For the past few days, whenever I could spare a minute, I have watched the refugee scenes on TV, and I can tell you that my palms got sweaty more than once.
Since I am not a Chosenite, I am not in the habit of obsessively dwelling on the hardships of my childhood in the refugee years of World War II, but I can tell you that a lot of refugee life is familiar to me and has been described in my novels - and the question, "What was it all about...?" is certainly a question that has nagged at me for a very long time.
What ***is*** this all about?
Charlie Reese, one of my favorite editorialists on the Right, made much of it lucid for me in his column "NATO & U.S. - the New Bullies":
"Suppose, for the sake of supposing, that ten winters hence, the population of California is 90% Latino and 10% Anglo.
Suppose two factions develop among the Latinos. One wants autonomy for the Latinos of California. The other group, more violent and bloody, wants independence.
Suppose the United States beefed up California's police and sent in Federal troops.
Now suppose that China and Russia said that U.S. actions in California threatened the stability of the hemisphere, that the United States must grant autonomy to California's Latinos, that it must withdraw its troops and police, that it must accept occupation of California by Chinese and Russian forces to enforce the agreement the United States must sign or else get bombed.
Substitute Kosovo for California, Albanians for Latinos, and the United States and Great Britain for China and Russia, and you have the situation facing the Serbs. It is absurd and mad. (...)
Whatever the outcome, the crime is in the assumption by NATO that it can simply declare that Yugoslavia is no longer an independent and sovereign nation and that it may dictate to Yugoslavia how it will conduct its internal affairs.
The implications of this insanity are enormous and bad.
Any shred of residual belief that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is defensive in nature has vanished. NATO is the new bully of Europe. Every nation in Europe not part of the "in" crowd should keep its powder dry and prepare for war.
Not one single nation on earth can draw any inference but that the United Nations is a completely dead issue, an expensive and impotent organization that violates its own charter and is nothing but the tool of the new evil empire, the United States. The international rule of law? Gone. The United Nations charter? Made a mockery.
I have always thought Bill Clinton was a decadent sociopath, but now I think he's gone nuts. The expansion of NATO and use of NATO to bully and punish sovereign independent nations for having the audacity to disobey the orders of foreigners is a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions." (Middle American News, April 1999) <end>
Now let's suppose that something similar to Kosovo has happened in the intellectual and spiritual realm of Western man. At one time, we had sovereign men and women. Slowly but surely, a thought system alien to our way of life - in these politically sensitive times, I hasten to say: not necessarily better or worse, but ***alien*** - managed to insinuate itself into our civilization, robbing us of our heritage and our historical identity.
These days, we still have our spiritual, cultural Kosovos in sight, but alien ideologies bombard them viciously and tell us we are wrong to want to retain or regain what is ours - that it is "wicked" to resist the kind of alien spiritual amalgamation that saps our inner strength.
I think we need to draw some parallels while watching what is going on in Kosovo. Recently, a perceptive Canadian commentator, David Frum, made the point that ***the Kosovo war is a war for national identity and sovereignty*** - and that that is the reason why vested liberal interests go berserk. They fear the victory of a nationalist state which will serve as a nationalist example that the New World Order can be beaten. Right there on European soil! For all the world to see! In their push for the polyglot New World Order, they cannot have that kind of beacon of hope. It makes the social engineers and ideological zealots of the New World Order go ballistic.
Now take someone like David Duke who says what he says and thinks the way he does - and finds an echo in the wide expanses of America. One step removed, take Glayde Whitney, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University who had the courage, rare in our times, to state the obvious in his "Comment on Diversity", a Letter to the Editor:
"It is quite a trouncing that I have been taking in the media. In an editorial (March 24) the Tallahassee Democrat says that hate groups "carefully use their words to demonize certain individuals". The same editorial then goes on to damn me with demonizing terms such as 'hateful', 'loathsome', 'abhorrent speech', 'obnoxious point of view', 'white-supremacist diatribe', and more. In the Tampa Tribune (March 24) Daniel Roth presents an even viler smear. All this for my having had the temerity to write a foreword for David Duke's autobiography MY AWAKENING.
There have been many times in history when scientific research or teaching were censured, punished, or demonized, usually for seeming to contradict some religious or political orthodoxy. In the former Soviet Union the science of genetics was actually outlawed, along with the use of intelligence tests, because the results contradicted the egalitarian fallacy that was and remains central to the ideology of Marxist socialism. Today, here in the United States, scientists who study human genetics, behavior and intelligence are often attacked, in print and even physically, because their findings contradict the egalitarian fallacy that is at the heart of modern liberalism.
For over a hundred years scientific studies have shown that we are not all the same, and that there is a tremendous range of individual diversity, some of it inherited. Further, essentially all studies verify that the distribution of many traits is not the same across the races. One of the most vexatious such traits is measured intelligence, or IQ. The results have been consistent since the first reliable testing early in this century, and remain so today.
In the editorial (24 Mar.) I am misquoted as having delivered the sound bite that blacks are "bigger in bone, smaller in brain." This phrase seems to have originated in a smear promulgated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). But what are the facts? It is commonly known that black's greater bone density begins before birth and on average continues into old age. This contributes to their lower incidence of osteoporosis. Even the Tallahassee Democrat (29 March) in a feature article about osteoporosis notes that Caucasian women are encouraged to be tested. Studies of the distribution of brain size have been conducted repeatedly since the 19th century: On average East Asians score highest, European descended whites intermediate, and individuals of sub-Saharan black African ancestry score lower. Modern studies using MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to measure brain size find a correlation of about .4 with IQ.
This is not white supremacy or black supremacy or Asian supremacy; it is simply the results of scientific research. The findings for brain size and intelligence are no more 'racist' or 'supremacist' than the findings on osteoporosis.
Politically, with our current one-party system, both branches (Democrat and Republican) acquiesce to the egalitarian fallacy. This makes David Duke attractive as the only nationally known politician to publicly grapple with the truth. Although I may personally disagree with many of his specific suggestions, I heartily agree with David Duke's statement "I simply believe in equal rights for everyone in this country, and that should include White people", and hope that all Americans would as well.
It is my view that attempting to structure a society that flies in the face of the realities of diversity is doomed to failure. Slavish adherence to the egalitarian fallacy is one of the reasons that the Soviet Union is now "Former", and is one of the reasons for the decline of civility across America. Many aspects of our civilization suffer from this denial of reality."
Prof. Whitney can be reached by email at: whitney@Darwin.psy.fsu.edu
====
Thought for the Day:
"If anything, the law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods...But legislation cannot change the human heart. The only way we can accomplish that, the only we can achieve a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a melange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity' or practice the barbarism to safeguard it. The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. And it may be that time is growing short. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the White races to the colored. The sooner we adjust to this fact, the better it will be for our children. For we might well acknowledge, even the most enlightened of us, that we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races."
(Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, known in Canada as the "Red Rabbi", as quoted in Maclean's Magazine, September 5, 1967).