From Free Life No 24, December 1995

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Sir,

In his review of my publication (Free Life No. 23, August 1995), Sean Gabb concludes that American Renaissance "is wrong in all that it considers most important." What, in fact, do we consider most important? Mainly, that race is a crucial element in culture or national identity. Therefore, displacement of one race by another, or significant dilution in numbers of a racial majority works irreversible change on a nation's character, culture, folkways, and texture of life.

Actually, everyone knows this. Those parts of London that are largely black or Asian are different in countless ways from those parts of the city that are white. These differences may be pleasing to the current inhabitants, but they are not pleasing to the whites who once lived there and who have moved away.

The conventional view is that culture, not race, accounts for differences in human societies, and that over time any number of any race of people can assimilate to any culture. In fact, there is not one historical example of one race adopting, intact, the culture of another. It is true that some members of racial minorities thoroughly adopt the majority culture (be it British or American), but this is most likely only when the number of minorities is small. Once their numbers reach a critical mass, their loyalties often become openly racial and openly critical of the majority.

This is natural. Why should Caribbean blacks prefer Elgar to reggae? Why should Indians forsake Hinduism for Christianity? People are stubbornly loyal to the ways of their ancestors, and properly so. The great question for Europe and for the United States is whether the whites who created those nations are justified in resisting "multiculturalism" and rates of nonwhite immigration that will eventually reduce whites, at least in the United States, to racial minorities.

To the writers for American Renaissance, the answer is obvious. Of course whites have the right, even the duty, to resist "inclusion," "diversity," "cultural enrichment," and every other process that is nothing more than a euphemism for dispossession. Western civilization will be carried forward in a meaningful way only by the biological heirs to the people who created it.

Whites are uniquely vulnerable to displacement by other races because they create successful societies in which others wish to take part. There is massive Third World immigration into white nations only because nonwhites seek levels of prosperity and orderliness they cannot find at home. This is why the agonizing battles over "exclusion" and "discrimination" are always fought out on white territory and cast whites as the villains. Nowhere are whites trying to push their way into societies created by others.

All of these issues are particularly acute for whites because they are only ten percent of the world's population and are having only five percent of the world's babies. The Asian majority on the Indian subcontinent is not threatened by non-Asians, nor is the black majority in sub-Saharan Africa. Those peoples and traditions will survive, whatever happens elsewhere. But if whites are marginalized in Europe and the United States, my people and my culture will be gone - forever.

Once again, everyone knows this to be so. France or Britain or the United States would be dramatically transformed in every important way if whites were reduced to minorities. I suspect that very few Frenchman or Britons can honestly say they would welcome such transformations.

What does this have to do with IQ, a subject on which Mr Gabb dwells disapprovingly? Theoretically, nothing. It makes no difference why blacks or Hispanics create societies different from that of whites. They are different, the differences do not suit us, and we have every right to follow our ways and not theirs.

In fact, the mountains of data that point to genetic reasons for the 15 point difference in tested IQ between blacks and whites likewise point to a higher average IQ among Japanese and perhaps Chinese than among whites. Bravo, the Japanese! They, too, have created a successful society, which is now attracting immigrants. But once again, their society is different from ours and we have every right to prefer our own.

As a practical matter, differences in average intelligence that are largely impervious to environment are the only parsimonious explanation for phenomena that otherwise require elaborate, unconvincing explanations: meagre achievement by blacks everywhere on the planet, high achievement by Jews everywhere on the planet, high crime rates among blacks everywhere from London to Jamaica to Nairobi to Detroit - the list is endless.

The ultimate issue, however, is preservation of peoples and ways of life. It is the most natural, normal, and healthy thing possible for a people to walk in the ways of its ancestors and to post its claim, biologically and culturally, to the territory it inhabits. Whites once took this for granted. They will do so again - or they will perish.

Jared Taylor, Editor

American Renaissance

Box 1674, Louisville

Kentucky 40201

United States of America

Webpage: http://www.amren.com

Sir,

Your review of the money laundering books [Free Life No. 23, August 1995] was interesting, but wrong.

You say the New World Order is not a conspiracy nor something we can identify and act against. You are wrong. Where you see public choice economics, I see conspiracies. Both politics and media in the United States have been colonised by the agents of an emerging world government. Take for example George Bush, speaking on the 9th January 1991:

"[The Gulf Crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."

Again, take Strobe Talbot - currently Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, and a former editor of Time magazine - writing in Time on the 20th July 1992:

"All countries are basically social arrangements, accomodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they seem at any one time, in fact they are all artifical and temporary.... [N]ationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century - `citizen of the world' - will have assumed real meaning...."

In the light of this - and of much other evidence - I would say that the New World Order is not not a side effect of the rage against money laundering, but an agenda pursued for its own sake. And you are wrong if you say otherwise.

Yours,

Edsel J. Harrington,

South Carolina.

Sir,

I have just read your review of the money laundering treaties [Free Life No. 23, August 1995]. It is good so far as it goes. However, you have overlooked what seems to me an obvious point.

You say that the banks and other institutions affected do not like the new controls; and certainly, much of the pressure comes from civil servants and policemen in search of status. But much comes also from the big financial institutions. If I cannot produce evidence for this claim, its truth does sound reasonable. If I were a banker, I should press for exactly the same identification and reporting requirements as have been imposed. True, I should know they would undermine London as a financial centre. True, I should know they would burden me with a mass of paperwork. But so long as they kept or pushed smaller competitors out of my market, and so gave me an absolutely larger share of the business that remained, it would be a rational action.

And when I talk about business, I do not mean just legal transactions. Bearing in mind the long round of consulting by the Bank of England before they were announced, I doubt if the current regulations do other than reserve money laundering to those institutions consulted. They may be the equivalent of the "voluntary agreement" negotiated between the big tobacco companies and the Department of Health - allowing the former to more more or less as they please, but a minefield for anyone outside the cartel.

This may explain why the growing pressure to legalise drugs has had so little effect. The prohibition is no longer about saving individuals for their own alleged folly - if, indeed, it ever was. It is instead about maintaining the flow of dirty money through the favoured institutions. End the prohibition, and the flow will stop.

Yours in depression,

Frederick Fairlie,

Cumberland.

Sir,

I wish to reply here to by Nicholas Dykes [Free Life No. 20, August 1994]. His essay strikes me as not much more than a character assassination of a straw-man determinist, who is described as

never able to know anything... nor able to confirm its truth... whatever he thinks, writes or says must itself be determined... he cannot choose for himself... every disaster is unavoidable, every disease is incurable... The determinist is the slave of his genes, or his subconscious, or his class, or his culture; a helpless schmoo... never... able to accept a reward as deserved or earned.

Mr Dykes no doubt imagines that statements like "every disease is incurable" stand as a reductio ad absurdum of the determinist position, but by no stretch of the imagination does causality, or even an absence of "free will" imply that diseases cannot be cured. Even fatalism need not be fatal.

Mr Dykes' style of argument-by-ridicule relieves him of the necessity of defining his terms or rationalising his own position. What is self? What is choice? What is will? What is freedom? Mr Dykes implies that universal causality (or randomness) - ie, materialism - equates with coercion. He makes no distinction between coercion by political agents and "coercion" by material causes. Yet, if a distinction between self and non-self can be made, it follows that self can as easily be a cause as non-self. Because this is true, self is capable of choice, knowledge and merit. The fact that self is the product of material causes in no way invalidates its existence, its character or its ability to function as a cause of subsequent events (for which it is responsible).

Knowledge is a function of the impact of experience upon a material brain. No misuse of the concept of "freedom" can reasonably justify the idea that knowledge is less fallible than it is or that self can enjoy a special exemption from causal (or random) materialism. If Mr Dykes wishes to make a serious argument, he must explain the spiritualist implications of a self that can be created and exert its will independently (at least in part) of material influences. And he must explain why no distinction can be made between political freedom and the implied "freedom" which exempts the "free will" from having a material basis.

Considerations of this nature make me think that the word "freedom" is inappropriate in discourse concerning the materiality of - or causal influences governing - the human will. If the word "freedom" is left to the political arena, then an unencumbered discussion is possible concerning whether the human will is material (causal or random) or spiritual ("uncaused" or somehow able to act without prior cause).

Yours sincerely,

Ben Best,

Ontario.