Sunday, April 22, 2012

The State of White America–2007
Release Date: April 5, 2007
Prepared by and for the National Policy Institute by Nicholas Stix, Project Director

[Reader’s note: I was shocked to learn of the death of Louis Andrews, who ran the National Policy Institute for at least the last six or seven years of his life. In 2005 or 2006, Kevin Lamb honored me by hiring me to edit and co-author this report. I wrote an ambitious, detailed outline for the report, which Kevin greenlighted.

After Kevin left NPI, I worked directly under Louis Andrews, who gave me complete editorial control, never interfering in any way with my work. Louis was already in the fight of his life, with cancer that had spread from his colon all over his body. I was sure he was a goner, which also caused me to worry that I’d never get paid! Well, Louis made a miraculous “recovery”—the scare quotes are because there are no real recoveries, once cancer has taken up residence in one’s body—and when I saw him in 2008 at the American Renaissance conference, he looked hail and ruddy-cheeked, and fit to wrestle grizzly bears, his white hair and beard notwithstanding.

And he looked just as good the next year, at the Saving Western Civilization conference.

But the cancer came back, and claimed him on December 29.

According to the ADL, SOWA-2007 put NPI on the map. The link to the report was always prominently displayed on NPI’s front page. NPI’s editors had also posted excerpts and links to dozens of my articles since then.

I learned of Louis’ death when I checked the link to SOWA-2007, and found it was dead. Before Louis’ body was even cold, some blackguard had deleted every trace of me from the site—the links to SOWA-2007, and every single Web page promoting my articles.

Why would someone do such a thing? It would require a contempt for intellectual standards, and a complete lack of moral integrity. The blackguard in question could not carry my jock strap, and he besmirched Louis Andrews’ legacy.

And so, I am reprinting SOWA-2007 at this blog and, hopefully, at others, as well.



Nicholas Stix  

The State of White America-2007

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A Statistical Review of the Condition of Whites in the United States
3. Education: Pseudo-Pedagogy, Real Hatred
4. On the Job: No White Americans Need Apply?
5. Crime: One Thing White Americans are Lousy at

April 5, 2007

To the reader:

We at the National Policy Institute are pleased to release The State of White America–2007. Our thanks goes to Nicholas Stix, project director, for his production of this original work, as well as to the other authors and researchers, some named, some not, who participated in this lengthy project.

If you find this publication useful, please consider a donation to the National Policy Institute [address no longer valid] so that we may continue this and similar valuable work.

Bound printed copies of this report are available from the above address for $10.00 each.

Louis R. Andrews


The past 53 years have not been kind to white America. And as white America goes, so goes America.

The following report gives in concentrated form, a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America, and thus, on America herself. We at NPI were fortunate in being able to benefit from the contributions of one of today’s most rigorous quantitative researchers, Edwin S. Rubenstein, the president of Indianapolis-based ESR Research Economic Consultants, and one of the most brilliant and elegant writers presently working in the English language, Melbourne, Australia-based historian R. J. Stove (The Unsleeping Eye: Secret Police and Their Victims). SOWA blends journalism and social science, in analyzing and criticizing developments, taking the present day as its point of departure, and reaching back over the past couple of years and the past fifty-odd years.

On May 17, 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 9–0 decision outlawing racial school segregation. In the Warren Court’s contempt for constitutional precedent, embrace of fraudulent social science, and casually dismissive attitude towards common sense and tradition, Brown was arguably the worst decision in the Court’s 216-year history.

And things have only gotten worse since. Brown was followed by the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, another unconstitutional action, which was supposed to bring about racial comity and equality. Instead, it immediately inspired race rioting by blacks, and soon enough, quota systems privileging unqualified blacks (and later,Hispanics, and today even illegal immigrants!), at the expense of qualified whites.The next year saw the enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Act, respectively, and Pres. Johnson’s signing of Executive Order 11246, which began affirmative action. The Voting Rights Act was yet another federal usurpation of states’ rights, whose immediate result was yet more black race riots, and whose long-term result was to initiate a regime of federal mischief-making, in rigging elections for the benefit of black, and later Hispanic, candidates.

And then came forced busing.

As terrible as Brown, the U.S. Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and forced busing were, they wreaked havoc in a nation that was still almost 90 percent white. Thus, although integration and the civil rights movement led directly to the destruction of great cities; and to millions of whites suffering terrible injustices,including assault, robbery, rape and murder, and losing everything they had through the ensuing destruction of their neighborhoods and their property values; the majority of whites were able to escape ascendant black supremacy.

But on October 3, 1965, the Immigration Act changed all that. Although its floor manager, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), assured voters that the bill would not change America’s ethnic balance, it has in fact brought about the biggest ethnic upheaval in American history, and threatens to abolish America. At the time, Kennedyguaranteed the American people,

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area.

Sen. Kennedy now seeks to finish what he began in 1965. Instead of apologizing to the American people for his deception of 41 years ago, his response to opposition to his new plan for a massive amnesty of as many as 20 million predominantly Hispanic illegal immigrants already in the U.S., plus tens of millions of theiroverseas relatives, is to damn his critics as “racists” and to play demagogue to illegal aliens.

And so, a nation that was almost 90 percent white in 1960, is now only 67 percent white, with that percentage decreasing a little each day. The now dwindling white majority cannot escape both black and mestizo supremacy.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the movement to make America a majority non-white nation, is the glee with which non-whites and their white supporters, such as Sen. Kennedy, go about their business. Were they really so concerned with helping Hispanics and blacks exploit the American welfare state, they would want to limit Hispanic and black immigration. For it is only within the framework of a predominantly white nation, that America can be economically, legally, and culturally exploited by blacks and Hispanics. (But then, how supportive of blacks and Hispanics can community “leaders” and “educators” be, that prevent minoritychildren from learning English, and who encourage them to lead lives of crime?)Welfare programs are expensive in both their direct and indirect costs; they can only be supported by a thriving, modern economy in which almost everyone works. And that economy can only thrive if the society is dominated by people who respect the rule of law, have a strong work ethic, a certain level of intelligence, and maintain assorted cultural and political traditions (respecting their neighbors’ property, speaking a common language, having a sense of national loyalty, and thus of common citizenship, etc.).

Should America’s borders be abolished, at the same time that lawless foreigners, whose loyalty is to foreign flags, are granted privileges superior to those of loyal Americans, the ensuing economic, legal, and cultural collapse would cost blacks and Hispanics all of the wonderful things they now routinely demand of whites,and which brought most Hispanics here in the first place. They will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

But not all developments currently hurting whites spring from an explicitly racial animus. The outsourcing and insourcing of jobs previously done by Americans was done out of the profit motive, but it also disproportionately hurt whites.

The only change in the economic landscape benefiting foreigners which some observers claim has largely harmed American blacks is the increasing use of illegal immigrant labor for low-skilled and unskilled work, and even that claim is debatable. In many cases, illegal immigrants are doing work that whites still did, but that most blacks in the meantime came to consider beneath them.

In the cases of insourcing and outsourcing, American firms are also killing the goose that laid the golden egg. As Paul Craig Roberts has observed, by seeking “absolute” rather than “comparative advantage,” and thus increasingly refusing to hire Americans for millions of jobs serving the American market, American firms are contributing to a situation in which that market will eventually no longer be able to support their products and services. Such firms have already largely destroyed the value of American engineering degrees. And as Roberts has warned, by forsaking manufacturing and even research and development in favor of simply slapping American labels on outsourced foreign goods, American firms are hastening the day when the foreign companies that today do those jobs for them simply cut out the American middle man, slap their own labels on their goods, and export them to America. That would spell the end of many American high-tech firms.

Meanwhile, Americans may not even publicly complain about the impending destruction of their nation. The entertainment and news media, the public (and in many cases, private) schools, the private and public universities, social work agencies, and increasingly, even police agencies, have been taken over variously by proponents of multiculturalism, or by cynical managers who appease them.

Multiculturalism is an explicitly anti-white, racist movement that was created by Marxists during the late 1950s, when they saw that the white American working class was not fulfilling its “historical role,” in bringing about the socialist revolution. The Marxists conscripted the Third World, in the place of working-class whites.

Anyone questioning anti-white dogma in the aforementioned institutions is variously fired and blacklisted; given terrible grades or expelled, if they are students; or forced into sensitivity training, until, sufficiently chastened, they give the “correct” answers, and stop ever challenging the anti-white creed. These institutions teach Middle Americans to live in fear, while emboldening blacks, Hispanics, and white “anti-racists” in their attacks on them. Some whites have even landed in jail, simply for using language unacceptable to multicultural sheriff’s deputies and jurists.

The late Sam Francis coined the concept of “anarcho-tyranny,” to describe the novel situation in which some groups (Middle Americans) are tyrannically oppressed, while other groups (blacks, Hispanics, and especially, illegal immigrants) are above the law. In a related vein, Paul Craig Roberts has spoken of the return of a “feudal” legal order.

While some whites are standing up to such racism, the white majority’s yielding to it is one of the saddest, and most maddening sights in contemporary American life.

During the late 1980s, in what would later prove to be the last days of the Iron Curtain, socialist British historian Timothy Garton Ash would travel about the East Bloc. In Ash’s reportages, which would later be collected in book form as The Uses of Adversity, he spoke of the difference between “private” and “public” opinion. “Public” opinion consisted of the lies that comprised Communist Party propaganda, which ordinary people had to repeat, if they didn’t want to land in the gulag or starve. “Private” opinion consisted of the truths that people could speak only behind closed doors, or which hardy samizdat journalists risked their livesto publish.

Things aren’t as dramatic in the U.S. as they were behind the Iron Curtain—yet. But life in America is heading inexorably in a totalitarian direction. While I doubt that an American dictatorship would necessarily be communist, whether a dictatorship arises indirectly from anarchy or directly via tyranny, a liberal society cannot long endure multiculturalism. However, rather than resembling Soviet Russia or Red China, America is heading for a reality that more likely will look like a cross between Zimbabwe and Mexico, but with Hispanics holding the whip hand.

As the late Christopher Lasch (in The Revolt of the Elites), Samuel Huntington (in Who are We?), and other critics have noted, America is today ruled by “transnational elites,” who have no loyalty to nation, race, or ethny. The elites in question run the gamut politically from Marxism to neoconservatism to libertarianism.

And yet, these elites have for over forty years promoted policies and practices supporting the rise of blacks and Hispanics with intense loyalties to “blood and soil.”

White elites and those successfully indoctrinated by them seek constantly to minimize the role of race in human affairs, while blacks and Hispanics insist that everything is racial. This comical disjunction even affects relations between allies. White Marxists who support black supremacy deny the very reality of race, while the black supremacists they support insist that race isn’t everything, race is the only thing. Thus it was that during the 1996–1997 debate over so-called Ebonics, Marxist professors of linguistics could not even understand what the Oakland Ebonics Resolution was saying, when it claimed that ebonics is “genetically based.” The linguistics professors insisted that in the resolution, “genetic” meant “historical.”

For a more recent example, some whites have sought to explain to blacks calling for the railroading of three innocent white men in the Duke Rape Hoax, that “This isn’t about race.”

Whites have been so cowed out of speaking in explicitly racial terms, except to grovel at the feet of minorities, or to support the latter’s hoaxes, that when something is as obviously racial as the attempt to imprison three innocent men in the absence of any crime, basely solely on the color of their skin, they seek to translate the incident into non-racial terms.

When white writers who oppose multiculturalism write on race, they must adopt rhetorical strategies that can undermine their works, if they are to be published. For one thing, they must say nice things about famous black scoundrels whom they rightly, if only privately, hold in contempt.

Another strategy is to throw in platitudes saying that blacks still suffer from racial discrimination, as neoconservatives Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom (not the author to whom I was just referring) did in their magisterial work criticizing affirmative action, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible: Race in Modern America. A lot of good that did the Thernstroms. One influential critic (Nicholas Lemann) threw the platitudes back in their faces, arguing that such an admission undermined their entire critique of affirmative action, while another prominent critic (Philip Klinkner) asserted, in what amounted to a political-intellectual death warrant, that the Thernstroms were indistinguishable from white supremacists.

In Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, author William McGowan felt so constrained to emphasize the benefits of a more “diverse” newsroom, that he gave the lie to his entire book, which otherwise consists of showing, in case after case after case, how affirmative action and multiculturalism have resulted in fraudulent reporting.

Most talented political writers simply avoid race, if at all possible.

And yet, if someone doesn’t show some courage, all will be lost. America wasn’t founded by weaklings, and she won’t be saved by weaklings.

The founders of the National Policy Institute have the requisite courage. They speak for us. And in the irony of ironies, they speak for blacks and Hispanics, too. For it will only be via a reassertion of white prerogatives, that the social order which once helped so many blacks and Hispanics to overcome their “communities,” and which once redeemed those communities from their own baser instincts, that black and Hispanic Americans will be able to enjoy the fruits of American civilization.

Nicholas Stix


Post a Comment

<< Home