The Wind from the South— Anti-White Populism

For several years,
we have been pointing out that, despite rosy predictions
that Latin American immigrants are

"natural Republicans,"
a mighty storm is brewing
in Latin America—and that it will eventually reach the
U.S.

Recently, even the
Mainstream Media [MSM] has started to notice that
something is going on down south.

In "Indian
movement seeks `to expel white invasion,
`"
Martin Arostegui wrote in the Washington Times
(June 24):


"SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia
– A growing indigenous movement has helped topple
successive governments in

Bolivia
and

Ecuador
and, angered by the

destruction of Andean coca crops
, now threatens the
stability of other countries where Indians are in the
majority. Drawing support from European leftists and
Venezuelan President

Hugo Chavez,
the long-marginalized Indians are
tasting political influence for the first time since the
Spanish conquest and beginning to wrest power from

South America`s white elites.
The leader of
Bolivia`s

Movement to Socialism party (MAS),
Evo Morales,
talks about `uniting Latin America`s 135 Indian nations
to expel the white invasion, which began with the
landing of

Columbus
in 1492.`"

This marks a
significant change. Latin American politics was long
dominated by imported ideologies, such as

Marxism in the 1960s
and 1970s and laissez-faire in
the 1990s. They were largely irrelevant because none of
them dealt directly with Latin America`s essential
political problem: the enduring racial conflict
originating in the

Conquest
of a half millennium ago.

Traditionally,
Latin America has had the worst economic disparities in
the world. For example, the AP

recently reported
on a new study of

millionaires around the world.
In most regions, the
average millionaire has a little over three million
dollars in assets, but in Latin America, the typical
millionaire has over twelve million dollars.

In other words,
while Latin America

isn`t very rich,
the

rich in Latin America
have more money than God.

And, despite almost

500 years of intermarriage,
the economic elite
remains strikingly whiter-looking, compared to the more
Indian and/or black-looking people at the bottom. As
Vicente Fox`s former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda
admitted in 1995, Mexico`s ruling elite has been getting
whiter. Many powerful men in Mexico and throughout Latin
America had recent ancestors who clawed their way up out
of the darker masses. Over the generations, their
descendents get whiter-looking as the

rich men
marry the fair-skinned and fair-haired
women—who are, interestingly, still considered the

last word in beauty
in Latin America.

And it`s not just
skin color. The rich literally look down upon the poor.

President Fox,
for example, whose

paternal grandfather was an Irish-American
, is
almost six and a half feet tall. He towers over George
W. Bush. That makes Fox close to a foot taller than the
average Mexican man.

In the past, these
fundamental ethnic conflicts were typically furnished
with an ideological façade. Remember the Shining Path
rebels in

Peru
? They were always labeled "Maoist"
in the American press, as if they were fighting and
dying because they believed in the

backyard steel furnaces.

In reality, they
were highland Indians rebelling against their economic
domination by whites. But they featured a

white Marxist intellectual
as their leader, who put
an ideological gloss on their struggle.

In 1989-1991, we
saw
the

"End of History,"
as Francis Fukuyama

famously put it.
Democratic capitalism was supposed
to have definitively triumphed.

Somebody forgot to
send History the memo. Still, Fukuyama wasn`t completely
wrong: what had changed was that people felt less need
to dress up their struggles for power in fine-sounding
ideologies. History had reverted to what it always had
been before the

French Revolution
made ideology au courant.
As

Lenin
had said, the eternal question is:

"Who? Whom?"

The American media doesn`t understand Latin America`s racial
divisions—or

any racial divisions
for that matter—so it has had a
hard time understanding

what has been going on in Latin America.

In some countries
like Bolivia, the darker people are all Indians,
justifying the term "indigenous movement."

But in Brazil,
which

elected the leftist populist Lula
, non-indigenous
blacks vastly outnumber Indians. Americans expect to
find a color line, but there`s only a

color continuum
. That makes it

confusing
even to name the opponents.

In most of these
countries, there is a vast middle ground of

mestizos
,

mulattos
, or tri-racial "pardos." But the
American press isn`t sure if it`s even allowed to use
those terms.

The simplest
description of the uprisings is that they are
"anti-white."
But that`s another term that the
American media are ill at ease with.

And even that isn`t
an exhaustive description, since leftists have been
winning in

Argentina
and Uruguay, two countries that are more
or less all white.

The trend toward
racial conflict and leftist populism is particularly
acute in northern South America, but populists have been
winning elections throughout much of Latin America.

This has caused
trouble for President Bush, whose

family
has ties to Latin America`s corrupt white
elites going back 45 years. He has been giving fervent
speeches about the all-around wonderfulness of democracy
in the Middle East. But his administration

supported the military coup against Chavez
in 2002,
only to be embarrassed when it collapsed in the face of
massive street protests.

Mexico has actually been a
laggard in this anti-white populist trend. There, the
ruling class has long paid lip service to the darker
masses. Since 1928, the Mexican government has
officially celebrated every October 12 as the

"Day of The Race."
According to the

national ideology,
all Mexicans belong to "La
Raza,"
that perfect combination of white and Indian
traits that produces a superior

"cosmic race."
(The African contribution to
Mexico`s gene pool has been

dropped from the history books
, although it is
probably around five percent.)

These fine words
haven`t made life terribly cosmic for

Mexico`s poor.
But they may have helped Mexico avoid
the brutal race war that

wracked neighboring Guatemala
in recent decades.

Yet the wind from
the south is blowing in Mexico, too. Mexico`s
right-of-center PAN party controls the all-important
Presidency for another 18 months. PAN was trounced in
the 2003 midterm elections, and its outlook is poor for
2006`s Presidential race.

The popular mayor
of Mexico City,

Andrés Manuel López Obrador
, is likely to run for
President on the

leftist PRD ticket
as the enemy of the

white elites
. His foes, such as President Fox, had
him

briefly disqualified
on a technicality, but they
broke down under popular pressure and rescinded the
ruling.

Personally, I doubt
that leftist ethnic populism will do the poor of Latin
America much good. But, then, the Cold War is over and
the

Evil Empire
is gone. They have a right to make their
own mistakes.

For the U.S.,
domestically, the ongoing

racial radicalization
of the darker-skinned people
of Latin America portends difficulties. The immigrant
stream from Latin America is increasingly less white, as
regions farther south in Mexico are tapped. We are even
seeing hundreds of thousands of pure Indians who speak

no Spanish.
Next year`s Mexican election will be
closely followed on Spanish-language television by tens
of millions of immigrants in the U.S. And then this vast
anti-white movement might begin to surface here.

Already, there is a
racial divide among Hispanics in the U.S. Those
identifying themselves on the Census as

racially white
are more prosperous, more
assimilated, and

more Republican
than those who identify themselves
as racially "Other." (About half of Mexicans pick
"Other" as their race because the Census doesn`t
allow respondents to identify themselves as mestizo
or as Indian unless they are American Indian.)

This anti-white
movement in Latin America will likely make the less
white Hispanics more resentful and hostile toward

non-Hispanic whites
in America.

This could set off
massive social change.

Many affluent white
supporters of illegal immigration in the U.S. see
Hispanics as genetically programmed to be their docile,
cheerfully subservient

maids
and

gardeners
.

What is often
forgotten is that their grandparents viewed blacks the
same way. That`s why corporations named famous food
brands

"Uncle Ben" and
"Aunt Jemima"
—the connotation was that by buying
these products, you were virtually partaking of the rich
man`s luxury of having your own smiling, nodding black
cook.

During the Black
Pride movement of the 1960s, however, blacks came to
resent

servant jobs.

And how much can
you blame them? There`s something that`s just not very
American about the master-servant relationship.

The downside, of
course, was that when blacks turned against their old
jobs, many ended up

resorting to crime
to make money.

Which is why
wealthy Americans discovered illegal immigrant Hispanic
service workers. They came to assume that it was the
natural order of things for whites to command Latinos.

I suspect that the
anti-white movements in Latin America will, sooner or
later, set off a revulsion among Hispanics in this
country against servile jobs roughly similar to the

Black Pride
reaction of the 1960s.

I wouldn`t be
terribly surprised if, in a generation, wealthy
Americans are smugly assuming that their new

Indonesian
immigrant servants are naturally
deferential—unlike those sullen,

crime-prone Latinos
they had to let go.

And perhaps in two
generations, the rich will tell each other that their
new Indian Untouchable immigrant servants are born
knowing their place, unlike those uppity Indonesians
they had to fire.

Perhaps I`ll be
proved wrong.

But what if I`m
not?

Shouldn`t we at
least be talking about these possibilities?

As always with
American`s post 1965 Immigration Disaster: Why are we
taking this risk?


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]