All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
06:59
Who Are We
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
I care deeply about the future of Europeans wherever they have taken their culture, which is to say that I care about whites and Western civilization, and I believe our civilization can be carried forward only by the biological descendants of the people who created it.
Whites have the right, they have the duty to remain the majority in their own lands.
A hundred years ago, virtually all whites understood this.
Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, they were all rooted in a particular people, the people of Europe, and they could not have imagined being displaced by others.
Today, whites are supposed to welcome displacement.
We're supposed to believe that we should open our homelands to every kind of outsider in the name of diversity.
Of course, some of us know better.
Every day, more and more of us know better.
We know that diversity, for us, is slow suicide.
And we refuse to help build a future in which our own children will be minorities, perhaps hated minorities, in the nations our ancestors built.
Our refusal to commit suicide is, of course, healthy, normal.
People who don't commit suicide, whether as individuals or groups, are so obviously normal, there isn't even a word for them.
That's why there's no good word to describe us, just as there is no word to describe people who put their pants on one leg at a time or who eat when they're hungry.
These things are so normal, so universal, that no one ever thought to give them a name.
But whites are the only people for whom wanting to survive is not considered normal.
Think of it this way.
What do you call a black person who prefers black culture, listens to black music, and prefers to be around other black people?
A black person.
What do you call a white person who prefers Western culture, listens to classical music, and prefers to be around other white people?
A white supremacist.
Blacks who have a racial identity, or Hispanics, or Asians, or anyone else, are so normal that no one even notices.
This is true all around the world.
What do you call a Japanese who thinks Japan should stay Japanese?
Or an Israeli who thinks Israel should stay Jewish?
Or a Tibetan who doesn't want his country turning Chinese?
Or a Nigerian who wants Nigeria to stay black and Nigerian?
But what do you call a Frenchman who thinks France should stay French?
Oh, that's different.
He's a neo-Nazi.
Only for white people are normal, healthy, universal preferences considered some kind of sickness, and it is only in our case that we are forced to come up with a word to describe what should be so obvious and so normal that it shouldn't even require a word.
We're forced to do this because our opponents have words for us, and they're all slurs.
White supremacist is their favorite.
Anti-whites like it.
Because it's supposed to make you think of slavery and lynching.
They want to make us sound morally loathsome.
And then, of course, there's racist.
Remember, it's never racist for blacks to want to preserve black institutions or to want to spend their time with blacks or to think of themselves as African Americans.
That's healthy.
And that's why some people in our circles think the word racist can be rehabilitated to mean someone with a healthy racial consciousness, even a white person.
I think that'll never work.
Racist will always imply moral inferiority.
We have to choose our own words.
People who favor legal abortion don't let you call them baby killers.
They say instead that they support, quote, a woman's right to choose.
It's the same for us.
We need accurate, attractive words for who we are.
Some in our circles like the term"white nationalist." I don't.
For most people, it sounds dangerous.
It implies breaking the United States up into enclaves or even expelling non-whites.
And when you talk about Kurdish nationalists or Basque nationalists, there's always the whiff of violence.
Here are Kurdish nationalists defending their nation.
This is what the word nationalist means to a lot of people.
Some call themselves white separatists.
Separation could be voluntary, but it could also imply forcible separation.
That shocks people, too.
It's increasingly popular to talk about the alternative right or alt-right.
That's non-threatening, but I don't think it's accurate.
What we believe isn't an alternative in the way liberals talk about Alternative lifestyles.
Our positions are healthy and true and aren't an alternative.
Any more than being healthy is just an alternative to being sick.
Health is good and sickness is bad.
Period. They aren't alternatives.
Also, a correct understanding of race and of other questions sometimes included in the alternative right doesn't have to be either right or left.
You can be a lefty.
On the role of government, foreign aid, trade, welfare, plenty of other things and still have a sound view of race.
We should leave the door open to people of all political views who agree with us on race.
Identitarian is another term that's popular in our circles.
It sounds positive.
What could be wrong with having an identity?
The trouble is, the word doesn't exist in English.
It has to be explained.
It's best to use words people understand right away.
That's why I think the best term for us is"white advocate." It's clear what it means, and it isn't threatening.
It means we're speaking for whites, for our own people.
And an advocate is someone who makes a case without the slightest hint of violence.
Advocates support their positions with facts.
Advocacy doesn't commit us to any specific program or policy the word nationalist does.
It commits us only to a people, to advancing our legitimate interests, whatever they may be.
Different expressions become popular in unpredictable ways, and there's no telling what will catch on.
But we need a name for ourselves that we have chosen, not one that people who hate us have chosen.
▲
Export Selection