Its a good thing that the Mexicans are looking after the borders for us. If they weren’t, who knows who might get in?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78544,00.html

As Mr. Auster notes, the show was a refreshing break from the PC orthodoxy when it comes to discussions of race, immigration, and civilization. And certainly Donahue should be congratulated for bringing Jared Taylor back to the show. Let us hope that this opens things up more to candid racial debates in the future. I think, however, that it was terribly unfair for Donahue to take Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance quotes out of context. Without elaborating, it had the effect of making him appear more “harsh and forbidding” (in Mr. Auster words) than I think his journal is. I liked his rejoinder to Phil about how his ancestors weren’t simply “immigrants” but pioneers. Taylor was also able to add a great dash of humor to the debate at times, and remarkably Donahue let him close with some thoughtful last words.

Taylor did well under the constraints of the format. Donahue controls the show and can shut off discussion when he wants to. When Taylor points out that liberals invariably live in the whitest area they can find, Donahue cuts off the subject and never returns to it.

With Jared Taylor’s recent Donahue interview in mind, there is an interesting review of Carol Swain’s new book “The New White Nationalism” in the pages of the latest Policy Review. The reviewer, Eli Lehrer, raises some good points in the essay titled “On the Fringe” but fails to take into account the full picture.

http://www.policyreview.org/feb03/lehrer.html

For one thing he lumps in the wheat with the chaff (or however that expression goes). He refers to 2 Jewish writers in the movement as being unable to attract a large following (presumably Prof. Levin and Prof. Hart) because of the constant anti-Semitism in the movement. He also has very little to say about Jared Taylor and the American Renaissance (except that they have their own office) and nothing about Dr. Samuel Francis (who Swain acknowledges in her book is a fount of thought-provoking ideas). I noticed he also very gingerly deals with the subject of immigration which her book also gingerly raises. Meanwhile, he focuses a great deal of attention to the unsavory types at the World Church of the Creator or whatever it’s called.

Swain perhaps overstates the influence of truly fringy groups like “World Church of the Creator” as Lehrer notes. At the same time, I think she is on to something that nationalist, racialist, and racial realist ideas are gaining new traction with many whites and this time amongst the educated and well heeled. A racialist movement which welcomes Jewish people and also white homosexuals (as Jared Taylor did on MSNBC round II) must come as something of a surprise to both the Phil Donahue’s of the world and to nationalist groups that are even further out “on the fringe.”

The reason these new “nationalists” are gaining a wider degree of traction is because it is not rooted in hate for a change. The new journals and webzines which candidly discuss racial issues, like View from the Right, Vdare, American Renaissance, the Citizen’s Informer which Samuel Francis edits, the Middle American News, and the Occidental Quarterly are again not motivated by hate, but instead reason, tradition, and morality. These journals have merely filled the void left by others in the mainstream conservative movement.

Lehrer’s discussion of Swain’s troubled background is interesting but irrelevant to the ideas she raises. I was unaware of her background. I did skim through a lot of her book. However I did read huge sections of the book that I found especially interesting. It seems to me the book is much more about engaging in ideas than in the author’s life story. Apparently she has another forthcoming book on the topic which should be equally interesting.

Lehrer does make a good point about the state of contemporary conservatism. In the words of Rabbi Schiller, journals like National Review, and even Pat Buchanan and Chronicles seem to have “lost their European soul.”

The case of Chronicles is especially noteworthy in that Thomas Fleming seemed to launch an unprovoked attack on the readers of American Renaissance (equating them with “Odinism” and “paganism” among other things). This is noteworthy because Chronicles is a self-described “paleo-conservative” journal and presumably simpatico with the European soul which Rabbi Schiller speaks of. The Fleming attack on AR also had the effect of hitting most of Chronicles subscribers and contributors. At least half of their readership (and many of their own writers and editors) follow and contribute to the American Renaissance — regardless of what “Odinism” may lurk there. If Dr. Fleming were to follow through on his convictions, he would have to give Samuel Francis the heave-ho. Dr. Sam is integral to both AR and Chronicles (and Vdare as well). This move, however, would probably decimate whatever subscribers and donors they have left at Chronicles.

Dr. Fleming has become more pronounced in his Christian faith, which is fine. He thinks, however, that this is incompatible with having a racial conscious and that is unfortunate. Rabbi Schiller and Fr. James Thornton have given excellent lectures, “sermons” even, on how the two are not incompatible within the Judeo-Christian faith. Indeed, the Church of old Western Christendom had a much more robust sense of racial identity than the pale, watered-down versions of today.

Let me say a few words on religion and racialism. The racial realist journals have done much to help whites develop a new kind of “vocabulary” when it comes to dealing with issues like non-white crime, immigration, multiculturalism, IQ differences, etc. Since the 1960’s whites have been sent reeling, groping even to find sensible words to describe their views on these difficult racial topics.

These journals, however, need to do more to convince the Judeo-Christian devout that racialist views are not “sinful” or incompatible with their beliefs. The rabbi and priest have made a helpful start for our theological “vocabulary” but many more thoughtful clergy are needed to address their flocks on these important subjects, and in these pages. The theological work on racial realism has barely begun.

Now, there are probably many agnostic and atheistic white racial realists who have little patience for this. They should at least try to understand the need believers have in stronger theological arguments. After all, atheist conservatives and religious conservatives work together on all manner of public policy issues (from cutting taxes to school choice), even though they may come at theses issues from different perspectives. Why should work on racial realism issues be any different?

Lehrer also makes a good point on the very limited impact white nationalism is currently having on the whites as a whole. This should be a sobering reality check for people who follow these issues closely. He writes the following:

“Indeed, in certain employment situations, Swain discovers that whites are “slightly more willing to compromise the performance principle when a black is benefited over a white than when a white is benefited over a black.” This is an exceptional polling result because it shows support for racial preferences, but it’s no evidence of growing white racial solidarity.”

That many whites can be polled to give such answers says a lot about the state of Western Man. Lehrer correctly points out that this data shows what little impact white nationalism is having. It may also explain why so many mainstream conservative journals have watered down their message on Western Civilization.

There are two reasons why Lehrer’s conclusions may be premature, however. One: many of the issues that white nationalists, racialist, and racial realists write about (and which conservatives duck) will grow and likely worsen over the next two decades. Black and Hispanic crime rates will likely remain disproportionately high (with whites receiving the brunt of their crimes). Third World immigration will likely remain unchecked during this period, along with the affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the bilingualism that immigration drives. Also, John Aschroft and Don Rumsfeld assure us that another devastating Islamic terrorist attack on American soil is about as inevitable as death and taxes. Faced with these trends and a conservative movements preference for “safe” issues now, the influence of some sort of white nationalism may grow in this country.

A second reason Lehrer may be premature: In the early stages of the contemporary conservative/libertarian movement, writers like Frank Chodorov and Albert Jay Nock in the 30’s and 40’s were dismissed as cranks or “On the Fringe.” By the 1950’s, writers like William F. Buckley, Jr. and his National Review, or Russell Kirk with his “Modern Age” were also likewise dismissed as cranks, reactionaries, and “on the fringe” by the likes of the Arthur Schlesinger’s and New Dealers of the world. Indeed, these conservatives were alternately being dismissed for either having no historical tradition in America and “little impact” on mainstream Americans, or worse — were a threat to the very “Vital Center” the New Dealers claimed to have built.

Writers like Whittaker Chambers worried they had switched to the “losing side” in the war against Communism — a threat to the West they could see very clearly and urgently. It must have been frustrating for conservatives in the 1950’ and 1960’s to rail against the real dangers of communism, while being dismissed by many as cranks. Still, they were able to lay the groundwork for something that would emerge as a “conservative establishment.” It is not inconceivable that something similar could occur down the road from a nascent racial realist movement.

While I said that Donahue, while rough on Taylor, was not vicious, I did not indicate some of the real zingers Donahue threw at Taylor during the program, such as this one:

Donahue: “Here’s what you said, just one of many thing you said. And you’ll stand by this, I’m sure. ‘Ugly Mexicans and ugly Haitians come here to live permanently. But we are supposed to be endlessly sensitive to their peculiarities and revel in the diversity of toadying to their ethnic demands.’ Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 1996.”

When I heard Donahue say that, I felt there was something false about it. And in fact there was. Here is the full passage, including the scare quotes around “ugly” which Donahue did not note in his reading of the passage, and including a reference to “ugly Americans” which Donahue did not read at all and which puts the reference to “ugly” Mexicans and “ugly” Haitians in quite a different light:

“There used to be much talk about ‘ugly Americans,’ who traveled over-seas expecting to find hamburgers and English-speakers, and who ignorantly deprecated the quaint customs of the natives. We were supposed to be deeply ashamed of them—and they were only tourists! ‘Ugly Mexicans’ and ‘ugly Haitians’ come here to _live permanently_, but we are supposed to be endlessly sensitive to their peculiarities, and revel in the diversity of toadying to their ethnic demands.”
(Jared Taylor, “If We Do Nothing,” American Renaissance, June, 1996, p. 5.)

I commend Mr. Vandervoort on taking the time to write an interesting article. (Of course, the Site’s vigilant, magical sponsors do this relentlessly.)

Here’s an eye-opening investigation into the level of Phil Donahue’s accuracy. The people who script his show must be handing him PC-sounding lines without even checking to see whether they’re true.

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_030303.htm