So, I was way beyond done with these stupid newsletters, but some people—mindbogglingly, and contra Ron Paul’s own assessment—seem determined to assert that really they’re not so very racist at all, if only placed in the proper “context.” This is both plainly false and a little galling.

It strikes me that the best “context” is the unvarnished articles themselves. So I’m just going to post a handful of them, rendered in full as plaintext, for more convenient reference. Actually, I’m inclined to think that the tendency of summaries to pull out a couple especially bad lines has blunted realization of exactly how awful they were taken as a whole. Most of them are much worse in toto than their most offensive sentence.

There are people who’ve read these in full already, of course, and concluded they’re not so bad. I don’t see much point in saying anything to them. Rather, I’m posting these for the benefit of people whose moral sense is not totally broken, but who may not have bothered to click through to the PDFs posted by The New Republic, and instead found some tortuous rationalization of a few isolated lines compelling. At this point, this has nothing to do with Ron Paul—who, let’s stipulate, probably didn’t write any of these and probably doesn’t agree with them—and everything to do with my irritation at seeing bigotry minimized.

Here’s one from January 1993:

The Disappearing White Majority

“Census: White Majority to Shrink in Next 60 Years” ran the headline in the Washington Times. The Census Department has suddenly changed its predictions. Consider the new data. Whites now account for 75% of the population, but if current immigration and birth rates continue, whites will total just 53% by the year 2050. As whites are dying off, they are not replacing themselves. Meanwhile, Asian immigration is taking off, and black births are booming. The black population, now about 32 million, will double in the next 60 years. And the Hispanic population will triple.

I know it is considered impolite to worry about this trend. We are all the same under the skin, the argument goes. Whatever the truth of that assertion, it is an empirical fact that, in a mixed economy democracy, nearly every racial and ethnic group votes its group interest except the white population. Whites don’t vote for candidates that promise to promote white interests, whereas blacks and Hispanics do.

Groups other than whites have strong ethnic and racial identities. They are devoted to using the state to advance their cause. That, inevitably, means more welfare, more affirmative action, more grants of privilege, etc. That demographic shifts have profound political implications should go without saying.

What is often forgotten is how such changes affect our culture. Nearly every other group but whites are allowed a certain degree of cultural autonomy. Blacks have black schools, clubs, and neighborhoods. The same is true of Hispanics. It is human nature that like attract likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.

The youth culture is already driven by ghetto music and ghetto values. Just look at the clothing young people wear today (baggy jeans, backward hats, high-top sneakers) and the music they listen to (which has a thumping beat once heard only on safari). And the sexual ethics of our youth are also degenerating to the level of the ghetto.

Is there any way to stop the trend? No politician of any major party is going to speak out on these themes (although the one who does would do quite well). But there is a way to save your own children. Every home should be dedicated to Western standards of religion, music, values, education, dress, and manners. We need a cultural remnant as much as a financial one.

I don’t really have anything to add to the piece itself here.

From October 1990:

KING CITY? (October 1990)

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City “to reclaim it for our people.”

For what it’s worth, and because we all love “context,” this appears to refer to a stunt staged in support of Lenora Fulani‘s quixotic (to use a charitable term) 1990 gubernatorial campaign.

Hmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

Of course, this is just a joke. Call me humorless; I failed to break out in rolling guffaws.

From July 1992:

ENCORE

Riot gear, tear gas, smashed windows, destruction, and death. These have become the symbols of urban America in 1992.

Just after a basketball game ended on June 14, blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot, even breaking through protective steel shutters with crowbars to steal everything in sight.

They set dozens of fires and burned down buildings along the former “Magnificent Mile.” Clothing and grocery stores went up in flames. They flattened two taxicabs by turning them over and jumping up and down on them en masse, then diving head first into the crowd. (Is this why Hollywood tells us White Men Can’t Jump?).

They shot or otherwise injured 95 police officers, and wrecked 61 police cars. They killed five people burning to death a liquor-store owner and his girlfriend desperately trying to get away. And they injured more than 100 other people. Police arrested more than 1,000 blacks.

A brief interjection. This description appears to be drawn from the New York Times account of the riot in question (or some derivative thereof), and gets the facts wrong in a few key ways, all of which seem calculated to make an authentically bad situation sound still worse. Here’s the Times:

Before the night was over, 100 people were injured, 95 of them police officers. More than 1,000 people were arrested; 61 police vehicles damaged, including 4 by gunfire, and several fires set. Officials this evening had no count of the number of stores looted and no financial estimate of the damage. [….]
In apparently the worst incident of violence, a store employee and his friend suffered burns when looters set a South Side liquor and grocery store afire. The employee, Khalid Hasan Ali-Rifagee, 23 years old, was listed in serious condition today, and his friend, Cindy Schanstra, 23, was listed in fair condition. [….]
The other three reported civilian injuries involved shootings, two people shot by store owners and one 23-year-old man who [was] shot by a police officer on the West Side after he threatened the officer with a gun, the authorities said.

Back to the newsletter:

“When you celebrate something in America, you break a window and grab something,” explained Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. “When people have an excuse to loot, they loot. And when they have an excuse to shoot, they shoot.” Oh? Not in my neighborhood or yours either.

Of all the stores that were looted, only one had its goods simply thrown on the sidewalk rather than stolen: a bookstore. The owner of Stuart Brent Books said “Think of the shame they brought to one of the three or four great streets in America. The thing that frightens me is how close we are to barbarism.”

Close? Mr. Bent, we’ve arrived, yet this rioting was barely mentioned by the national media. The liberals want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare.

The media explained the L.A. killing, rioting, and looting as a considered protest over the Rodney King verdict. What’s the excuse this time? Happiness over a Chicago Bulls victory?

Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems. On the same day as the Chicago riot, blacks in Belmar, New Jersey, went on violent rampage.

Organizers of the MTV music festival had heard reports that cars nearby were being vandalized and so cut short a rap concert by one hour. That was enough to send the black mob into the streets setting fires, throwing bottles, and looting stores.

In Los Angeles, we were told, it was “no Justice, No Peace.” What was it in Belmar? “No Music, No Peace”? Or in Chicago? “We Won, No Peace”?

Again, for what it’s worth, the Times‘ account.

From December 1990:

“DR.” KING

So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this “Christian minister” and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

Congratulations to Arizona! Who could doubt that the result would be exactly the same if the other 49 states could also vote on a holiday or this affirmative-action saint?

Of course, it’s not per se racist to note that King plagiarized parts of his dissertation, or that he had a reputation for fooling around (though not, so far as I’m aware, with “underage girls and boys”). But if this sums up your attitude toward “Dr.” King (you’ll find those scare quotes throughout the old Rothbard-Rockwell Reports, by the by)—and in particular if it seems natural to you to regard the “evil of forced integration” as precisely equivalent to the oppression of Jim Crow, such that the civil rights movement was (at best) a wash—well, yeah, you’re a fucking racist. Sorry.

On the subject of Dr. King, incidentally, compare the language of this newsletter with this relatively restrained companion piece. Just for fun.
How about October 1992:

BLAST ‘EM?

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

Remember, this is totally non-racist, because “animals” here just means carjackers. Who happen to be “urban” youth, of unspecified race, who do “hip-hop” things to “unsuspecting whites.”

Let’s close with a slightly more subtle one (relatively speaking), just to be fair. July 1994:

RACE AND CRIME

We hear lots about black-on-black crime. But what about interracial crime? One out of ten of those crimes is white on black, whereas nine out of ten is black on white. This is even more impressive, in a negative sense, when you realize that blacks are only 12% of the population.

Criminologist Jared Taylor reports that if you subtract the crimes committed by blacks from the overall U.S. crime rate, we have no more crime proportionately than Western Europe, and less than Britain.

A couple things here. First, “Criminologist” Jared Tayor is not a criminologist, but rather the editor of the repugnant “racialist” journal American Renaissance. Second, let’s do a little math—if my Hispanic brain can manage the arithmetic—and see how “impressive” this actually is. Suppose you have a population of 100,000: 90,000 white and 10,000 black. If criminality is randomly distributed, and 1 percent of the population is criminal, you get 900 white and 100 black criminals. Now assume that each criminal randomly targets a victim, without regard to obvious factors like income. What happens? We get 900 white crimes: 810 white-on-white, 90 white-on-black. The 100 black criminals also commit 100 crimes: 90 black-on-white, 10 black-on-black. Under that scenario even though the population is only 10 percent black, interracial crime is a 50-50 split.

But now add a couple other factors that we know tend to correlate with both crime and race. Stuff like, say, poverty, or broken families, or bad schools. Add the plausible supposition that criminals like to target people who actually have money for them to steal. It seems like those variables might perhaps have something to do with this picture. Funnily, none of those are mentioned: There’s no hint of an attempt to control for or explain by reference to any of those things. It’s almost as if someone were trying to leave the impression that criminality is an intrinsic function of race.

Have we had quite enough of this swill? I know I have.