The Leftward Course Of Human Events
"Fix
New Orleans, Then Drill for Oil"
read the headline in the September 5 post-Hurricane
Katrina issue of the venerable Washington D.C.-based
conservative weekly
Human Events.
This betrays the
modern mindset of the Human Events
editors: Focus exclusively on
"energy policy" wonkery and avoid the
notorious lawlessness that flourished in New Orleans
—murder,
rapes, assaults,
pillaging and
looting—because that might mean mentioning its
racial component.
As the former
managing editor of Human Events, I can recall
several instances in editorial meetings and private
discussions in which race was simmering just below
the surface—whether
crime rates in the
nation`s capital, immigration, or educational
disparities in student achievement. When the
conversation became increasingly awkward, one of the
other top editors would caution:
"I suppose we shouldn`t discuss that." Then they
would quickly move on to a safer subject.
Mind you, this is
from a group of conservative editors who would
frequently boast of taking brave stands on other topics.
The New Guinean
expression
Mokita (truth that is widely known but rarely
spoken) captures these
Establishment Conservatives` attitude to
contemporary
racial taboos. Certain truths are accepted, but are
not to be publicly mentioned.
Politically correct
radical egalitarianism—the belief that there are
no natural differences between human groups—now
reigns as unchallenged in the salons of the Conservative
Establishment, as it does everywhere else in America`s
political and social elites.
Last January I was
forced out of my job at
Eagle Publishing (home of the Conservative Book
Club, Human Events, and
Regnery Publishing) after serving nearly three years
as managing editor of Human Events. The reason:
editing, entirely on my own free time, another
publication,
The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ), that
addresses important cultural, racial, ethnic, and
political issues facing the future of Western
civilization.
My work performance
at Human Events was never questioned. I enjoyed
my work, got along well with the editors, valued the
camaraderie and good will of my colleagues at Eagle, and
always put forth my best effort to meet my employer`s
expectations to produce a solid, informative
conservative weekly newspaper. Other staff members
freelanced regularly on the side without losing their
jobs.
However, one
afternoon the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the fanatical
left-wing enforcer organization, called my office
supervisors to inquire about my work for Human Events,
the Evans and Novak Political Report (an Eagle
newsletter), and a
"white supremacist" publication (TOQ).
To my bosses, the
SPLC`s
Heidi Beirich was a faceless, nameless individual.
Nevertheless, without hesitation or reservation, they
accepted at
face value her accusations and descriptions about my
avocational work. Three years of collegial respect
simply vanished instantaneously over accusations that
were never questioned.
Much of the day
passed on a routine schedule when late that afternoon,
Tom Winter, the
long-time editor in chief of Human Events,
sternly demanded that I follow him to the office
conference room. I sensed at that point we were not
going to discuss a raise or promotion. Near the end of a
ten-minute interrogation about my work with TOQ,
the vice president of the company said, "How do you
think we should handle this?" I was given a few
seconds to decide to either resign or be
fired.
I asked why I
had to either resign or get fired. The response:
"We think you know why."
For personal
reasons, I decided to resign. We filed out of the
conference room as people would leave a wake at a
funeral.
As I was packing up
my possessions in my office, Winter showed up and
complimented me for my work as managing editor. I could
sense a degree of unease about what had transpired. He
didn`t seem to know much about the SPLC and their
aggressive agenda to
undermine any threat to egalitarianism. For
conservatives of his generation, the embodiment of evil
liberalism had always been the
ACLU.
We talked briefly
as I scrambled to find empty spare boxes around the
office corridors for my family photos and personal
mementos. He tried to smooth things out, but his own
admission that I was a "good" managing editor was
only a kick in the teeth.
It made me realize
the full force of
political correctness—imposed by the far left on a
prominent “conservative” publication. My
departure from Eagle was an expedient way to avoid the
likely negative publicity that the SPLC could stoke if
Eagle ignored their claims.
Although I had made
it a point not to discuss my freelance work around the
office, out of respect for my colleagues who might have
strong opinions, individuals at Human Events knew
of my involvement with TOQ—three Eagle employees,
including a senior editor at my sister company Regnery
Publishing and a former co-owner of the paper. Not to
mention my working relationship with two members of the
Regnery family, cousins—the one, Al Regnery, a member of
Eagle`s corporate board and former publisher of Regnery;
the other, William Regnery, a friend…and the publisher
of TOQ.
My forced departure
was wholly political. Further proof: articles by
Marian Coombs and
Wayne Lutton, two freelance writers I had used who
also write for
The Occidental Quarterly, were retroactively
stripped off the Human Events website. (But this
Soviet-style rewriting of history doesn`t work in the
age of the internet: the articles can still be found in
Google`s cache,).
And the way Eagle
abruptly dealt with my severance from the company was
more callous than I could ever have anticipated. I
received a few days pay and compensation for sick leave,
vacation time and benefits. As the father of two
precious daughters and a wonderful wife, I couldn`t
imagine how a so-called "family oriented"
employer could react so brutally.
It would have been
one thing to say, "We see a conflict of interest, we
don`t like how you spend your time outside the office,
but in appreciation of your valued work for the company,
here`s a few months compensation. We wish you the best
of luck."
Nothing doing—I had
to evacuate that evening and leave my access card to the
building, as if I couldn`t be trusted to return and pack
up my personal possessions.
Breaking the news
to my wife later that evening, awaking her after our two
daughters were asleep, was one of the most difficult
experiences I`ve had to face. How do you explain to your
wife that you lost your job—not for some work-related
grievance—but for exercising your first-amendment rights
and, as a
freelancer, expressing
a point of view?
The late syndicated
columnist
Sam Francis said that when he was similarly
fired from The Washington Times, the
experience was comparable psychologically to rape. As
Sam put it, you feel personally violated, as if you
needed to disinfect yourself by taking a thorough
shower. I felt the same way.
One might think
that the editors of Human Events would have
brushed aside the SPLC`s effort to purge one of its
employees. Eagle is an employer whose owner, Tom
Phillips [email
him],
a mover and shaker in elite GOP circles,
boasts about upholding "traditional American
values of free enterprise, limited government, and
individual liberty"—and presumably the U.S.
Constitution. But Eagle executives were seemingly blind
to the fact that the SPLC`s agenda actively tries to
undermine the limited government and individual liberty
of traditional patriotic Americans. The fact that such
a radical left-wing organization could generate such a
swift response out of, not just any conservative
employer, but the flagship publication of
social conservatives who politically remain
entirely at odds with the
SPLC`s outlook, is mind-boggling.
For example, in
2003 Human Events selected Judge Roy Moore for
its
man-of-the-year award for his principled stand in
his fight to keep the
Ten Commandments monument in his courtroom. The
SPLC had filed the
suit against Judge Moore that resulted in the
removal of the monument.
Furthermore, SPLC`s
founder Morris Dees said in
March 2004, "The most dangerous threat in America
today is not from the Ku Klux Klan and it`s not from the
Neo Nazis, it`s from the religious right." Dees
added, "I think of
Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery, Alabama…. We took
that case because it was a case of extreme religious
intolerance."
The SPLC even lists the
American Enterprise Institute as a "hate"
group.
[KL correction 10/5/05:
In fact, AEI is
not listed in the
SPLC`s “hate group” page, but an
article describes AEI “sponsored scholars” as
having “views” that are “seen by many as
bigoted or even racist”, citing
Dinesh D`Souza, author of
The End of Racism, and
Charles Murray, co-author of
The Bell Curve.] SPLC`s sister organization`s website,
Tolerance.org, has a
glowing interview with former Weatherman and radical
educator Bill Ayers, an
unrepentant advocate of Communism, who as recently
as 1995 described himself as "…a radical, Leftist,
small `c` communist." As Ayers candidly admits in a
published interview, "the ethics of Communism still
appeal to me." Ayers is married to former Weatherman
radical
Bernardine Dohrn, who in 1969, according to the
Claremont Institute, attended a Weather Underground
"war council" in Michigan, in which she "gave a
three-fingered `fork salute` to mass murderer
Charles Manson and gloated: "Dig it. First they
killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room
with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim`s
stomach! Wild!"
To think that
Human Events, a staunchly anti-Communist periodical
that unapologetically defends
Joseph McCarthy and
Gen. Augusto Pinochet, would force a loyal employee
to resign out of fear of the SPLC would have been, until
very recently, inconceivable.
What explains this
bizarre spectacle?
Unquestionably,
Phillips` takeover of Human Events in the early
1990s has subjected the once-independent paper to
conventional corporate pressures. And Tom Winter,
unfortunately, has been in poor health.
But over the years,
especially since the 1980s, the American right has
drifted leftward along with the rest of the political
culture, especially on third-rail issues involving
race,
multiculturalism, and "diversity." Human
Events is now far from the staunchly conservative
views that it championed not so long ago.
Shortly after I had
left the paper in January, Tom Winter was
quoted in a
UPI story as saying,
"In its 60-year
history, Human Events had never `knowingly hired
a racist, never published racist articles, and never
tolerated racist sympathies…and we never will.`"
This may be true,
but Winter had no problem granting The Citizen,
the monthly publication of the segregationist Citizen`s
Council, permission to reprint, in August 1979, the
columnist M. Stanton Evans` eyewitness account of the
Rhodesian election that first appeared in Human
Events.
Moreover, Human
Events once published detailed critiques of
egalitarianism, such as
John O`Hara`s 1965 article, "Is There a
Brotherhood of Man?" It also published the late
David Brudnoy`s laudatory review of Jared Taylor`s
Paved With Good Intentions in 1993. Brudnoy
noted:
"Taylor`s analysis of
the
double standards operating in America and of the
overall circumstance of the underclass is unsurpassed in
a single volume intended for the general reader…a
document of first-rate significance for analyzing where
we are."
The irony of
Human Events` publishing this review is that it was
Sam Francis`s
affiliation with Taylor`s monthly newsletter
American Renaissance that contributed to
Francis`s banishment from Human Events.
Throughout the late 80s and early 90s, his biweekly
syndicated column frequently appeared in the paper,
occasionally on the cover. But after Francis was
purged from The Washington Times, his column
likewise vanished from the pages of Human Events.
Winter would edit his name from the text whenever it
mentioned Francis favorably—just as the Soviets would
airbrush an ex-comrade out of existence.
Earlier, contrary
to Winter`s pronouncements against "racism,"
Human Events in fact had a long history of
publishing provocative commentary on race and politics
and maintaining affiliations with segregationist-minded
politicians and journalists.
It ran the writings
of
Major Gen. J. F. C. Fuller, a leading historian of
military strategy and a former supporter of
Oswald Mosley`s British Union of Fascists, and
Professor Hans Sennholz, an economist and
ex-Luftwaffe pilot who was also listed as a
contributing editor of the John Birch Society`s
American Opinion.
American
conservatives once vigorously opposed radical changes
that the left was forcing on society under the guise of
racial equality—spawning the
Brown v. Board of Education
decisions,
"civil rights" laws (including the
"Open Housing" and
"Voting Rights Acts"), affirmative action
policies, court-ordered busing to achieve racial
desegregation, the outlawing of
merit-based employment testing in the private sector
via the Griggs decision, and to a large extent,
the current immigration crisis that has followed in the
wake of the
Immigration Act of 1965. Conservatives opposed this
transformation of the
culture, customs, and traditions (what the eminent
sociologist
William Graham Sumner called "Folkways")
of America`s national character. They unabashedly
represented the
interests of their core constituents:
white, middle-class voters—what Howard Dean has
accurately identified as the base of the GOP. In
another era, this constituency was known as the
"Silent Majority." Today, this constituency is
euphemistically referred to as "redstate America,"
"soccer moms" and
"NASCAR dads."
Politically, this
conservative continuum included Republican and southern
Democratic politicians. Coalitions led by Sen.
Barry Goldwater, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, Ohio Rep. John M. Ashbrook, and Senators
Jesse Helms,
Strom Thurmond, and
James Eastland stymied radical egalitarian reforms.
Grassroots activists to the right of the emerging
Conservative Establishment formed patriotic
organizations. Broad coalitions of conservatives made
possible the
Reagan era, ushered in just twelve years after
LBJ`s Great Society programs seemed to have swept
the country.
It is true that
over the years Human Events was careful in
confronting the race issue. It never was explicitly a
racial publication and it would be inappropriate to
characterize it as such. But by the same token, it was
never a champion of radical egalitarian social policies.
It routinely opposed
forced busing, Head Start, affirmative action, and
aggressively exposed the
Communist influence within the
civil rights movement. The paper`s editors tacitly
understood that grassroots cultural conservatives, such
as Birchers and members of the Southern Citizen`s
Council, formed a considerable core of Human Events`
readership base. The paper unapologetically looked up to
prominent conservative public officials—including
former segregationists such as Strom Thurmond—without
being explicitly racial in outlook.
Times have changed.
One dramatic example: Two years ago Human Events`
editor Terry Jeffrey [email
him]
insisted on using for the cover of the paper a color
photo of Martin Luther King, Jr. making his historic
1963 speech to accompany
Linda Chavez`s column criticizing the Supreme
Court`s decision to uphold the University of Michigan`s
affirmative action policy.
But historically
Human Events had been enormously critical of King
and his unreported Communist affiliations. In 1983, the
paper reprinted in full text
Jesse Helms` speech detailing the full range of
conservative objections to making
King`s birthday a national holiday, including the
infamous photograph of King attending the Highlander
Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton, which appeared
throughout the South on billboards in the 1960s.
By publishing this
large, laudatory image of King on the cover of Human
Events, the editors must have made a number of older
readers wonder if this is the same publication they were
reading twenty years ago. (Hint: it isn`t).
In 1973, Human
Events published "A Tale of Two Heretics,"
an article by
M. Stanton Evans defending the
research of
Arthur R. Jensen, then at the University of
California, Berkeley, and the late Richard Herrnstein of
Harvard University. Jensen had published a
controversial paper in the Harvard Educational
Review in which he argued that the underlying cause
of the black/white IQ gap, as measured by valid
intelligence tests, was
largely genetic in origin. It remains one of the
most cited pieces of scholarship in the social science
literature. Herrnstein`s 1973 book
I.Q. and the Meritocracy received
widespread condemnation from the left for arguing
that class differences, poverty and economic disparities
were not the result of capitalism or oppression, but
primarily due to differences in IQ.
In a well-written
summary of their work, Evans denounced the attempted
censorship aimed against them in academic circles. He
wrote:
"These parallel
stories from our enlightened campuses tell us much about
the condition of freedom of speech and publication in
America today, as construed by radical activists and
certain members of the liberal professoriate. Leftward
tolerance of `dissent` will obviously extend just so far
and Herrnstein and Jensen have exceeded the limits.
Where hereditarian heresies are concerned, the radicals
will not permit expression and conventional liberals in
many cases will not defend
it—although there
are various honorable exceptions to both rules."
Unfortunately, the
Conservative Establishment in general and Human
Events in particular is no longer an “honorable
exception” to this repression.
Thus just over two
decades later, in June 2002,
Ann Coulter, the legal affairs correspondent for
Human Events, wrote a first-rate column titled,
"Murdering the Bell Curve." She
lambasted liberals for suddenly discovering IQ
tests—because they thought they could be used in court
to get
convicted murderers off death row.
I had been away
vacationing that week and noticed, after it appeared in
the paper, that one of our reporters had inserted the
paperback release date (1996) as the initial publication
of the book, which actually was first published in the
fall of 1994. In the meantime, the late Jude Wanniski,
one of the journalistic proponents of supply side
economics, emailed the editors at Human Events,
hysterically criticizing Ann`s favorable mention of
The Bell Curve,
denouncing it as a highly flawed book that rested on
faulty social science research, citing Gregg
Easterbrook`s critique from The Washington Monthly,
[The
Case Against The Bell Curve, Dec, 1994] and
claiming that of the more than a
hundred scholars who signed the statement of support
that appeared on the op/ed page of the Wall Street
Journal, no credible biologist or geneticist
supported the book`s findings.
Wanniski`s error
was to assume that no psychologist who supported
The Bell Curve`s thesis
had any adequate understanding of genetics. (A high
school biology student would know that, based merely on
his professional credentials as a self-taught economist,
Wanniski would know even less about genetics than a
psychologist.)
Anyone familiar
with
The Bell Curve
controversy could easily spot these
inaccuracies, as well as other wild, unsupportable
assertions in Wanniski`s screed, including the number of
scholars who
signed the Wall Street Journal
statement. (Actual number: 52). So I thought it would be
a good idea to publish his letter, followed by an
editor`s note explaining our error in botching the
original publication date of The Bell Curve—and
offering a point-by-point rebuttal to Wanniski`s
blunders. I drafted a note and then provided Winter with
a proof of the page to edit.
The next morning, I
noticed Winter downstairs outside the Eagle office
building proofing pages on his
cigarette break. As I exchanged greetings and headed
into the building`s lobby, he said he had one question
about my comments on Wanniski`s letter. I figured he
would drop by in a few minutes and raise the point.
But most of the day
had passed when he finally came around to my office, a
nervous wreck, leaning over next to me, explaining,
"I`m just nervous about being called a `racist`," as
he read off some of the scholars I had listed in the
editor`s note. When he got to
Arthur Jensen`s name, he had asked that I edit it
out since he was told that Jensen was a "racist."
Although I knew this wasn`t true, I complied with his
request. Other than that, he had no other text changes.
As he was leaving
the office, I had discovered that Winter had contacted
several close friends and former associates throughout
the afternoon to check to see if any of them had read
The Bell Curve. He had faxed over a copy of the
proof to Stan Evans (of all people) to see if he had
read Herrnstein and Murray`s book, accompanied by an
urgent note to get back to him ASAP.
I couldn`t help but
think to myself: this is (pinch me) Human Events?!?
The same publication that once vigorously defended
Jensen and Herrnstein? What`s going on?
One of the issues
that HE Editor Terry Jeffrey prides himself on is
illegal immigration. As a former director of Pat
Buchanan`s
presidential campaign, he is tougher and remains
more focused on social and cultural issues. (Winter
would frequently describe cultural issues, such as
multiculturalism and "diversity,"
as "boring.")
Consequently,
Human Events has published some first-rate reporting
on the problems of border security, terrorism, and lack
of resolve on the part of public officials in halting
the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders. One
example: the recent cover story, "Is
Your Security Guard an Illegal?“
Much of this
reportage, however, has been through the
post-9/11 prism of terrorism and national security.
As
important as it is, there are other aspects of the
immigration issue that get far less attention—if any at
all—in the pages of Human Events.
For example, where
is the paper in the discussion on a
moratorium on legal immigration? Why don`t it
just come right out and admit that, generally speaking,
some immigrants are more preferable than others?
Why not just admit that "diversity" has its
limits and this
demographic trend is proving to be detrimental to
our nation`s survival?
Unquestionably,
some on the staff shared the Beltway Republican
orthodoxy that Hispanic immigrants could be converted
into dedicated Republicans and the country would be one
harmonious giant Disneyland as a result.
Just as long as
they`re not Democrats—then everything will be fine!
Historically,
Human Events published occasional pieces on
immigration. Some articles, like Palmer Stacy`s 1981
"Uncontrolled Immigration: Silent Threat to America,"
were exceptionally informative. But it must be said
that,
unlike National Review, at the time Human
Events had peculiarly little to say about the 1965
Immigration Act, which historian
Otis Graham has described as
"the single most nation-changing measure of the era."
The paper published one brief op/ed that first
appeared in the Arizona Republic, "Limit
Needed on All Immigration," in early October
1965 and a small news item, "Immigration Ceiling
Advances," in September 1965.
This, however, was
better than nothing. The paper`s current priorities were
well illustrated by an instance last year. One of the
paper`s more informative freelance writers, Jim Edwards,
an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute, had
submitted a piece critical of Utah Representative Chris
Cannon`s amnesty program titled "Loose
Cannon in Utah." The piece highlighted
Cannon`s
abysmal record on immigration legislation, which in
many instances bucked his constituents` interests, and
triggered a GOP primary challenge by former state
legislator
Matt Throckmorton.
Winter always liked
Edwards` columns and suggested that we publish this one.
He forwarded it to me for publication and to our web
editor to post on the website. Subsequently, I worked it
into the paper.
The next week,
while on vacation, I received two frantic messages on my
cell phone from Winter: "Kevin, I know you`re on
vacation, but please call me as soon as you can." I
returned his call and he seemed puzzled by the fact that
we published Edward`s piece, especially with the
"Loose Cannon in Utah" headline. The
Phillips executive charged with overseeing Human
Events had called him and hit the roof. Winter
wanted me to describe the piece to him so he could
explain what happened. He couldn`t remember proofing
the article. I reminded him that Edward`s article had
been up on the web and that I received the column from
him to publish.
It had turned out
that Rep. Cannon is related to Eagle board member Joseph
A. Cannon, the chairman of the board of
Geneva Steel, Inc. The Phillips executive was
concerned about Cannon`s reaction to reading something
so critical about his family member in Human Events
and berated Winter for publishing it.
In March 2003, I
approached Jeffrey about covering the LewRockwell.com
"Lincoln Reconsidered" conference that was being
held later that month in Richmond, Va. I thought it
would make for a perfect "Conservative Forum"
item in Human Events—just a brief description of
the event from someone in attendance. He expressed
interest in it so I called and received a press pass
from
Ron Holland, one of the organizers of the
conference. He was thrilled to have Human Events
cover the one-day forum.
A number of authors
and scholars were scheduled for the event, including
Emory University professor Donald Livingstone; Clyde
Wilson, a contributor to Chronicles and professor
at the University of South Carolina;
Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola College and author of
The Real Lincoln
(a
hot-selling featured selection offered by Human
Events` sister company The Conservative Book Club);
and
Paul Gottfried of Elizabethtown College.
I wrote a brief
description of the event and had it proofread shortly
before our Thursday press deadline. Then Jeffrey came
around to my office and said that he had second thoughts
about publishing it. The event wasn`t exactly what he
initially had in mind, and to publicize it would divide
conservatives who were split on
Lincoln`s legacy.
I complied with
Jeffrey`s request and replaced the item. But I thought
at the time that if someone approached Jeffrey and had
argued that taking a rigid, pro-life position is "divisive"
among conservatives—splitting social conservatives from
libertarian-leaning conservatives—he wouldn`t have cared
less. In his mind, conservatives are expected to be
pro-life, if they aren`t, that`s their problem, not his.
But when it comes to politically incorrect subjects,
such as race, or even
criticizing Lincoln or
King, conservatives must now conform to conventional
dogma.
The leftward drift
of Human Events isn`t limited to the issue of
race. Over the years, Human Events has been the
leading pro-family publication among grassroots social
conservatives, firmly opposed to the agenda of
homosexual activists, such as
"gay marriage."
Thus in 1960,
Human Events published one of its most popular
feature articles,
"Homosexual International" by Countess
Waldeck. The article began by noting that the Deputy
Undersecretary of State
Carlisle Humelstine had ousted 119 homosexuals from
the
State Department in 1951. One morning, I received a
call from one of our readers in Arizona inquiring about
how he could obtain copies. I asked Winter and he
immediately recounted how popular the article was at the
time it was published.
As late as the
mid-1980s Human Events published numerous
articles critical of the emerging, aggressive homosexual
subculture, such as Stan Evans` "AIDS: Homosexual
Plague." Lengthy reviews of books such as
The Homosexual Network by Father
Enrique T. Rueda appeared on a regular basis.
Again, times have
changed. One of Human Event`s editors who wrote
hard-hitting copy about outrageous homosexual news items
in the old blunt language regularly complained to me
that Winter would make it a point to tone down the
rhetoric, replacing "homosexual" and
"sodomite" with "gay" in proofing the text.
Here too, Human
Events was regressing to the media norm.
Similarly, Human
Events dropped
Ted Baehr`s mini reviews of films, a family-oriented
feature popular with many parents because of his
detailed ratings for foul language and
nudity. But this wasn`t swank enough for the
Phillips executive`s tastes (he would ridicule it in
editorial meetings) and eventually it was dropped as a
regular feature.
In his recent book
Winning the Future, Newt Gingrich complains that
"Since the 1960`s, the
conservative majority has been intimidated, manipulated
and bullied by the liberal minority. The liberal elites
who dominate academia, the courts, the press and much of
the government bureaucracy share an essentially European
secular-socialist value system. Yet they have set the
terms of the debate, which is why `politics as usual` is
a losing proposition for Americans."
But the reason
liberals have set the terms of the debate is that
conservatives let them.
For many Beltway
“conservatives,” attending events like the White
House Christmas Party [VDARE.COM
note: Er…Multicultural
Holiday Party, see
here, et
cetera.] is
the pinnacle of achievement. Everything else is
secondary. Anything that jeopardizes this social
standing is beyond the pale. Status is the fuel that
drives the Conservative Establishment.
This explains why
“conservatives” have given up so much ground on
issues that were once important to them: truth about
race, IQ differences, egalitarianism, decadent societal
trends, immigration restrictions, and the threat that
ethnic balkanization poses to the future of American
society.
To regain that
ground, new institutions—like
VDARE.COM and my new employer, the
National Policy Institute—will be necessary. [contact
Human Events]
Kevin Lamb (email
him) is a former library assistant for
Newsweek
and
managing editor
of Human Events. He was also
assistant editor of the
Evans-Novak Political Report. He
is now the editor of
The Occidental Quarterly.
