Aryan Nations Parade -- Coeur d'Alene, Idaho July 10, 1999

Since the following is opinion that describes the North Idaho racist controversy as I see it, let me state up front my personal background and express my basic beliefs on the subject of race.

What I Stand For

I am a native of this area, having grown up during the 1940's and 50's in the small rural town of Palouse, Washington about a mile from the North Idaho border. My parents and grandparents spent most of their lives near Garfield and Palouse Washington, and had a small farm in Idaho near Potlatch.

My parents attended a bible thumping fundamentalist church three times a week. In spite of my best efforts to join in their religious beliefs, I always thought that their church was a little nutty. I was and still am convinced that if Jesus Christ were to return to earth today, they would be unable to recognize him and most likely they would turn him over to the authorities.

In my adult years I have been a member of both the Unity and Unitarian church groups, but have since dropped out. I respect the fact that both of these church groups leave your relationship with God up to you to figure out, without a lot of doctrinaire input from the church. But, I left the Unitarians because they seemed to be overly focused on an intellectual head trip and partisan politics. The Unity group seemed to be in the ditch on the other side of the road with lots of warm fuzzy feel good new age meetings, but little else.

I am convinced that there exists a Higher Power in this universe than ourselves as individual humans. But, I doubt that we will gain much insight into that during our lifetimes.

I believe that in a free country every person is entitled to equal rights and opportunity under law, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. From my childhood until my early twenties, I had almost no contact with any members of another race. My first exposure to blacks was in the military. Generally, I found the culture and behavior of the blacks in the barracks to be obnoxious. Their loud music, vulgar language and "in your face" confrontational attitude did not endear them to me.

In the Spring of 1961, I was assigned to Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. One evening four of us, (three whites and one black) decided to go to an amusement park. At the ticket gate, they refused to let our black friend buy a ticket because of his race. We tried unsuccessfully to persuade the ticket seller that he was Mexican, not black. Then we decided that if all four of us could not go in, we would all leave. This racial discrimination was unjust and as repugnant to me as it would be to any defender of liberty and justice for all.

Since I had little money I spent a lot of my free time in San Antonio going on long walks. More than once my long walks led me through the black section of San Antonio. At that time the poverty and squalor was appalling. Also, my presence was generally met with suspicion and/or hostility. It was a pleasure to return home to Spokane and an environment without large numbers of downtrodden minorities.

Today, my views on the issue of race are pretty much in line with the findings in the book "The Bell Curve" by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. For several years I owned Murray's Bookstore in Spokane. I have been astonished at the number of customers (including at least five college professors) and others who readily slam this book for being unscientific, yet when asked, they sheepishly admit that they have not read it.
The Bell Curve -- book review

The authors of "The Bell Curve" take the position that with regard to individuals, no generalizations regarding race apply, but if you look at large numbers of people, generalized findings do apply. They posit that intelligence is heritable, with the intelligence of white students generally above that of blacks and below that of Asian students. This seems to be born out by institutes of higher education discriminating against Asians and in favor of blacks, although both groups have minority status.

Liberals have good reason to be frightened by the findings of "The Bell Curve." Herrnstein and Murray have given us statistical evidence of the extent of job discrimination against white Americans. The extent of that discrimination is shocking. When you measure the occupational attainments of samples of whites, blacks and hispanics with equal numbers of people with the same mental abilities, blacks have twice the number of people in high status occupations as whites, and latinos 1.5 times more than whites of the same ability. The affirmative action programs and race preferences for people of color have resulted in blacks obtaining twice the number of desirable jobs at any given ability level as whites. The discussion appears on page 321 of the book.

"But after controlling for IQ, the picture reverses. The chance of entering a high-IQ occupation for a black with an IQ of 117 (which was the average IQ of all the people in these occupations in the NLSY sample) was twice the proportion of whites with the same IQ. Latinos with an IQ of 117 had more than a 50% higher chance of entering a high-IQ occupation than whites with the same IQ. This phenomenon applies across a wide range of occupations, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 20."

In other words, you cannot measure discrimination by simply measuring the absolute number or percentage of white Americans in high IQ jobs. To test for discrimination you must correct for the fact that there are many more white Americans with high IQs as a percent of the population. To test for discrimination, you have to test equal numbers of persons of the same ability, and when you do that, you find that blacks get twice the number of good jobs. For Latinos, it is 1.5 times the number of good jobs. That is satistical evidence of massive discrimination against white Americans.

We have become so hung-up on the idea of human rights and cultural diversity that anyone so politically incorrect as to even discuss the issue is anathema to the dominant liberal elite. Speak up on this subject at the University and your career is put in jeopardy, you are shut down, silenced, or removed. Intellectual freedom goes out the window, to be replaced by big brother's state approved dogma.

I believe that everyone is entitled to be judged only on his or her individual merits. This means no discrimination either against or in favor of anyone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or handicap.

The Aryan Nations Parade



The Coeur d'Alene Police seem to be unable to deal with a few passive civil disobedience protesters sitting in the street. So, they divert the parade, effectively shutting it down, and mill about in a casual mood. It certainly looks like a set-up to me.

As stated above, I think that most church groups are a little nuts, and the Aryan Nations church is no exception. It seems to be normal for most churches to believe that they and only they have found the correct path to God. Take a look at the mainstream churches. Study their doctrine and you will soon find statements and beliefs that would clearly be part of some strange "cult" if only their membership was not so large. The Aryan Nations focus on white racial superiority and white separation strikes me as bizarre, but I support their freedom to believe whatever they like. A preference for one's own race and culture seems to be common throughout the world. To say that the Aryan Nations is a "Hate Group" is not far removed from saying the "The Sons of Norway" or the "B'nai Brith" are "Hate Groups."

Truth, is the victim when the news media selects differing emotionally loaded words to describe the Aryan Nations and those who protest against them. Without exception, the news media characterizes the Aryan parade as a "Hate Parade," and the church itself as a "Hate Group"… whereas those who protest against them with truly hateful speech and civil disobedience are without exception characterized as "Human Rights Activists." The Spokesman Review today quotes Jeanne Givens as saying, "Human rights is how we act. It's how we walk the talk." That's pure unadulterated BS. It is the so-called human rights activists such as her that want to take action to silence those who disagree with her. The courts agree that the Aryan Nations folks have every right to stage a parade in our free country, but these self appointed activists are so fearful of the market place for ideas, that they must engage in civil disobedience to silence those who ideas they hate. So, the question is whose human rights were being trampled in Coeur d'Alene yesterday? The obvious answer is that it was the human rights of the Aryan Nations marchers to stage a legal and peaceful parade that were trampled.

Today's newspaper also quotes Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne as saying in his Keynote address at North Idaho College that, "The Aryan Nations doesn't belong in North Idaho. Hey, governor, you must have temporarily forgotten that this is the United States of America, land of the free… home of the brave, etc. The citizens of this country belong anywhere they like. They don't need your permission for a border crossing into Idaho. Your rant at this supposed human rights rally sounds like something I would expect from Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950's. McCarthy's paranoia led him to see a sinister Communist plot in almost everyone's words and deeds. You sound like you see a Nazi lurking behind every North Idaho tree. Fact is that when exposed to intelligent free speech the communist threat was a farce. The fear that the neo-nazis are going to take over North Idaho is a fantasy only the lunatic fringe can believe

Similarly, the Honorable Governor was quoted as saying he doesn't think racism in North Idaho is attracting white supremacists. And, he went on to say that the racists must have settled here for the same reason most transplants do… "It's the quality of life", he said. Come on now Governor, where have you been? Boise must be farther away than I thought. That statement has got to be based upon incredible ignorance or simply intended to mislead for public relations reason. You can not have followed this issue in the news media without a clear understanding that the racists came here because of the lily-white demographics. They have been quite outspoken in this regard.

 
A member of the clergy and his followers sing that familiar old hymn,
"My Religion Is Better Than Your Religion"

In case you don't remember it, the chorus goes, "Holy, Holy, Holier Than Thou"


At the so-called Human Rights Rally, Victoria Bruno told the audience that the "single challenge is to make certain that a group of fewer than 20 people from Hayden do not paint our community as an intolerant community." This must be some sort of bad joke. She simply doesn't get it that it is herself and the other 400 at that rally that are clearly intolerant. Good God woman! Spending $40,000 to prevent a motley group of 40 citizens from parading down the street on Sunday morning is not intolerance? Engaging in strident name calling and civil disobedience to deny them their constitutional rights is tolerance? You've got the basket completely upside-down. In Hitler's Germany, Hitler had the government available to silence or exterminate those folks he found to be displeasing. In Coeur d'Alene those who hate the Aryans have the local government to help them in their efforts to deny the Aryan Nations group their civil rights.

I respect the choice of those people who feel so strongly about any issue that they decide to engage in civil disobedience. It is only proper that all those people who chose to do so to be hauled off to jail. This did not happen yesterday in Coeur d'Alene. In fact it looked like the whole thing was planned in advance and staged by the protesters with the collusion of the Coeur d'Alene Police Department.

I wonder what the sentiment of the crowd would have been, and what action would have been taken, if this Coeur d'Alene parade was a Gay Pride Parade and the Neo-nazis were the ones shutting it down through passive civil disobedience? Of course all of the protesters would all have been hauled off to jail and hit with enormous fines and penalties. The citizens of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho cannot curtail the rights of any minority group, no matter how distasteful their views may be, without having adverse consequences for their own cherished rights.

Conclusion

Yesterday will go down in the history books as a sad day for all parties involved with the Aryan Nations Parade. The Aryans were denied their civil rights. The protesters put Coeur d'Alene Idaho on the map as the potential new home for bigots of every stripe. The police wimped-out and sold out to the city powers that be. The neo-nazis got the widespread publicity they needed to stage an even bigger fiasco next year. The news media broadcast far and wide that this is the place for the white-power advocates. Government leaders stood up and displayed their ignorance or attempted to mislead. The city spent $40,000 in an attempt to prevent 40 people from walking down the street on Sunday morning.

The right-wing lunatic fringe in this country has always been more dangerous and prone to violence than the left-wing lunatic fringe. The left wing loonies trip out on drugs and get pregnant by god knows whom. The right wing loonies make bombs and go postal. The Aryan Nations, KKK, and similar pro-white groups tend to attract young males charged with testosterone and limited in education. A more serious and counter productive result of the failed parade is this: If you deny these people their constitutional rights, shut them down, and shut them up, that does not mean that they are going to go away. Those protestors who wave signs saying "No Free Speech for Nazis" do not realize the seriousness of their statement. If the neo-nazis are denied free speech, it will simply provide strength for the radical "Silent Brotherhood" type of sinister action (not endorsed by the Aryan Nations) that this area has already experienced.
--Wilford D. (Will) Murray






Update: August 14, 1999

Wednesday August 11th 1999 Buford Furrow Jr., a member and former security guard for the Aryan Nations went on a shooting rampage in the Los Angeles California area in an avowed attempt to kill Jews. Having shot and injured an adult, a teenager and three children at a Jewish Community Center, he went on to gun down and murder an Hispanic mail carrier for the US postal service. It has been speculated in the local newspaper that he went on this shooting spree in the Los Angeles area rather than locally in an attempt to wreak revenge upon the Jewish protesters who came up from California to shut down the Aryan Nations Coeur d'Alene parade.

For the past three days the national and local news media have been having a field day portraying the tragedy in terms of race hatred and Nazis vs Jews. However, a closer look at Buford Furrow reveals a psychotic individual who slashed his arms so deeply they needed stitches, a man who attempted to commit himself to a mental hospital, threatened to stab two psychiatric hospital workers with a knife, and admitted to psychotic impulses to commit mass murder and/or get the police to kill him. Clearly he was psycho and both a threat to himself and others. Instead of involuntary commitment to a mental institution, the authorities treated him as a criminal, releasing him after a few months jail time. Thus, we had a madman who had expressed an urge to commit mass murder freed to return to our community with virtually no supervision.

I was trained in the military in psychiatric social work, and I have served on the board of the Spokane Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Mr. Furrow is proof once again that our laws regarding involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients are inadequate to deal with the real and present danger people such as Buford Furrow present to us. Mr. Buford graduated from college with an engineering degree. He was psychotic, not stupid. To ascribe his actions strictly to his religious and/or racial beliefs is to dodge the question of how to deal with the insane who clearly pose a threat to both themselves and others. To lay the blame for Mr. Furrow's actions entirely on the Aryan Nations is analogous to blaming the US Post Office for their workers who have gone mad, "gone postal" and committed mass murder during a shooting spree. The news media is confusing correlation with causation. If it is true that people who suffer from paranoia or megalomania are attracted to oddball religious groups, that does not mean that the religious "cult" is the cause of their paranoia or megalomania.

Since my July 10th comments above, Rev. Butler has applied for another parade permit to hold a parade on Labor Day weekend to complete the failed July parade. The City of Coeur d'Alene Idaho has granted him a permit. So, are we going to see even more JDL people coming up from California to shut them down? If that happens, will another member of the Aryan Nations go nuts and commit more murder? Where will it all end? The national and local news media have blown the racial hatred issue all out of proportion. Can't we just get along? I would like to encourage the JDL and other rabble rousers to stay the hell away from North Idaho and East Washington. How can you say that the Aryan Nations is a "Hate Group" and the JDL is a "Civil Rights Group?" Perhaps it is just the other way around. It's time for all parties to this mess to just "cool it!" - WDM



Update August 29, 1999 - Rev. Butler has called off the Labor Day Week-end parade as "unseemly" in view of the shooting in California by Buford Furrow Jr. He must have decided to "cool it."



Sunday, August 15, 1999 A Newspaper Filled With Hate


Are you filled with a smug sense of righteousness? Are you thoughts pure? Do you believe that your God and your religion is the only way? Do you think that the Constitution of the United States limits your ability to stamp out evil? Are you convinced that others are filled with hate and you are filled with love? If you answered yes to these questions then you will want to subscribe to The Spokesman-Review, the newspaper of Spokane Washington. The Spokesman Review is fanning the fires of hate. At a Spokane Hate Symposium May 21, 1999 Bill Morlin, reporter for the Spokesman Review, defended his practice of giving North Idaho a bad reputation as a haven for racists and extremists of all types. "We write about issues to incite the public to act against the movement," Morlin said." No other newspaper has done such a publicity job for the Aryan Nations. Whether you are an advocate for white supremacy, white power, JDL (JDL upholds the principle of Barzel to change the Jewish image through all necessary means including force and violence), black power, skin heads or whatever, you will find that according to the Spokesman-Review, this is the place for you. You will learn that this is an area where "Hate springs eternal," and "Hate-crime laws are largely symbolic." Yes, you will want to make plans to relocate to North Idaho or East Washington right away.


What is a "Hate Crime?"

The definition of hate crime is: "An offense committed against a person or property motivated by the offender's bias against a person's race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Motivation is determined during the investigation." There you have it! Hate Crime is Thought Crime. You will be punished for your thoughts. Your thoughts will be determined by others. Whose definition will be used as the final authority to determine what qualifies as hate? Against whose fixed standard for hate will this diverse nation of people be judged? Will it be Mr.Clinton's standard or Janet Reno's? In principle a crime is a crime, hate crimes are already crimes. There are now in existence laws prohibiting harassment, intimidation, assault, etc. Crime of any kind is punishable under existing law, but this is going beyond the prosecution of the crime. This is criminalization of moral values, opinions and thoughts as judged by the standard of political correctness. This will ultimately lead to the confiscation of the exercise of free expression; determining what is permissible to speak and what is not. Rather than take steps to eliminate prejudice, the government is attempting to fix it by legislating reverse prejudice. Orwell was off by just a few years. Thought Crime is now a reality. Our government has decided that in fact two wrongs do make a right.
What is Racism?
by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then "institutions" must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people "can" be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that "all" whites are racist and that "only" whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality? Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent. College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate "homogeneity." And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from "deploring an excess of whites." In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, "whites" must "also" champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but it is only racism so long as the aspirations are those of whites.