America Rising - Nation’s Top Conservatives Will Sign Philosophical Declaration of War against Big Governmen

From: E-Brief from CNSNews.com Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Nation’s Top Conservatives Will Sign Philosophical Declaration of War against Big Government http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/61365 (CNSNews.com) - Tuesday, February 16, 2010 By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer The nation's top conservative leaders will gather Wednesday at Collingwood in Alexandria, Va.—a property that was once the site of George Washington’s River Farm—to sign a document organizers are calling the Mount Vernon Statement . It is designed to signal that a united and resurgent conservative movement is declaring philosophical war against the big government and moral relativism advanced by the nation’s liberal cultural, academic and political establishments. The statement emphatically says no to the type of "change" pushed by political leaders who ignore the Constitution's limits on government power. “In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics,” says an excerpt from the statement. “The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant. “Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new,” says the statement. “But where would this lead--forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?” “The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles,” it says. The full document will be posted online at http://www.themountvernonstatement.com after 3 p.m. Wednesday. The statement was drafted under the auspices of the Conservative Action Project, a coalition led by Edwin Meese, who served as a top White House adviser and then attorney general to President Ronald Reagan.   Other leaders of the coalition include L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center (the parent organization of CNSNews.com); Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner; Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist; Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, American Conservative Union President David Keene, Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright; Coalition for a Conservative Majority Chairman Ken Blackwell; former Reagan Domestic Policy Adviser Ken Cribb; Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna, and Al Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator. More than 80 prominent conservatives from around the country are expected at Collingwood for Wednesday’s signing ceremony.  Among them will be people prominent for their efforts on behalf of the conservative cause in economics, social and cultural issues and national security. The statement intentionally harkens back to the Sharon Statement of 1960, which was signed at the home of William F. Buckley Jr. in Sharon, Conn.  That statement of conservative principles helped launch an era of conservative activism that first led to Sen. Barry Goldwater winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 and then to Ronald Reagan being elected president in 1980. “The whole purpose of it is to give an updated version of what are the principles that draw conservatives together,” said Meese, who came with Reagan from California to the White House in January 1981. “And so it was felt both that it was appropriate to draw attention to the Sharon Statement but also to update that in terms of generally how conservatives think today, which is basically the same principles restated in what you might call modern language.” “At this important time, we need a restatement of constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” says another excerpt of the statement released by the organizers. After President Barack Obama’s election along with a Democratic majority Congress in 2008, some commentators argued that conservatism had perhaps permanently lost its hold on the American electorate and the American mind. Over the past year, however, the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement has risen up from the grass roots, and Republican candidates have won convincing victories in statewide elections in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts. Meese told CNSNews.com that if the Republican Party wants to continue this winning trend it must heed conservative principles. “The Republican Party has been successfully when it subscribes to conservative principles,” said Meese. “You go back to 1980, go back to 1994, those were the guiding principles that provided for Republican successes.” While a number of conservative commentators and organizations will be publishing policy prescriptions this year that they believe can help lead to conservative victories in 2010, the Mount Vernon Statement will not be a campaign document that focuses on individual issues or one election cycle.  Rather, it will focus on broad principles, said Media Research President Brent Bozell. “It’s a document that we hope is going to serve as a compass for the movement so that when we have a debate such as, for example, on socialized health care, there should not be a degree to which government participates in national health care but whether government has the authority, the right to interfere in this issue,” Bozell told CNSNews.com.  “If it doesn’t have the specifically enumerated right and responsibility spelled out in the Constitution, then the federal government should not be involved period.” “Rather than worrying about the size of the deficit and the debt, why don’t we start asking questions about the size of the government itself,” Bozell said.  “We need to have that conversation again.   Why do we have a Department of Education?  Whatever happened to federalism?  You’re not going to have that debate until you’re grounded in first principles again.” When the Sharon Statement was signed, conservatives had only National Review and Human Events to publicize it, said Bozell.  But now conservative Web sites, talk radio shows, and social media will make it possible to quickly spread the word to millions about the Mount Vernon Statement. “Look at the opportunities today,” said Bozell. “When the statement is released, I will be able to send it instantly to 540,000 members of the Media Research Center, grassroots members. The Heritage Foundation has more than 600,000 members. They will be able to send to their membership who will receive it in a matter of minutes.”  Did Obama Consult Homeland Security Secretary on Day of Christmas Attack? (CNSNews.com) - Did President Barack Obama personally consult with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Christmas Day, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to detonate a suicide bomb aboard Northwest Flight 253? Asked that question by CNSNews.com, Napolitano initially declined to answer and then, when asked again, said “we were in contact with the president’s office” that day. Napolitano Says She 'Wasn’t Scheduled' to Be at Hearing That Democrats Scolded Her for Missing (CNSNews.com) - On Jan. 27, the same day of the State of the Union address, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano failed to attend a public hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security about the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. She was publicly scolded by committee Democrats for not showing up, and avoiding tough questions from the committee. Shell Unveils Plans to Curb Executive Pay, Bonuses Foreign Demand for U.S. Teasury Securities Falls; Could Force Higher U.S. Interest Payments White House Defends Year-Old Stimulus -- Again Please help CNSNews.com keep bringing you 'The Right News - Right Now!' Make a contribution to CNSNews.com today. It's fast, simple and secure. Help CNSNews.com and Donate Today!  Tea Party leaders meeting with Steele and other Republican operatives Tea Party movement lights fuse for rebellion on right New poll shows signs of real vulnerability for Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer Hillary Clinton to tread lightly on Saudi women's driving ban IRS Schedule M confusing many taxpayers Taking Care of People, Not Problems By Ken Connor Every day in America, what it means to be human is being redefined according to ever-evolving, ever-narrowing “quality of life” criteria which treat the unborn, the elderly, and the infirm as little more than “resource hogs” or “lifestyle impediments.” More and more, these individuals’ right to exist is being assessed in light of “functional capacity studies” and “cost-benefit analyses.” Edit HTML Visit our web site at www.cnsnews.com Like these stories? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2010 Cybercast News Service.   Constitution Society: Founding Documents Online Books History Links Quotations: American Values TimeLine of: the Magna Carta Declaration of Arbroath History of: The US Bill of Rights Constitution + more Amendments

o'humpty dumpty - House & Senate Bailing Out (Adam Gibbons, Conservapedia)

Adam Gibbons, author of the book "The Deceitful Liberal" analyses what the loss of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh means for both Democrats and Republicans come November.
video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5UGtpVK7og


And, from

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

Conservapedia:  http://www.conservapedia.com

Over 382,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

1. Liberals frequently deny the existence of practices or rules, even though the liberals defend the practice or rule.  For example, liberals who deny that partial-birth abortion existed, even though they defended the practice.  Why deny the existence of something that one defends? Liberals also deny that classroom prayer is prohibited, even though they defend the prohibition.  Apparently liberals think their denial can deflect attention away from the indefensible.
2. Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention.  This may motivate many of their statements and arguments.  Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself.  The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.
3. Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right.  Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property.  For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.
4. Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong.  Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.
5. Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find faith as they grow older.  Examples includeAbraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, but liberals deny this.
6. Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting gun control or banning homeschooling, were instrumental to Adolf Hitler's power.
7. Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not.  In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that.  Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the Deluge as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.
8. Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected.  That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints.  Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
9. Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives.  Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
10. Name-calling, particularly as a Parthian shot, is overused by liberals.  In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar.  Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
11. Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument.  More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
12. A surprising absence of reliance on logic.  Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority.  In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
13. An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit.  Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong".  Liberals generally reject the Ten Commandments, and oppose teaching them to children.  Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here.  This is remniscent of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position after his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
14. A preference for obscenity.  Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the rules, which prohibits obscenity.  Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts.  This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
15. A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries.  Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the rule against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits.  In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
16. Strident objections to the point in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.  It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias.  Instead, liberal editors appear to object to quantifying it, particularly at a multiple of six.  But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such.  Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
17. Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
18. There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact.  This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor.  It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
19. Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".
20. Instead of just correcting a grammatical error, liberals like to dramatically announce their superior ability to correct other contributors.
21. When found in an unbeatable position in debate, liberals tend to spout sentences upon sentences of meaningless words whilst saying absolutely nothing of significance for their side of the argument.

Over 466,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

Also see: CONSERVAPEDIA COMMANDMENTS: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Constitution Society: Founding Documents	Online Books	History Links	Quotations: American Values
TimeLine of: the Magna Carta	Declaration of Arbroath	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Constitution + more Amendments

"The Myth of Diversity" by Jared Taylor

article reprinted from:

http://scccc.wordpress.com/the-myth-of-diversity/

"The Myth of Diversity"

Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd

By Jared Taylor, Originally published in American Renaissance, July-August, 1997

The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.

The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, "The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great." A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, "With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us." In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.

In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, "The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492."

Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."

Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. "We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today," said Mrs. Clinton. "I'm sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I'm sure you will discover."

Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity–at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting–is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.

Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc.–a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.

What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.

The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.

In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."

Of course it is only white societies–and white groups within multi-racial societies–that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.

Immigration

Despite President Clinton's view that "diversity" started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ."

This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be "free white persons." Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.

Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.

As has been pointed out in such books as Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, the backers of the immigration bill were at pains to explain that it would have little effect on the country. "Under the proposed bill," explained Senator Edward Kennedy, "the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area." The senator suggested that, at most, 62,000 people a year might immigrate.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."

The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill–even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that "diversity" of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.

No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.

Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a "strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.

This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.

Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.

Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" he asks.

Advantages of Diversity

On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?

If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.

The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy–and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.

Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.

The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody–certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.

Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?

Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language–which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen–but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.

High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.

What, in the way of authentic culture have Miami's dwindling non-Hispanic whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 70 percent Hispanic? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Los Angeles improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Hispanic? How has the culture of Washington, D.C. or Detroit been enriched by majority-black populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the "cultural enrichment" argument collapses with a pinprick.

It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.

Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.

Public Services

At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?

On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force–touted as one of the wonders of diversity–becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.

The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multi-racialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.

Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.

Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.

Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the "triune brain." This is supposed to help them understand how "stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves."

It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.

This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.

These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.

Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month–November, 1996–"diversity" made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company "racism," and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.

In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity–and these were just the cases that made the news.

It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.

Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.

Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.

If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.

Other Races

Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Non-whites are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.

Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why "outreach" and "bridge building" do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: "Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony."

The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay, England Your England:

"During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."

In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against "people who don't look like us." In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.

There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed–certainly not "enriched"–by the February observances of Black History Month.

A similar incident took place at Los Angeles' North Hollywood High School, when it took police in riot gear to calm a melee that started when an estimated 200 to 700 black and Hispanic students pitched into each other. The spark was reportedly a clash over what kind of music to play at the homecoming dance, neither side having felt particularly "inclusive."

Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. "The only thing people cared about was skin color," explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has "rapid mobilization guards" for just such emergencies.

Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called "total polarization," and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extracurricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.

In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.

There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?

Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.

Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence–all of it directed at whites–in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.

The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.

"Diversity" can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. "Cubans get everything; we get nothing," explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.

There has been a Sahara of hot air about why blacks riot, with the official pronouncement on reasons dating back to the Kerner Commission Report of 1968: "[T]he most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans toward black Americans." Whatever one may think of this finding, there is one conclusion no one can deny: Race riots cannot happen without racial diversity.

An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.

Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.

The Diversity Double Standard

Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."

The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations–Canada, the United States, and Australia–that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.

Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.

Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.

Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.

Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.

Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.

It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."

Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote–and always at their own expense–is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion" Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.

Biograph from Wikipedia: 

Samuel Jared Taylor (born 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who advocates racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. ^[1] Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance, a journal that addresses issues of race, immigration and their impact on societies in which whites co-exist with non-whites. He is the president of the parent organization, New Century Foundation, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. He is a former member of the advisory board of Occidental Quarterly.  Born to missionary parents in Japan, Taylor lived in that country until he was 16 years old. He graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a BA in Philosophy, and completed graduate course work at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po). Taylor speaks fluent English, Japanese and French. In the 1980s, Taylor was West Coast editor of PC Magazine and a consultant before founding the American Renaissance periodical in 1990. Taylor has taught Japanese to summer school students at Harvard University.

 

The contents of this website are copyright © 2007-2009 Southern California Council of Conservative Citizens and Friends of American Renaissance. All Rights Reserved.

---

• Barack Obama's Pastor Speaks
  
• Immigration – Useful Web-Site Links
  
• Links
  
• The Myth of Diversity
  
• Who We Are
  
• American Renaissance
  
• American Renaissance Reader's Guide
  
• The Council of Conservative Citizens
  
• The Occidental Observer
  
• The Occidental Quarterly Online

---