A popular line right now is that, while it is true that many Moslems do not support terrorism, Moslem leaders should denounce the killing of Americans more loudly.

Does this mean other groups might be asked to denounce THEIR terrorists?

For every white who does violence to a black person, twenty black people do violence to whites. But the only thing black leaders ever denounce is whites who are especially afraid of blacks. Being especially afraid of blacks is called "profiling" and Hate.

Six thousand Americans were killed by terrorists. Nonwhites have killed a lot more whites than that in the last decade.

It will be a long cold day in Hell before blacks denounce blacks who kill whites. Before respectable conservatives or liberals ask them to, there will a blizzard Down There.

All the commentators are glorying in the fact that most of the 1960s leftists who called themselves peaceniks are now for the war in Afghanistan. The guys who marched in the streets against the Vietnam War are now mostly in favor of this war.

Paid commentators and morons in general think this represents a change of attitude.

It does not. All it represents is a change of enemies.

The hippies of the 60s marched with Viet Cong flags and pictures of the Communist Vietnam leader Ho Chi Min. Jane Fonda said, "If you knew what Communism really was, you would fall to your knees and pray for it."

Liberals don't want that remembered now. They want everybody to agree those so-called "peaceniks" were actually for Peace. We are told that the hippies were just too sweet and loving to support a war.

Those sweet hippie types used to call American families and tell them falsely that their sons or husbands had been killed in Vietnam.

Love and Peace, brother!

The Love and Peace Generation routinely called American troops in Vietnam "paid killers". But no liberal wants to remember that so no respectable conservative will say it.

Old hippies are free to be for this war because the enemy is no longer the People's Loving and Democratic Republics to which they were and are loyal. They still love Castro with all their hearts, and if Castro were proved to be sponsoring terrorism, they would be on his side.

Suddenly everybody is starting to realize that open borders are dangerous. You and I have been pointing that out for years. But protecting our borders was considered to be racist, a move supported only by naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

All the respectable conservatives and the liberals kept saying that Hispanic-Americans should be loyal to their fellow Hispanics across the border. They all agreed that Hispanics in California would never forgive white Californians for supporting Proposition 187, which took legal benefits away from illegal aliens.

Senator McCain has stated flatly that Hispanic-Americans should be loyal to Hispanics first:

-July 14, 2001 - THE FOUNDING FATHERS' PATRIOTISM IS MCAIN'S TREASON
-July 14, 2001 - NO LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN ***PEOPLE*** WAS WHAT LINCOLN DEMANDED IN THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS
- July 14, 2001 - ACCORDING TO ALL OF TODAY'S CONSERVATIVE SPOKESMEN, MCAIN IS RIGHT -- LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS TREASON TO TRUE AMERICANISM.

But now that foreign terrorists are killing Americans by the thousand those open borders don't look so wonderful.

Not only that, but the idea that non-Anglo-Saxon Americans owe their first loyalty to their native cultures is not so popular. The same people who were saying before September 11 that only anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews would ask a Hispanic to worry about the welfare of Americans over foreign Hispanics are now screaming for the blood of Arab-Americans whose loyalty is with the Arabs.

Melting pot advocates have been for open borders and they have denounced anybody who said a non-Anglo-American owed any loyalty to America over his native race and culture. Suddenly, what was absolutely right for Hispanics has become a no-no for Arab-Americans.

WOL and our readers have said from the get-go that both of these things are no-nos. If you were born in America but your loyalty lies in Mexico or Arabia or Israel, then you should be put on the next plane to your real country.

There is third foundation of the melting pot that is getting questioned since September 11. That is the idea that American society should be based on minority grudges.

A few years back a black man got on a New York commuter train with an automatic weapon, screamed anti-white epithets and shot a lot of whites. His leftist lawyers (William Kunstler's last case) tried to get him off with a new doctrine called "black rage." A black, they argued, had the right to go nuts and kill whites because of his righteous resentments of the treatment of blacks by whites in America.

If they had won -- and in California they might have -- all blacks would have had a license to kill whites! This is slavery reparations carried to its logical extreme!

In "The Godfather" a gangster said, "We're bigger than US Steel." The white guilt industry in this country makes US Steel look puny. As just one example, it was the basis of the War on Poverty. For academics who want big grants and who dream of a world run by college professors, white guilt is a major instrument. In a world of guilt the sociologist would be king.

But since September 11 people with big grudges against society are not looking so attractive. Now the shooting license is being handed out to anyone with a grudge against anybody, not just white gentiles. That makes a society based on grudges a lot less attractive to the media and our rulers in general.

If the situation gets no worse, things will go back to normal on these issues. But if Superterrorism in the form of nuclear or bacteriological or chemical weapons hits, the melting pot may be on its way to ruin, as I predicted in two articles reprinted on September 11:

SUPERTERRORISM (originally published November 21, 1998) and LEFTISTS SHOW US HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH TOMORROW'S TERRORISM (originally published April 1, 2000)