Sunday, June 24, 2012

Republican Racism Example #54: More Racism At The National Review

Here’s a sun rises in the east story: the National Review, a magazine well regarded and influential among conservative Republicans, has hired a racist to contribute to its online column The Corner.

David Yerushalmi  is a professional anti-Muslim, one of those conservatives who has made a living frightening old white people that the tiny Muslim population in America (at the most generous estimate by the Council of American-Islamic Relations, 7 million out of a total U.S. population of 314 million) will somehow impose shaira law in the United States and begin imprisoning Christians. Anti-Muslim bigots and racists represent a Venn Diagram, with high overlap between the two groups. Yerushalmi is an example of this phenomena; he hates and fears more than Muslims.  He also targets African Americans, liberal Jews and women for his hateful diatribes.  (For more on Muslim population numbers in the United States, see the Con American-Islamic Relations website report at   

National Review Online writer David Yerushalmi  hates Islam, sees democracy as a danger to the United States, thinks liberal Jews want to destroy America, and thinks African Americans are murderous and subpar mentally.  Other than that, he loves this country. (Photo from  

Yerushalmi laments that political correctness doesn’t allow conservatives to openly talk about “Islam as an evil religion, or of blacks as the most murderous of peoples (at least in New York City), or of illegal immigrants as deserving of no rights” without facing the charge of being racist.  He also once wrote that the Founding Fathers had good reasons for denying the right to vote to African Americans and women.  As he put it:

“There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically.”

In fact, Yerushalmi doesn’t really believe in democracy.  In another column, he depicted democracy and Islam antithetical to true American ideals and said that his organization, Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), would fight both.  He advocates instead a theocratic republic with only a handful of men at the top, the best and the brightest, wielding real power (though it must be admitted that vision is not too different from what we have in the United States post-Citizens United).  Here’s what he wrote on democracy:

“America is a unique people bound together through a commitment to America’s Judeo-Christian moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in G-d and in His Providence… America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. The founding fathers understood that party-led parliaments and democracy were the worse form of government and sought to resist the movement that was soon to find fertile ground in France with the French Revolution…
…at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic…

…Any world view, ideology, or -ism that promotes directly or indirectly the elimination of national existence and the establishment of a world state is our foe. So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights.”

Democracy is the worst form of government?  Worse than Hitlerian totalitarianism?  So much for that “freedom agenda” Republicans talked about so much under George W. Bush. 

Never mind all that stuff about "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment.  National Review Online writer Yerushalmi wants to make it a crime to be a Muslim in America. (Image from  

Yerushalmi makes it clear that there would be no place in his ideal America for separation of church and state and religious freedom would be based on the sufferance of his non-democratic government.  He proposes actually criminalizing Islam.  He has suggested the United States adopt the following laws:

- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
- The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.
- The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
- No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.”

If he hates democracy and Muslims and thinks blacks are dumb murderers, Yerushalmi holds liberal Jews in equal disdain.  Here’s what he said about them:

Jews of the modern age are the most radical, aggressive and effective of the liberal Elite. Their goal is the goal of all “progressives:” a determined use of liberal principles to deconstruct the Western nation state in a “historical” march to the World State… one must admit readily that the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one.

The theme of the Jew as a disloyal, fifth column determined to use Progressive ideals to undermine traditional values and destroy the Christian West, is a standard trope of the anti-Semitic right from Mein Kampf to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.  Although the National Review has long openly proclaimed its anti-black racism, it’s shocking to see such explicit anti-Semitism from one of its writers, Although National Review founder William F. Buckley once admitted he cried when his brothers wouldn’t let him take part in a cross burning outside a Jewish resort in Connecticut.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> In his writings, <!--[endif]-->David Yerushalmi depicts Jews as set on destroying Western nations through progressive, liberal politics, a charge made in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery created by the czarist secret police in early 20th century Russia.  The Protocols purport to be the minutes of a meeting of Zionist Jews as they plotted to take over the world.  Above is a version of the Protocols published in Mexico.  (Image from  

A couple of months ago a scandal broke out about a National Review Online writer John Derbyshire after he wrote a column for another website advising whites to not hang out with black people or go into black neighborhoods if they wanted to stay safe and said that black people weren’t particularly intelligent.  The NRO responded by firing Derbyshire.

In response, I wrote that Derbyshire’s sentiments were just par for the course at that publication and its internet incarnation.  I documented the extensive racist history of the publication founded long considered part of the Republican mainstream:  the NR’s support of Southern segregation in the 1950s and 1960s; Buckley’s description of whites as the more “advanced race”; the NR’s support for the apartheid regime in South Africa from the 1960s until the 1980s; and its regular publication of articles by open racists and neo-eugenicists like J. Phillipe Rushton. (See my previous essay, “William F. Buckley’s Racist Rag” at 

Do the editors at the National Review Online really believe that David Yerushalmi  represents an improvement from Derbyshire or the rest of the National Review’s tawdry history of racism?  If they didn’t support democracy in the Jim Crow South or in apartheid era South Africa, do they believe in it here in the United States?  Do they believe it should be against the law to be a Muslim in America?  The National Review’s editor Rich Lowry still get treated like a “mainstream” conservative when he appears on shows like Meet The Press and isn’t made to answer for his publication’s continued racism and political extremism as David Duke and Louis Farrakhan have been when they’ve appeared on such shows.  My question for the rest of the press is, why do you treat the National Review like a respectable publication?  Duke and Farrakhan aren’t invited to participate as regular panelists on our Sunday gabfests.  Why are enablers of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia like Lowry welcome to the party?  As I’ve argued before, the extreme and the mainstream of conservatism in the modern Republican Party have merged and are now indistinguishable.

Michael Phillips has authored the following:

White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity and Religion in Dallas, Texas, 1841-2001 (Austin:  University of Texas Press, 2006)

(with Patrick L. Cox) The House Will Come to Order: How the Texas Speaker Became a Power in State and National Politics. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010)

“Why Is Big Tex Still a White Cowboy? Race, Gender, and the ‘Other Texans’” in Walter Buenger and Arnoldo de León, eds., Beyond Texas Through Time: Breaking Away From Past Interpretations (College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2011)

“The Current is Stronger’: Images of Racial Oppression and Resistance in North Texas Black Art During the 1920s and 1930s ”  in Bruce A. Glasrud and Cary D. Wintz, eds., The Harlem Renaissance in the West: The New Negroes’ Western Experience (New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011)

“Dallas, 1989-2011,” in Richardson Dilworth, ed. Cities in American Political History (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2011)

(With John Anthony Moretta, Keith J. Volonto, Austin Allen, Doug Cantrell and Norwood Andrews), Keith J. Volonto and Michael Phillips. eds., The American Challenge: A New History of the United States, Volume I.   (Wheaton, Il.: Abigail Press, 2012).

(With John Anthony Moretta and Keith J. Volanto), Keith J. Volonto and Michael Phillips, eds., The American Challenge: A New History of the United States, Volume II. (Wheaton, Il.: Abigail Press, 2012).

(With John Anthony Moretta and Carl J. Luna), Imperial Presidents: The Rise of Executive Power from Roosevelt to Obama  (Wheaton, Il.: Abigail Press, 2013). 

“Texan by Color: The Racialization of the Lone Star State,” in David Cullen and Kyle Wilkison, eds., The Radical Origins of the Texas Right (College Station: University of Texas Press, 2013).

He is currently collaborating, with longtime journalist Betsy Friauf, on a history of African American culture, politics and black intellectuals in the Lone Star State called God Carved in Night: Black Intellectuals in Texas and the World They Made.

No comments:

Post a Comment