and oflarge-scale irrigation systems, whichwere impossible to guard. Anyone whoknows anything about California’s fre-quent brush fires understands why offi-cials feared a possible “systematic cam-paign of incendiarism,” especially dur-ing the dry season between May andOctober. Earl Warren, who was thenAttorney General of California and later

Poston, Arizona, center under construction.


became Chief Justice of the US SupremeCourt, produced maps showing that theJapanese-American population was con-centrated near shipyards and other vitalinstallations.27

At the same time, it was clear fromdecoded Japanese government messagesthat Japanese-Americans were spyingfor Japan. The US Navy had broken theJapanese diplomatic code in 1938, anddecoded messages classified “higherthan Top Secret,” went under the codename MAGIC to a handful of people atthe very top of the Roosevelt adminis-tration.

Intelligence officer David Lowmantestified in 1984 about Japanese espio-nage: “Included among the diplomaticcommunications were hundreds of re-ports dealing with espionage activitiesin the United States and its possessions.. . . In recruiting Japanese second-gen-eration and resident nationals, Tokyowarned to use the utmost caution.” InApril 1941, “Tokyo instructed all theconsulates to wire home lists of first-and second-generation Japanese. . . .”The next month, “Japanese consulateson the west coast reported to Tokyo thatfirst- and second-generation Japanesehad been successfully recruited and werenow spying on shipments of airplanesand war material in the San Diego andSan Pedro areas. They were reportingon activities within aircraft plants inSeattle and Los Angeles. Local Japanese. . . were reporting on shipping activi-ties at the Bremerton Naval Yard [nearSeattle]. . . . The Los Angeles consulatereported: ‘We shall maintain connec-tions with our second generation whoare at present in the Army to keep usinformed’. . . . Seattle followed with asimilar dispatch.”28

On January 25, 1942, the Secretaryof War informed the Attorney Generalthat “a few days ago it was reported bymilitary observers on the Pacific coastthat not a single ship had sailed fromour Pacific ports without being subse-quently attacked.”29 Was it unreasonableto assume that spies were at work?

Three days before Pearl Harbor, theOffice of Naval Intelligence had re-ported a Japanese “intelligence machine

geared for war, in operation, and utiliz-ing west coast Japanese” (emphasisadded). Intelligence officer Lowmantestified in 1984 that on January 21,1942, an Army Intelligence bulletin“stated flat out that the Japanesegovernment’s espionage net containingJapanese aliens, first- and second-gen-eration Japanese and other nationals isnow thoroughly organizedand working underground”(emphasis added).30

Every American officialwho received the MAGICdecodings favored relocation.The later critics, however,minimized the importance ofMAGIC. John J. McCloy wasAssistant Secretary of Warduring World War II, and tes-tified in 1984 that “word hasgone out now from the lob-byists to ‘laugh off’ the rev-elations of MAGIC.”31

Rather than laugh them off,however, the highly partisanCommission on Wartime Relocationsimply ignored them. In its 1982 report,Personal Justice Denied, it claimedfalsely that “not a single documented actof espionage, sabotage or fifth columnactivity was committed by an Americancitizen of Japanese ancestry or by a resi-dent Japanese alien on the West Coast.”32

Two years later in 1984, McCloy tes-tified that “proof that the Commissiondid not conduct an investigation wor-thy of the name is demonstrated by thefact that it never identified the existenceof MAGIC.” He said that “by the time[of] the Commission’s investigation theexistence of MAGIC was almost noto-riously known by all knowledgeablemilitary and intelligence sources in thiscountry and Japan, as well,”33 but thecommission pretended it had never ex-isted.

Entirely apart from the MAGIC in-tercepts, Japanese-American disloyaltywas clearly demonstrated in a little-known incident on the Hawaiian islandof Niihau. A Japanese pilot shot downduring the Pearl Harbor attack held 133islanders hostage for six days—with thehelp of a resident Japanese alien and aJapanese-American couple, who alliedthemselves with the pilot. A later navalintelligence report said the Japanese-American couple “had previouslyshown no anti-American tendencies.”34

Many Japanese-Americans wereloyal: approximately 9,000 served with

the 442nd Regimental Combat Team inItaly and France; 3,700 others weretranslators in the Pacific. In all, morethan 33,000 may have served the UnitedStates during the war, though somemaintain that this number is too high.35

Many, however, were not loyal.Ninety-four percent of military-age mensaid they would not serve in the US

armed forces (the 442nd regiment wasrecruited from the others). During thewar, 19,000 applied to be returned toJapan, and 8,000 actually went back.There was also an active anti-Americanmovement among the Japanese who re-mained. In May 1943, Secretary of WarHenry L. Stimson wrote about “a vi-cious, well-organized, pro-Japanesegroup to be found at each relocationcenter,” adding that because of them ithad become dangerous for other Japa-nese-Americans to express loyalty to theUnited States.36 In late 1942, membersof the pro-Japanese faction at one cen-ter attacked and beat leaders of the Japa-nese American Citizens League becausethe League approved a resolution sup-porting the United States.37 Eventually,there were so many anti-American massmeetings, mob actions, attacks onpeople who were suspected of being“pro-American informers”— even a“general strike”—that the Americanauthorities separated out those loyal toJapan and incarcerated them at the TuleLake center.

It is worth noting that Canada actu-ally interned its Japanese-Canadians,and did not allow them to return to theWest Coast of Canada until 1949.38

Critics have often charged that anyspecial treatment of Japanese-Ameri-cans should have been carried out onlyafter individual investigations. How-ever, according to the 1940 census, there

Center at Poston, Arizona.

It was clear from decodedgovernment messages

that Japanese-Americanswere spying for Japan.


were 126,947 people of Japanese originliving in the United States. Almost80,000 were born here, but many helddual American and Japanese citizenship.This would have been a huge popula-tion to process individually. If there hadbeen no emergency, a case-by-case in-quiry would arguably have been moreconsistent with standards of due process,

though this would depend on whetherthere was a workable system for deter-mining loyalty.

At the same time, the Japanese-American community was tightly-knitand unassimilated, and this made indi-vidual assessment difficult. Japanesewere isolated partly because Americanshad not welcomed an influx of Asiansbut also partly because of their own de-sire to maintain their identity. Chief Jus-tice Harlan Stone of the US SupremeCourt noted in 1943 that approximately10,000 of those born in the United Stateshad received all or part of their school-ing in Japan, and that even those whoattended school in the United States “aresent to Japanese language schools out-side the regular hours of public schoolsin the locality.”39 S. I. Hayakawa wrotethat “reverence for the emperor wastaught in the Japanese-languageschools.”40 Lack of assimilation madethe community impenetrable to Ameri-can intelligence, and also fertile for es-pionage and potential terrorism. Indi-vidual investigations were all the moreimpractical because potential witnessesloyal to America were subject to pres-sure and even physical intimidation bythe pro-Japan element. The SupremeCourt, in a decision written by ChiefJustice Stone, agreed that it was reason-able to believe individual determinationscould not be made.41

It is common to argue that the relo-cation program was “racist,” because itaffected a group that was non-white.This charge completely fails to consider

the American public’s emotions duringthe war. Americans were outraged by theattack on Pearl Harbor and the atroci-ties committed by Japanese forcesagainst Americans in the Philippines. Atall times, one of the reasons for reloca-tion was to protect the Japanese-Ameri-cans themselves from this public anger.The anger is today called “racist,” but it

was natural under the circumstances.Chief Justice Stone’s comments

at the time could well apply to thequestion of “profiling” young Arabmen in the United States after Sep-tember 11: “Because racial discrimi-nations are in most circumstancesirrelevant and therefore prohibited,it by no means follows that, in deal-ing with the perils of war, Congressand the Executive are wholly pre-cluded from taking into accountthose facts and circumstances whichare relevant . . . and which may in

fact place citizens of one ancestry in adifferent category from others.”42

Critics have also argued that reloca-tion was “racist” because German-Americans and Italian-Americans wereleft alone. This only reflects widespreadignorance. By October 1941, the gov-ernment had drawn up plans for intern-ing Germans and Italians—some ofthem US citizens—living in the UnitedStates. The plan went into effect the dayafter the Pearl Harbor attack, which wasthree days before the US was officiallyat war with Germany and Italy. TheRoosevelt administration interned (asopposed to relocating) 31,275 peopleduring the war. Of this number only16,849 were Japanese. The rest wereGermans (10,905), Italians (3,278), anda mix of other Europeans includingHungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians(243). All Japanese internees were re-leased by June 1946, but some Germansand other Europeans were kept lockedup until August 1948. Germans and Ital-ians were not excluded and relocatedfrom the East Coast, but if there hadbeen fear of German attacks (as therewas of Japanese attacks), and if therehad been evidence of anti-Americanactivity among German-Americansthere is little doubt the governmentwould have acted.43

Another important distinction is thatGermans and Italians had been in theUnited States much longer than Japa-nese, and had by assimilation clearlycome to identify as Americans.44 Theyserved in the armed forces at much

higher rates than Japanese-Americans,and almost none sought to renounceAmerican citizenship or seek repatria-tion as thousands of Japanese-Ameri-cans did.45

Other critics of relocation argue thatit was inconsistent with the govern-ment’s treatment of the large number ofJapanese-Americans in Hawaii, whowere allowed to stay in their homes.Why the difference? The answer is thatall of Hawaii was placed under martiallaw and “governed like a military campfor all its inhabitants.”46 The fact thatJapanese were left where they were inHawaii also supports the view that gov-ernment policies towards them were not“racist,” but a response to the conditionsat the time. A “racist” governmentwould presumably have relocated allJapanese.

The Aftermath

The “Japanese American EvacuationClaims Act,” passed by Congress in1948, provided for approximately $38million to be paid for property losses.The country considered the matterclosed, and for 20 years it was. The “re-dress movement” for reparations beganin the late 1960s. In testimony before aCongressional subcommittee in 1984,Dr. Ken Masugi, then a resident fellowat the Claremont Institute, described theorigins of the “concentration camp” ver-sion of what happened. He spoke of“Japanese-Americans who were activ-ists in the sixties and then became law-yers and community organizers.” Theypropounded a story of abuse that met“one of the goals of the sixties protestmovements: To show that America is aracist society, and that even in the caseof World War II, America’s noblest for-eign war, America was corrupt, havingits own ‘concentration camps.’ ”47

President Gerald Ford responded tothis kind of pressure in 1976 with a proc-lamation saying, “We know now whatwe should have known then: not onlywas [the] evacuation wrong, but Japa-nese-Americans were and are loyalAmericans.”48 Four years later, in thefinal year of the Carter administration,Congress established the “Commissionon Wartime Relocation and Internmentof Civilians,” which in early 1983 is-sued its tendentious report, PersonalJustice Denied.

The hearings held by this Commis-sion were, in effect, an ideological show-

Gila River Center near Butte, Arizona.


Children at the Poston center. They receivedcompensation, too.

trial. War-time Assistant Secretary ofWar John J. McCloy has written: “Themanner and the atmosphere in which thehearings were held was outrageous anda disgrace. . . . I have been before thisCongress many times in hearings, but Ihave never been subjected to the indig-nities that I was at the hearings of theRelocation Commission. Every time I

tried to say anything in favor of theUnited States or in favor of the Presi-dent of the United States, there werehisses and boos and stomping of feet.”49

The House Subcommittee on Admin-istrative Law and Governmental Rela-tions held hearings in 1984, and in 1988Congress enacted the “Japanese MoneyBill,” which was ushered through Con-gress by Representative Barney Frank(D-MA), after he became chairman ofthe committee handling it.50 Under thatAct, at least $20,000 was paid to eachof more than 60,000 surviving evacu-ees, and each received an apology.51 Thesame year, the Canadians also apolo-gized, and paid $C21,000 to approxi-mately 10,000 survivors.

Recipients of American largesse, forwhom the money was to compensate for“mental suffering and deprivation ofrights,” included:

· 490 people who many years agowent to live in Japan and are Japanesecitizens.

· 6,000 who were born in the centers,and thus suffered “mental anguish”when they were babies.

· The 4,300 who left the centers to goto American universities during the war.

· 1,370 Japanese aliens whom the FBIincarcerated for security reasons (inDepartment of Justice InternmentCamps) at the beginning of the war.

· 3,500 Japanese-Americans whoasked to be sent to Japan after renounc-ing their U.S. citizenship.

· 160 evacuees who belonged to thepro-Japanese Black Dragon Societywhile in the camps.52

Lowman tells us that “the Act alsorequired payment [of $5,00053] to sev-eral hundred Japanese who during thewar were sent from Latin America to theU.S. because they were considered se-curity risks,” and were interned here.54

In all, the government handed out$1.6 billion. Five million dollarsmore were appropriated to “publi-cize” the Commission’s findings,and to declare it “official history.”55

Needless to say, the govern-ment’s actions raise a host of ques-tions.

How does an ideologically-fab-ricated myth become accepted—with virtually no opposition—bythe citizens of an allegedly free so-ciety? Why did our elected repre-sentatives, the press, and academichistorians surrender their roles as

guardians of the truth? Why do ordinaryAmericans come to feel a vested inter-est in believing that their own govern-ment was vicious and racist? Now thata precedent exists for paying “repara-tions” on the basis of myths, what is tostop other “aggrieved groups” from bull-dozing their way to something similar?Clearly, none of this could have hap-pened were it not for an utterly unnatu-ral and dangerous unwillingness ofwhites to defend themselves.

This article is adapted by AR stafffrom original research by Dwight D.Murphey, professor of business law atWichita State University. His findingsfirst appeared in The Dispossession ofthe American Indian—and Other KeyIssues in American History, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1995.

1Myriam Marquez, “Avalanche isBurying Our Civil Liberties,” WichitaEagle, Sept. 8, 2002.

2 Dillon S. Myer, Uprooted Ameri-cans, (Tucson: University of ArizonaPress, 1971) p. 293.

3 These are the Hirabayashi case andKorematsu v. United States, 323 U.S.214 (1944), and Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S.283 (1944).

4 Report of the Commission on War-time Relocation and Internment of Ci-vilians, Personal Justice Denied (Wash-ington: Government Printing Office,1982), pp. 9, 69, 99.

5 Testimony of Karl R. Bendetsenbefore the Commission on WartimeRelocation and Internment of Civilians,July 8, 1981, p. 140. Typescript avail-able from national archives.

6 1981 Hearings, Testimony of KarlR. Bendetsen, p. 140.

7 1981 Hearings, Bendetsen, pp. 10,74.

8 1981 Hearings, Bendetsen, pp. 10,74.

9 Commission Report, Personal Jus-tice Denied, p. 149.

10 Myer, Uprooted Americans, pp. 48,56-7.

11 Roger Daniels et. al., editors, Japa-nese Americans: From Relocation toRedress (Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press, 1986), p. 61.


13 S. I. Hayakawa, Through the Com-munication Barrier (New York: Harper& Row, Publishers, 1979), p. 133.

14 David D. Lowman, MAGIC: TheUntold Story of U.S. Intelligence and theEvacuation of the Japanese Residentsfrom the West Coast During WWII (Nocity given: Athena Press, Inc., 2000), p.20.

15 Hayakawa, Communication Bar-rier, p. 132.




19 Daniels, Japanese Americans, p.43.

20 1984 Hearings, testimony of JohnJ. McCloy, p. 125.

21 1984 Hearings, Bendetsen testi-mony, p. 682; Lillian Baker, Americanand Japanese Relocation in World WarII: Fact, Fiction & Fallacy (Medford,Oregon: Webb Research Group, 1990),p. 52.

22 Daniels, Japanese Americans, p.188.

23 1984 Hearings, Bendetsen testi-mony, p. 698.



26 Wichita Eagle, Feb. 23, 1992 (ar-ticle noting the 50th anniversary of therefinery shelling); Myer, UprootedAmericans, p. 24.

27 Hearings of the Select CommitteeInvestigating National Defense Migra-

ΩΩΩΩΩ


What William Clinton’s war on “bigotry” did to a car factory inKragujevac, Serbia, in April 1999.

tion, House of Representatives [“TolanCommittee Hearings”], Feb.-Mar. 1942,pp. 10996, 10997, 11107, 10973.

28 1984 Hearings, Lowman testi-mony, pp. 431, 434.

29 Lowman, MAGIC, p. 243.30 1984 Hearings, Lowman testi-

mony, pp. 437, 438.31 1984 Hearings, McCloy testimony,

p. 148.32 Commission Report, Personal Jus-

tice Denied, p. 3.33 1984 Hearings, McCloy testimony,

p. 120.34 1984 Hearings, Lowman testi-

mony, p. 474.35 Baker, American and Japanese

Relocation in World War II, p. 35.36 Myer, Uprooted Americans, p. 63.37 Myer, Uprooted Americans, p. 61.

38 1984 Hearings, testimony of JohnJ. McCloy, p. 125.

39 Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81(1943) at pp. 96, 97.

40 Hayakawa, Communication Bar-rier, p. 135.

41 Hirabayashi, p. 99.42 Hirabayashi, p. 100.43 Arnold Krammer, Undue Process:

The Untold Story of America’s GermanAlien Internees (New York: Rowan andLittlefield, 1997).

44 See Sen. Hayakawa’s observationabout this at Hayakawa, CommunicationBarrier, p. 583; and the comments byMadera, California, officials on the samepoint, Tolan Committee Hearings, EarlWarren testimony, 10995.

45 Krammer, Undue Process.46 Hearings [1984 Hearings] before

the Subcommittee on Administrative

Law and Governmental Relations of theCommittee on the Judiciary, U.S. Houseof Representatives, June 20, 21 27 andSept. 12, 1984, page 583, testimony ofDr. Ken Masugi.

47 1984 Hearings, Masugi testimony,p. 579.

48 Daniels, Japanese Americans, pp.188, 5.

49 1984 Hearings, McCloy testimony,p. 125.

50 Lowman, MAGIC, p. 111.51 Wall Street Journal, September 10,

1991, letter from William J. Hopwood.52 Wall Street Journal, Hopwood let-

ter.53 Lowman, MAGIC, p. 119, footnote

23.54 Lowman, MAGIC, p. 119.55 Lowman, MAGIC, pp. 2, 82, 83.

The White Man’s DiseasePaul Edward Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy

University of Missouri Press, 2002, 158 pp., $29.95.One who is not is Paul Gottfried, pro-

fessor of humanities at ElizabethtownCollege, archenemy of the neo-cons, ARconference speaker, and author of sev-eral books on politics and the plight ofthe West. His latest volume is a dissec-tion of the poisoned state of mind thatmakes whites not only hate their ownhistory and identity, but commands them

to glorify and feel inferior to “victims”of all kinds: homosexuals, non-whites,foreigners, women, AIDS carriers, andessentially anyone unlike themselves.American Renaissance generally con-centrates on the crisis that has arisen

from loss of nerve among whites, butcontemporary liberalism has turned itsguns in many directions. Men, hetero-sexuals, explorers, war heroes, andmany others who were once honored orat least considered normal are likewisemade out to be villains. Only in the Westdo we find this kind of self-loathing, andMulticulturalism and the Politics of

Guilt is as good a main-stream treatment of the whiteman’s disease as one is likelyto find.

The Therapeutic State

Government, of course,has taken the lead in promot-ing the disorder. “The admin-istrative state,” writes Prof.Gottfried, “most plainly inthe United States, has cometo define itself through astruggle against social pa-thology.” The most impor-tant objective for our rulersis to stamp out “improper

thought,” to equate any rem-nants of traditional thinking with

mental illness. They are more passion-ate about fighting “bigotry” than fight-ing crime, and it is this compulsion toeradicate every time-tested loyalty as ifit were insanity that inspires Prof.Gottfried’s name—“the therapeutic

A good diagnosis but nocure.

reviewed by Jared Taylor

As the editor of American Renais-sance I meet many people: somefriendly, some hostile, all inter-

esting. One of the most inter-esting was a black nationalistand separatist named WilliamBrock, with whom I becameacquainted not long after start-ing AR. He was friendly, can-did, and amusing, and re-spected white people who wereloyal to their race and culture.He once asked me a question Ihave never forgotten: “I thinkit’s great, of course, but whyare white people committingsuicide?” He mused about theinfluence of Christianity, worldwars, and “the Jews,” but nei-ther of us had convincing an-swers.

White suicide is, of course, thegreat question of our time, thoughonly a small minority see clearly enougheven to raise it. We see what is happen-ing, and those who celebrate our declinesee it too, but the vast majority of whitesare shuffling towards the precipice withglazed eyes and obedient smiles.


state”—for the form of government thatnow prevails in the West. This book doesnot get very far in explaining why thestate tries to poison our minds and dis-credit the past, but it includes a goodanalysis of the principles governmentsfollow:

“Fairness, caring, and openness,”Prof. Gottfried writes, must be the hall-marks of all government action. How-ever, by no means everyone benefitsequally from all this “caring.” The statediligently divides us up into victims andvictimizers, with the latter getting the“caring” and the former getting theblame. Victims are all non-whites,women, homosexuals, foreigners, immi-grants, and sometimes Jews. The vic-timizers are, of course, white men, andthe government punishes and rewardsus accordingly: “Some people will bepumped up to feel good about whoeverthey are, while others will be requiredto forfeit, disavow, or disparage theirinherited identities.” An important ob-jective is to promote everything andeveryone who is as different as possiblefrom what used to be the norm: “Thestate glorifies differences from the wayof life associated with the once-major-ity population. It hands out rewards tothose who personify the desired differ-ences, while taking away cultural recog-nition and even political rights from thosewho do not.” A mix of perverts, misfits,hermaphrodites, aliens, and non-whites“represent[s] what democracy as publicadministration holds up as the happy al-ternative to how things used to be.”

Public figures become part- or evenfull-time arbiters of proper and improperthought, which results in the “replace-ment of traditional ethical values by acult of psychological normality.” Thosewho disagree with modern liberalism arenot simply mistaken; they are eitheroutright evil or, more likely, sufferingfrom a mental illness that sufficient“sensitivity training” will cure.

For whites—but only for whites—ithas become a sign of good taste to mini-mize the accomplishments of their an-cestors and to admire all things alien.Biological loyalties are suspect—at leastfor whites—and for all people there canbe no such thing as human nature thatdetermines sex roles or makes any of usimpervious to the state-administeredtherapy that will cure us of retrogradeviews.

Clearly, it is in the interests of “vic-tims” to milk their status for every pos-

sible advantage, but what is in it for the“victimizers”? “Why don’t they objectpassionately to their own apparent hu-miliation?” asks Prof. Gottfried. He doesnot offer any answers, but he does pointout that “a transformation of the self-image of the majority population wouldhave had to take place in order for thetherapeutic state to have reached its

present strength.” The white man, inother words, has been neutered. Buthow? Why? Prof. Gottfried does not say.

Government has worried about ourpsychological state for many years. Prof.Gottfried finds that as far back as 1965,President Lyndon Johnson was telling

us: “We dream of a world where all arefed and charged with hope. And we shallmake it so.” It is not the US govern-ment’s job to feed the world; it is arro-gance bordering on insanity to talk about“charging it with hope.” It is utopiancrusades of this kind that send our busy-body government into every corner ofour lives to refashion us and “charge uswith hope.”

One of the most effective mind-con-trol techniques is constantly to evoke thespecter of “fascism.” This works best inGermany, but even in the United States,

which went to war against fascism, theslightest revolt against “sensitivity” or“caring” is supposed to lead straight tobrown shirts and stiff-arm salutes. And,as Prof. Gottfried notes, “the uncon-quered fascist past has a remarkablyfluid content. It keeps taking the shapeof whatever is deemed politically incor-rect, be it restrictions on immigration,enforcement of customary gender dis-tinctions, or paying tribute to a recog-nizably European national heritage.”Anything the bureaucrats don’t like is“fascist.”

Needless to say, America is so good,so well fed, and so charged with hopethat its techniques must be exported torest of the world. As Prof. Gottfried ex-plains, “Spearheading this mission havebeen media and academic personalities,from the American president on down,who define foreign policy as an exten-sion of domestic crusades.” This meansstamping out “racism,” “sexism,” “ho-mophobia,” and all other forms ofnewly-discovered mental illness are biginternational challenges that guide ourforeign relations. Once again, LyndonJohnson was an early pioneer, pointingout in 1966 that “our safest guide to whatwe do abroad is always what we do athome.” True to form, President WilliamClinton justified our war against Serbiaas an assault on “bigotry.” War is now,in Prof. Gottfried’s words, “the exerciseof power as a form of caring;” we nowkill people if they show too many signsof unacceptable mental illnesses.

As Prof. Gottfried points out, Ameri-can notions of “caring,” “inclusiveness,”and deprecation of the majority popula-tion are quickly becoming the norm inEurope. Germany, in particular, mustconsider everything in light of whetherit atones properly for Nazism. Prof.Gottfried describes “Weimar 1999,” thecelebration of the 250th anniversary ofGoethe’s birth in that town, as an espe-cially loathsome example. The events,for which there was federal governmentmoney, concentrated as much on thenearby Nazi camp of Buchenwald as onthe ancient Thuringian town ostensiblybeing honored. This new brand of Ger-man “civic patriotism” even requiredstaged, public conversations betweenWeimar school children and elderly sur-vivors of the camps. Any celebration ofanything German must be tempered withapologies for Hitler.

As Prof. Gottfried explains, “main-tenance of a contrite mood serves so-

“The unconquered fascistpast has a remarkablyfluid content. It keeps

taking the shape of what-ever is deemed politically

incorrect, be it restric-tions on immigration,

enforcement of custom-ary gender distinctions,or paying tribute to a

recognizably Europeannational heritage.”

ffin.

A little ‘sexism,’ a little ‘homophobia,’ andnext thing you know . . . .


cial reform.” Once Germans are suffi-ciently softened up, even letting inswarms of non-white immigrants can beseen as atonement for Nazism. The

country is so hysterical about the dan-gers of “improper thought” that a fed-eral judge, Rudolf Wassermann, wrotein 1994,“He who denies the truth aboutthe Nazi extermination camps threatensthe very foundations upon which theGerman Federal Republic is erected.”The very foundations! Prof. Gottfriedquotes the famous German historianErnst Nolte: “There will continue to bea kind of soft totalitarianism, which iscertainly not bloody, which allows somerange of opinions, and which is evenpermissive in matters that are not po-litically important, but intellectually itis totalitarianism all the same.” He couldhave been writing about America.

Of course, a history of slavery or aNazi past are hardly required for whiteabasement. The British likewise (like allother Europeans) “have declared waragainst the scourge of prejudice directedagainst racial minorities that have im-migrated to England.” Fortunately, thereare still cultural and political strains inEurope that protect it to some degreeagainst complete collapse. The motto ofthe Vlaams Blok, a Flemish politicalparty in Belgium, states its priorities inits motto: Eigen Volk Eerst (Our OwnPeople First). Although in the UnitedStates the Republican Party is unable tobring itself to oppose immigration de-spite the clear fact that non-white new-comers vote overwhelmingly for Demo-crats, Europeans are not so paralyzed byracial guilt. Umberto Bossi of the Ital-ian Lega Nord (League of the North)strongly criticizes the Italian govern-

ment for letting in so many foreignerswho will vote for the left.

In most European countries there isvigorous above-ground political resis-tance to dispossession, though not al-ways for explicitly racial reasons. PimFortuyn in Holland was opposed to Arabimmigrants because he thought theycould not be made to understand thehomosexual-libertine culture of contem-porary Holland. Pia Kjaersgaard of thePeoples Party in Denmark is somewhatmore openly racial, but opposes immi-gration primarily because immigrants donot share the altruistic values that makethe welfare state work. In any case, op-position of this kind has arisen in re-sponse to Europe’s infection with theoriginally American disease of glorify-ing the alien.

New Face of the Left

Professor Gottfried points out thatalthough the great campaigns for “po-litical correctness” are now associatedwith the left, they represent an almostcomplete shift away from the old social-ist utopia. Practically no one wants tonationalize the economy anymore orgive power to the proletariat, and evensome liberals pay lip service to the ideathat there must be limits on the redis-tributionist efforts of government. Thisis partly because basic welfare state pro-grams are now universal throughout thewhite world. Our rulers are now intenton changing thinking and behaviorrather than establishing the classlesssociety. If the foot soldier of the old leftwas the trade unionist, that of the newis the social worker. Far more impor-tant than improving the lot of the work-ers is stamping out “improper thought,”and coddling non-whites and homosexu-als.

The therapeutic state has discoveredthat much as it loves to boss us aroundfor our own good, planned economiessimply do not produce enough of thewealth the state is so eager to redistrib-ute. Therefore our rulers are happy topromote free markets and competition(within “caring” limits) to, as Prof.Gottfried explains, “provide the statewith more funds for social benefits bygenerating taxable wealth.” He goes onto explain that “social control by thestate does not presuppose a socializedeconomy, and government interventioninto child rearing, spousal relations, andintergroup dynamics can now go for-

ward in conjunction with marketforces.” Tony Blair’s Labour Party, forexample no longer treats capitalists andwealthy industrialists as the enemy.They are the ones who produce thewealth needed to pay for the nanny state.Mr. Blair’s political passions are essen-tially indistinguishable from those ofHillary Clinton’s, with opposition to theHouse of Lords thrown in for local color.

Today, the European left loves theUnited States as the pioneer of “politi-cal correctness.” It would like nothingmore than to enforce American-styleuniformity across the entire politicalspectrum, to put immigration and rightsfor homosexuals beyond political dis-cussion, and make apologies for racismand the Holocaust the new national re-ligion. In a complete reversal of the ColdWar period, it is now the European rightrather than the left that opposes Ameri-can power and influence.

As always, the left craves power—the immense power of the therapeuticstate. The left used to want the power torun the entire economy; now it wantsthe power to control our thoughts. AsCanadian Human Rights Commissionmember John Hucker explains, “youcan’t rely simply on the free exchangeof ideas to cleanse the environment ofhate and intolerance.” Canada thereforeforbids “hate and intolerance,” and gagsand punishes the guilty. Likewise, manyEuropean countries have criminalized“incitement of hatred” and “Holocaustdenial.” In the United States, the FirstAmendment still protects speech, butstiffer penalties for “hate crimes” arealready punishment for unfashionablepreferences. We have entered the age ofwhat Prof. Gottfried calls “coercive tol-erance.”

Role of Religion

What, though, has caused the whiteman’s disease? Prof. Gottfried makes acase for the view that Protestantism pre-pared whites (and men and gentiles andhomosexuals) for neutering. His argu-ments are thoughtful but not, I believe,convincing. It is true that the fiercer vari-ants of Protestantism held that man wasinherently depraved, and saved not bywords but only by God’s grace. This tra-dition now takes the form of “membersof the majority group constantly dwell-ing on their collective sins and propos-ing public expiation.” Of course the sinsto be battled have changed. No longer

Geothe: Nazi precursor?


is there much worry about fornication,adultery, perversity, covetousness, sloth,or bearing false witness. Instead, “Yale,Harvard, and Princeton Divinity Schoolshave centered their training on combat-ing sexism, homophobia, and mi-sogyny.” Prof. Gottfried argues that theconstant spectacle of white apol-ogy has a religious origin: By con-fessing his sins, the white man “isallowed to feel righteous individu-ally while being part of a histori-cally wicked society. And as acountry redeemed from its own rac-ist, sexist, homophobic past, the re-pentant Protestant is allowed to goforth and bring enlightenment toothers.” He adds that “people pro-claim their guilt for acts they havenot committed” because “publiccontrition serves to showcase theself-consciously virtuous, while atthe same time satisfying those em-battled minorities that are demand-ing public recognition as victims.”

The Church is now the hand-maiden of the state in promotingthe new religion of tolerance, givingclerics a moral influence they lost at theend of the Middle Ages. In just one gen-eration, the very nature of its teachingshave shifted, and it agrees that its ownpast is just one more chapter in the de-praved history of the white, male gen-tile oppressor. Christians now apologizefor the Crusades, for having permittedslavery, sexism, and colonialism. Andas Prof. Gottfried points out, AmericanJews have even succeeded in launchinga movement that “has shifted from sharpdistinctions drawn between Nazism andChristianity to a gradual blurring of thetwo.” Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic and genocidal.

Prof. Gottfried argues that the thera-peutic state could not have taken rootwithout Calvinism and the guilt it fos-

tered. This might be an attractive theorywere it not for the fact that white self-hatred seems to be just as common inCatholic countries, and particularly viru-lent among secularists. Furthermore, thepeople who perform today’s ritual con-fessions of sexist and racist sin do not

do so out of anything like the convic-tion that drove their Calvinist ancestors.William Clinton may go through themotions of white abasement—andgladly reap the approval it brings—butcan anyone believe he feels real guiltfor anything? Edward Kennedy is os-tensibly a Catholic, but is he cut fromdifferent cloth?

It is certainly true that the crusade tosmite victimizers has become the newreligion of the white man, but is this re-ally a perversion of Christianity? Is itnot just as likely to be an expression ofunderlying zealotry that in the pastmight have appeared as Christianity butnow appears as something completelydifferent. The mind of the Salem witch-burner is not unlike that of today’s “anti-

racists” and other liberal crusaders, butwitch-burning did not give rise to anti-Western hatred. Fanaticism comes inmany forms, some religious some not,and for hundreds of years, Christianitydefended the West in all its pride, andcontempt for outsiders. Its transforma-

tion into an echo chamber for self-hate is surely more symptom thancause of our decline.

Where, though, will all this end?Prof. Gottfried suggests it mayeventually dawn on the elites thatwhat they have put in motion is notin their interests: “Staggering num-bers of unfriendly foreigners musttell in the end,” he writes, and“Hispanic racialists, Third Worldpatriarchs, and Mexican irre-dentists will likely eat up thepresent regime, if given the demo-graphic chance.” At the same time,he shows keen insight into the pro-foundly irrational nature of thesickness that grips the West:

“Thinking these leaders governthrough calculation disregards the

fantasy aspect of their vision, one thathas likewise spread among their citizen-subjects. The relation between the two[rulers and subjects] is derived partlyfrom a shared obsession, a misplacedquest for religious redemption that takesthe form of worshipping at the multi-cultural shrine.” Self-destructive mad-ness can rage on until the lights go outif it is driven by what amounts to reli-gious fervor.

What Prof. Gottfried is telling us isthat Third-World invasion, devaluationof marriage, praise for perversity, scornfor historical tradition—all these thingswill eventually destroy the very societ-ies over which the elites now throne—but even the clear prospect of destruc-tion may not shift them from theircourse.

The churches have traded old sins for new ones.

Prof. Gottfried Replies

Jared Taylor deserves to be congratu-lated for his thoughtful study of mybook on multiculturalism. It is hard

to imagine a review that deals with itsthemes more fairly and more intelli-gently. Most significantly, Mr. Taylorhas grasped the subversive nature of mywork, to expose politicized “sensitivity”and the indulgence of designated vic-tims as a social sickness and as a tool of

governmental control. But multicul-turalism is not simply a way to jerkpeople around. It traps the political classin a set of beliefs and sentiments thatopens the door to its own destructionthrough violence, social pathologiesand, finally, the enthusiastic attempt todigest often indigestible minorities en-dowed with special rights. Those whoembrace this ideology are not acting in

a cold, calculating fashion but are sub-ject to the same até, fated delusion, asthose they mislead.

This brings me to what Mr. Taylorfinds unsatisfactory about my argu-ments. One, I do not propose any solu-tion to the problems posed. Althoughwhat is at issue is a thoroughly diseasedZeitgeist, I’m not sure how one setsabout changing it. One change that I dosuggest may take place: Being overrunby Latinos and other self-consciouslyanti-WASP and anti-white “minorities,”would keep the present generation from

ΩΩΩΩΩ


turning on the Western past. But such acatastrophe is not the solution that wouldrecommend itself to readers of AR.

Two, Mr. Taylor criticizes my treat-ment of American Protestantism, as achief cultural cause of the politics ofguilt. As my reviewer well knows, thereis no one who respects more deeply thanI his Southern Calvinist roots or the as-sociation of Calvinism with both manlyvirtue and bourgeois morality. Unfortu-nately that once admirable Calvinist tra-dition has been recently invoked, how-ever selectively, to support questionableattitudes, from social guilt to moralrighteousness identified with holding“sensitive” political opinions. (This, bythe way, can be seen even among thoseonce stalwart Calvinists, the SouthernPresbyterians and Dutch Calvinists, whonow routinely apologize for past insen-sitivities.) The linking of Bill Clintonto a liberalized Calvinism is thereforenot far-fetched. As a member of a South-ern denomination that came out ofPresbyterianism, by way of the hard-shell Baptists, Mr. Clinton shows reli-gious habits that are at least derivativelyCalvinist.

Moreover, anyone looking at the re-ligious underpinnings of political cor-rectness in the U.S. should be drawn tothe Protestant matrix of our political

values. Since its beginnings this onceproudly WASP country has been pre-dominantly Protestant, and Protestantdenominations, including the Evan-gelicals, have showcased their outreachto minorities for decades. Unlike muchof the Catholic clergy, moreover, mostmainline Protestant leaders, as illus-trated by their umbrella organizations,have been social and moral radicals

throughout the second half of the twen-tieth century.

My own interpretive emphasis on therelation between Protestant religiosityand the politics of guilt does not ofcourse exclude the consideration ofother religious variables. AmericanCatholics stand to the left of mostAmerican Protestants in their votinghabits; and in a shocking exposé ofradicalized Catholic clergy, L’invasionesilenziosa, Alberto Carosa and GuidoVignelli document the Italian Catholichierarchy’s support for Islamic immigra-tion and the endorsement of state-sup-port of Islamic cultural activities. Butmy argument is not gainsaid becausethere are Catholic as well as Protestantgravediggers of the West. In the US,Protestant leaders, who link Christianmorality and multiculturalism withimmigrationism, have been the major re-ligious influence in changing politicalattitudes on this side of the Atlantic. Andsince the US has vastly more cultural aswell as political and economic powerthan other countries, it is our identifi-ably Protestant politics of guilt that isthe most likely to be exported.

Paul Gottfried

Georgians and Their FlagA symbol for increasingwhite unity?

by Andy Nowicki

The impressive showing by Repub-licans on November 5 serves as areminder that white voters still

count—which shouldn’t be surprising,since they are still the majority. In Geor-gia, where Democratic governor RoyBarnes suffered an unexpected defeat toRepublican challenger Sonny Perdue,whites may have felt especially moti-vated. Mr. Barnes had angered a greatmany whites by unilaterally removingthe Confederate Battle Flag from thestate flag, and then ramming the changethrough the state legislature.

This move won fawning plauditsfrom the Atlanta media, but countryfolk—as well as many suburban dwell-ers outside the I-285 perimeter aroundAtlanta—reacted differently. For over ayear, in many a yard off many a countryroad, there were “Let Us Vote” signs,displaying the old state flag. These signsreferred to the referendum in Missis-

sippi, in which citizens voted to keepthe battle-flag design in their state flag.

As election time neared, these signshad a new message: “Boot Barnes.” Mr.Barnes’s public appearances drew pro-tests from the Sons of Confederate Vet-erans and other Southern heritagegroups. Mr. Perdue, evidently seeing

potential pay dirt, said that if he wereelected he would hold a referendum onthe flag. Still, Mr. Barnes overwhelm-ingly outspent Mr. Perdue, and in theweek leading up to the election, led bya comfortable margin in all polls.

Sonny Perdue’s stunning victory sentconvulsions through the South, and in-deed the nation. Mr. Perdue will be thefirst Republican governor of Georgiasince Rufus Bullock and his posse ofReconstructionist carpetbaggers and

scalawags took over in 1868. Did theflag issue convince “yellow dog Demo-crats” to go over to the party of Lincoln?One cannot know for sure, but whitesvoted Republican in greater numbersthan ever before.

Since Lyndon Johnson signed theCivil Rights Act of 1964, whites in theSouth, who had voted strongly for FDRand JFK, slowly began to drift towardsthe GOP in national races, even if theycontinued to vote Democrat locally.Since blacks in the South overwhelm-ingly vote Democrat, the party becamean uneasy biracial coalition of black ac-tivists and white, conservative “Dixie-crats.”

Mr. Barnes’s capitulation on the flagspeeded up the process of racial polar-ization in Southern politics. The elderlywhite “yellow dogs” are dying out, andthe Democratic Party is becoming anassociation of blacks and white liberalspushing affirmative action and multi-culturalism, while the Republican Partyis overwhelmingly white.

Georgia Democratic senator ZellMiller, who has defied his own party andsided with President Bush on several key

Gov. Roy Barnes’scapitulation on the flag

speeded up the process ofracial polarization in

Southern politics.

ΩΩΩΩΩ


issues, recently decried the leftward tiltof his party, pointing out that manyformer Georgia Democrats are leaving.What went unmentioned but understood

was the race of those alienated voters.Mr. Miller was underlining the need toreconnect with traditional Southernwhites.

Why do Georgians feel so stronglyabout a piece of cloth? Many are angryabout changing the flag because it is yetanother assault on Southern culture byforeign invaders and domestic turncoats,an assault that began with the depreda-tions of Sherman and continued throughthe crusades of the 1960s. To give upthe flag would give one more victory toan enemy that wants to destroy their wayof life. As one bumper sticker reads:“Lee Surrendered; I Didn’t.”

White Southerners have proven to bea resilient group. By and large, theyrefuse to commit cultural suicide, orsubmit to demands to undergo collec-tive sensitivity training. They had theguts to greet John Rocker with a stand-ing ovation when he came out of hissuspension two years ago, and this year

they came to the polls to end RoyBarnes’s political career. Their enemiesare right to suspect that support for theflag is a sign of racial consciousness—

racial consciousness that is growingbolder and more confident.

Andy Nowicki, author of The Psy-chology of Liberalism, lives in Georgia.

The flag they wanted. The flag they got.

Carr Brothers Sentenced to DeathExecution could be a de-cade away

by Stephen Webster

On November 14, after sevenhours of deliberations, the juryin the Wichita Massacre trial

sentenced Reginald and Jonathan Carrto death for the murders of Jason Befort,Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander and HeatherMuller on December 15, 2000. The nextday, Judge Paul Clark confirmed thedeath sentences, and gave each brothera further 20-to-life sentence for killingAnn Walenta, and an additional 40 yearsfor the other 83 felonies of which theywere convicted.

The jurors were not swayed by de-fense attempts to elicit sympathy for theCarrs by portraying them as victims ofviolence, neglect, abuse, and drug ad-diction. One of the Carrs’ cousins testi-fied she grew up with them in the samehouse, and was used as a sex toy fromage six to 13. The jury may not haveconsidered this a mitigating factor.

“I went with what the law said,” ex-plained juror Joe Wendell. He said hefollowed instructions that called for thedeath penalty if there was proof beyonda reasonable doubt that aggravating fac-tors in the crimes outweighed mitigat-ing factors. The four aggravating fac-tors the jury cited were that the Carrskilled more than one person, killed for

money, killed to avoid arrest, and killed“in an especially heinous, atrocious orcruel manner.” Even so, another jurorsaid it was hard to vote for the deathpenalty. “You’re determining someone’sfate; playing God,” said Tiffany Niblack,22, “and it’s very, very difficult to dothat.” Miss Niblack, who described her-self as a strong proponent of the deathpenalty, said she was she was surprisedthe jury was able to reach the unanimityrequired for the death penalty. NeitherReginald nor Jonathan Carr showed areaction when the jury announced thesentences.

Reginald Carr appears to be the morevicious of the two. During the trial hewas shackled for making threats to depu-ties, and for taunting prosecutors and thevictims’ families. DA Nola Foulstonsaid of him, “He is a dangerous, relent-less killing machine, and he does get thepunishment he deserves.” Nov. 14, theday he was sentenced, he got a brokenarm in a fight with another inmate in aholding cell. It was also his 25th birth-day. As he was led away by deputiesafter sentencing, Mark Befort, JasonBefort’s brother, called out angrily,“Happy Birthday,” followed by an in-sult. “Fuck you,” replied Mr. Carr, con-tinuing with a string of obscenities di-rected at the families of the victims.Jonathan Carr, 22, remained silent, ex-cept to tell his mother and sister he lovedthem. As deputies took the brothersdown a hallway out of the courtroom,

one yelled, “I’ll get out!” At the secondsentencing hearing on Nov. 15, JudgeClark gave them an opportunity to askfor mercy or express remorse. Neitherspoke.

The woman known as H.G., who sur-vived a bullet in the head, released astatement describing the Carr brothersas “soulless monsters” for whom a deathsentence “will be much kinder than thesentence [they] imposed on me, myfriends and all our families. . . .” Thepetite woman, whose childhood nick-name was “Toughy,” went on to say:

“Every day there is a memory or ascar that reminds me of that night. WhileReginald and Jonathan get to sleeppeacefully in jail, I wake up in sweatsfrom my nightmares. I pace at night be-cause of noises that I think are some-body breaking into my house. And ev-ery morning I carefully blow-dry myhair to cover up the spot that can nolonger grow hair. I look at my knees andsee the scars from the carpet burns thatI got from the rape and in the back ofmy mind I wonder will it happen again.There is the fear that evil will once again

One of the Carrs’ cousinstestified she grew up withthem in the same house,

and was used as a sex toyfrom age six to 13.

ΩΩΩΩΩ


come into my life and take away thethings that are precious to me . . . .”

At a Nov. 15 press conference, thevictims’ families spoke fondly of theirloved ones, and expressed satisfactionat the sentences. They were bitter thatneither Reginald nor Jonathan Carrshowed any remorse, and were angry atthe brothers’ insulting behavior in court.“To look at those guys and have themturn around . . . and look at your mother,look at your sister and wink, or give asmirk, is for me the hardest dang thing,”said Mark Befort.

Although they each have four deathsentences, it could be a long time be-fore the brothers die. State law requiresautomatic appeal of death sentences, andthe process takes up to three years. Fed-

Lansing Correctional Facility. The injectionchamber is the corner room on the top floor.

eral appeals could take even longer. Itcould be eight to twelve years before thesentences are carried out. Since Kansasreinstated the death penalty in 1994, fivepeople have been sentenced to death, butnone executed.

The Carrs are likely to spend whatremains of their lives in the maximum-security unit of the El Dorado Correc-tional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. Fortwo days a week, they will be in soli-tary confinement 24 hours a day, in asparshly-furnished eight- by ten-footconcrete cell. Five days a week they willbe let out for an hour to shower and ex-ercise. With good behavior they mayearn the right to a radio and television,and visits from relatives. When theirappeals are exhausted, they will bemoved to the Lansing Correctional Fa-cility in Lansing, Kansas. There, in aroom on the fourth floor, Reginald andJonathan Carr will die by lethal injec-tion.

O Tempora, O Mores!Haider’s Party Stumbles

Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party (FPO),which rocked the European establish-ment in 1999 when it entered an Aus-trian coalition government, won only adisastrous 10 percent of the vote in thelatest parliamentary elections. TheFPO’s tally dropped from 27 percent in

1999, with its coalition partner the con-servative People’s Party picking upmany of the defectors. The People’sParty won 42 percent of the vote, its bestshowing in nearly 40 years. The leftistSocial Democrats, the strongest party inthe elections in 1999, won just under 37percent of the vote, and the Greens camein fourth at nine percent.

The FPO’s 63 percent drop at thepolls does not mean Austrians are turn-ing away from nationalism and immi-gration-control. The decline in the FPOand the gains for the People’s Party seemto have two main causes: Jörg Haider’serratic behavior, and the adoption by thePeople’s Party of many of the FPO’smost popular positions. There is still agood chance the People’s Party’s leader

Wolfgang Schuessel will offer the FPOseveral cabinet seats.

It was Mr. Haider himself who pro-voked the recent elections by institut-ing a purge within the party that resultedin resignations from cabinet positionsand the fall of the government. This cre-ated a huge rift among party support-ers, and Mr. Haider’s image was notimproved by three widely-criticizedtrips to Iraq over the past year. After theNovember 24 vote, Mr. Haider an-nounced his retirement from politics,saying the poor results showed “mistrustin me and in my policies.” Only a fewhours later, he took back his resignation,saying party leaders had persuaded himto stay on. His close supporters nowpromise yet more purges: “An iron fistwill be necessary,” says one. Associatessay the 52-year-old Mr. Haider is in-creasingly mistrustful of colleagues andfearful of betrayal. [Austria’s HaiderPlans to Step Down, AP, Nov. 25, 2002.George Jahn, Austria’s Haider QuitsPolitics, AP, Nov. 26, 2002. GeorgeJahn, Haider Backers Attack AustriaModerates, AP, Nov. 26, 2002.]

At this remove, it is very difficult totell what is going on inside the FreedomParty. The world press has been eagerto report anything that might discreditMr. Haider, but there does appear to besomething unsound about his leadership.He has threatened to resign from poli-tics many times, sometimes in pique,sometimes as a strategy to keep partydissidents in line. Still, he has succeeded

in putting immigration-control and na-tional identity at the center of Austrianpolitics, and the FPO paved the way forother nationalist parties to join coalitiongovernments in Europe. He and his partymay yet get a grip on themselves andlead Austria towards a brighter future.

BNP Wins AgainOn Nov. 21, the British National Party

(BNP) won a surprise victory in an off-year local-government election inBlackburn, Lancashire, in northwestEngland. Robin Evans, a builder, wonthe seat by 16 votes in a four-party con-test. In May, the BNP shocked the Brit-ish political establishment by winningthree local council seats in neighboringBurnley, scene of last year’s anti-whiterioting (see AR, June 2002). The vic-tory is especially sweet given that theBritish establishment from Prime Min-ister Tony Blair, Foreign Minister JackStraw, and the Bishop of Blackburn ondown begged the people of Blackburnto vote for anyone but the BNP.

While the votes were being counted(and recounted three times), protestorsfrom the leftist Anti-Nazi League ha-rassed and harangued the BNP’s Mr.Evans and his supporters. When the fi-nal tally was announced (578 votes forMr. Evans, 562 for his nearest competi-tor, the Labour candidate; 32 percent ofthe total vote for Mr. Evans), a spokes-man for the group bemoaned the lowvoter turnout—39 percent—and sniffed,

Jörg Haider

ΩΩΩΩΩ


“The Nazis have stolen this seat on lessthan a third of the vote.” Of his win,Mr. Evans said it was “an important vic-tory for a long neglected majority inother wards in Blackburn who now havea voice in me.”

After the election a chastened Mr.Straw, who represents the Blackburnarea in Parliament, tried to downplay thevictory by pointing out that only a mi-nority of voters in the four-way racevoted BNP. “The politics of racial ex-clusion can have no place in British so-ciety and all mainstream parties andpoliticians will now have to work harderto defeat it,” he added. [David Hig-gerson, Tony Blair Appeals to Black-burn Voters, Lancashire Evening News,Nov. 20, 2002. Matthew Tempest, BNPGains Blackburn Council Seat, Guard-ian (England), Nov. 22, 2002.]

Near Miss in SwitzerlandSwiss voters just missed giving their

country the tightest, most sensible asy-lum laws in Europe. A referendum“against abuse of the right of asylum,”put on the November ballot by the SwissPeople’s Party lost by only 3,422 votes.The law would have made it impossiblefor anyone coming from a persecution-free country—including all of Swit-zerland’s neighbors—to claim asylum,thereby cutting the flow to nearly zero.Christoph Blocher, leader of thePeople’s Party was exultant: “The out-come of the vote is sensational,” he said.“We were on our own against the Cabi-net, all the other parties, against themedia, and yet we finally only lost by ahandful of votes.” He warned the gov-ernment to take asylum-control moreseriously, and promised to offer a simi-lar ballot for the next elections. [ClareNullis, Swiss Reject Anti-ImmigrationPlan, AP, Nov. 25, 2002.]

The New South AfricaRecently, a 29-year-old woman from

Gloucestershire, England, flew to SouthAfrica for a three-month visit with herwhite South African boyfriend. On No-vember 16, the two were driving throughthe picturesque mountains of the East-ern Transvaal and stopped at a scenic

overlook. Five blacks came out of thebush waving a pistol. They beat the twowhites, gagged them, tied them up, andthrew them in the back of the car. Theythen drove for 14 hours around theTransvaal, stopping frequently at illegal

drinking dens called shebeens. Theblacks got drunker and drunker, andseveral times brought other drinkersout to the car to show off the twotrussed-up whites. They rightly as-

sumed no one would object or call thepolice. The men frequently punched andkicked the defenseless whites. At leastone of the attackers raped the womanrepeatedly, but they do not appear tohave passed her around the shebeens.They fired the pistol several times to-wards the couple, once through the floorof the vehicle where they were lying.

The blacks got so drunk that at 4:00a.m. the next morning the driver lostcontrol and flipped the vehicle. Twopassing cars stopped to help, and as oneof the drivers approached, a kidnappershot him in the head, killing him. In theconfusion, the whites escaped into thedarkness, and were later able to flagdown a passing motorist. The policepicked up the couple, and as they weredriving to the police station, the whitessaw two of their attackers walking alongthe road. Police arrested them and foundone had the man’s wallet and cell phone.

Several days after her ordeal, thewoman was reportedly in such a stateof shock she could still not give a state-ment to police. Docters were giving herdrugs to combat the AIDS virus, whichher attackers may well have given her.[Tim Butcher, AIDS Terror of BritishTourist Raped by Gang, Telegraph (Lon-don), Nov. 19, 2002.]

Blacks killed another white tourist inthe same province just a few days later.On Nov. 21, Geoffrey Dex, who lives inSouth Africa, was staying with his fam-ily at the Umbhaba Lode in Hazy View.At about 10:15 in the evening he hearda noise at the bar and walked over toinvestigate. Three masked men, whowere holding up the receptionist, shotMr. Dex three times in the chest. Therehave been at least 29 violent attacks onforeign tourists alone in the province,which have undercut its attempt to pro-mote itself as an exciting new vacationdestination. [Tourist Killed For R1,000,African Eye News Service, Nov. 22,2002.]

Meanwhile, South African prisongangs have a new punishment for dis-

obedient inmates: rape by AIDS carri-ers. The prisoners call the punishment“slow puncture” because the victim,once infected, dies a lingering death, justlike a tire slowly going flat. GideonMorris, director of the South AfricanJudicial Inspectorate of Prisons, saysAIDS may now be the leading cause ofdeath in the country’s prisons, but it isdifficult to say because many AIDSdeaths are incorrectly listed as deathfrom natural causes. [Reuters, S. AfricaPrison Gangs Use AIDS Rape as Pun-ishment, Nov. 21, 2002.]

Some South Africans saw the writ-ing on the wall even before the countrywas handed over to blacks in 1994. Inthe early 1990s, a group of Boer farm-ers established the town of Orania, onthe edge of the Karoo Desert, as a whiteenclave. They hoped it would eventu-ally become an independent Boer repub-lic, and they expected thousands of far-sighted whites to apply to become resi-dents. At first there were only 600, butOrania is now beginning to fill up. “Weare overwhelmed by calls from peopleinquiring about moving here,” says JohnStrydom, a doctor who arrived five yearsago. “We have had 200 calls and e-mailsin the last month alone.”

Orania is based on the principle ofseparation, and its residents believewhites should do all the work of thetown, no matter how menial. They seethe old apartheid system as hypocriti-cal, because it was a hierarchical ar-rangement rather than genuine separa-tion. Riekie de Jager, 62, concedes thatshe misses the services of the black staffshe left behind to move to Orania twoyears ago, but expresses what are nodoubt widely-held views:

“People think we are here because wehate the blacks—we don’t. We are veryfriendly with them when we meet. But Iam happier here with people like my-self. Things are going the way of Zim-babwe and we have come here for somesecurity. Things are very bad now, butyou wait—when Nelson Mandela diesthere will be nothing but chaos. But atleast in Orania we can feel safe.” [JaneFlanagan, Fearful Boers Flee to SouthAfrica’s Last White Enclave, Telegraph(London), Nov. 24, 2002.]

For how long?

The Old NigeriaThe Miss World pageant was sup-

posed to be held in Nigeria this year, but


organizers and contestants fled the coun-try after controversy over the contest ledto four days of rioting and more than200 deaths. Nigeria has a history ofChristian-Muslim violence, and theprospect of pretty girls prancing in bath-ing suits pleased Christians but angeredMuslims.

The violence went into high gearwhen ThisDay newspaper published aneditorial on Nov. 16, suggesting theprophet Mohammed would have ap-proved of the contest. “He probably

would have chosen a wife from amongthem [the contestants],” the paper con-cluded. This was too much for Muslimsin the northern city of Kaduna, whothink beauty contests promote promis-cuity. They hacked at Christians withsticks and knives, and Christians hackedback. Kadunans also took to burningeach others’ houses, and an estimated4,000 people lost their homes.

When violence spread to Abuja, thecapital, where the pageant was to beheld, organizers decided to clear out.Beauty queens in tank tops and shortsummer dresses climbed onto a char-tered Cameroon Airlines flight, whichtook off at 3:45 a.m. on Nov. 23—12hours behind schedule. Christians inKaduna, who saw the pageant’s evacu-ation as a victory for Muslims, weresharpening their knives for vengeance.[D’Arcy Doran, Miss World PageantMoves to London, AP, Nov. 23, 2002.]

Meanwhile, further north in Kano,there are fewer Christians and less vio-lence, but health authorities have a dif-ferent problem. The latest drug craze isto get high on lizard dung, either bysmoking or drinking it. “Since I discov-ered the use of lizard dung I have found

peace,” says 28-year-old Ado Kabir ofKano. “I no longer have to spend muchmoney on drugs since I discovered theefficacy of lizard excrement,” he adds.According to Mr. Kabir, there are manyways to take the drug. One of the mostpopular is to mix it with water and bluelaundry detergent, and drink it. “It pro-duces a strong effect similar to the ef-fect of drinking strong whisky to excesson a hot day,” says the articulate Mr.Kabir. The droppings can be dried andthen smoked with tobacco, marijuana,or heroin. The effect, says, Mr. Kabir, is“exhilarating.”

Bala Abu is a 20-year-old high schoolgraduate living in Kano, who cannotfind a job. He, too, loves the new drug.“Since I discovered the use of lizarddung I have found peace, because when-ever I smoke it with tobacco all myworries are gone,” he says. [Junkies Geta Kick Out of Lizard Dung, Indepen-dent Newspapers (South Africa), June27, 2002.]

White FlightA recent study shows whites are still

willing to tell pollsters they don’t wantto live among blacks. Maria Krysan ofthe University of Illinois at Chicago andher colleagues surveyed 1,600 whites inDetroit, Boston, and Atlanta by show-ing them outline drawings of 15-houseneighborhoods with varying numbers ofblack residents. Three percent of whitessaid they would move if there wereblacks living in only one of the houses.Thirteen percent would move if therewere blacks in three of the 15, 19 per-cent if blacks were in five. Thirty-eightpercent said they would move if therewere blacks in eight of the 15 houses,giving the neighborhood a slight blackmajority—which is to say that 62 per-cent claimed they would stick aroundwhile their neighborhood became ma-jority black. Whites cited higher crimerates and dropping house prices for thereasons they would move.

Dan Krichbaum, the executive direc-tor of the Michigan office of the Na-tional Conference for Community andJustice, explains why whites say theywould move: “[I]t obviously comesfrom their insecurities and the fact thattheir experiences are so limited withpeople from other racial and ethnicgroups.” Needless to say, Mr. Krich-baum got it wrong. [Oralandar Brand-Williams, 40% Say They’d Leave If

More Blacks Move to Neighborhoods,Detroit News, Nov. 22, 2002.]

No Different in NorwayFifty-nine percent of the robbers in

Oslo, Norway, are immigrants eventhough immigrants account for only 20percent of the city’s population. Immi-grants account for even more teen-agerobbers: 69 percent. Two ethnic groups,Pakistanis and Somalis, are particularlyoverrepresented among teenage robbers.Pakistani teen-agers are only 3.5 percentof the teenage population but commit20 percent of robberies by teenagers.The figures for Somali teenagers are onepercent and 15 percent. [Kjetil Kolsrud,To av Tre Ranere har Innvandrer-bakgrunn (Two Out of Three Robbersare Immigrants) Aftenpost (Oslo), Oct.28, 2002.]

During the first several months of2001 there were 111 reported rapes inOslo. Of that number, 72 were commit-ted by non-white immigrants, 25 byNorwegians, and 14 by unidentifiedmen. Non-white immigrants thereforeaccounted for 65 percent of the rapesbut only 20 percent of their victims werenon-white. [Kjetil Kolsrud , Sjokk-tallom Voldtekter i Oslo: To av Tre An-meldte er Innvandrere (Shocking Statis-tics About Rape in Oslo: Two Out ofTree are Committed by Immigrants),Aftenposten (Oslo), Sept. 5, 2001.]

Crazy Crazy CrazyAs a fund-raiser for the Fort McHenry

Military Museum in San Pedro, Califor-nia, volunteers planned a December 7showing of the film Tora Tora Toraabout the bombing of Pearl Harbor.There were to be ushers in World WarII uniforms, vintage cars, and Pearl Har-bor survivors at a gala evening at the1930s-era Warner Grand Theater inSand Pedro. The event is off. The De-partment of Cultural Affairs of Los An-geles, which runs the theater, says show-ing the movie on Pearl Harbor Daywould be too insensitive to Japanese-Americans. “Dec. 7 is a tough day, es-pecially for the second and third gen-erations of Japanese-Americans,” saysLos Angeles councilwoman JaniceHahn. “Why do we want to do some-thing that makes it more difficult?”[Donna Littlejohn, Mixed Feelings OverSan Pedro Film Event, Daily Breez (Tor-rance) California, Nov. 18, 2002.]

Showing too much leg for Muslims.

ΩΩΩΩΩ

200301 american renaissance

Documents