All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
26:54
White Identity: What It Is and Why It Is Necessary
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, my name is Jared Taylor.
I'm the editor of American Renaissance.
I'd like to speak today on the subject of white identity, what it is and why it's essential.
I've actually written a whole book on the subject of white identity.
There's a great deal to say about the subject, but today I'd just like to speak for a few minutes on this very important subject.
White identity, put in the simplest terms, is simply a recognition by whites that they have interests in common that must be defended.
All other racial groups take this for granted that it's necessary to band together along racial lines to work together for common interests.
So what I'm proposing for whites is nothing more than something that is utterly widespread and understood among all other races.
Blacks, for example, have a very clear racial identity.
Take, for example, the Black Congressional Caucus.
It exists for one reason, and only one reason.
Its purpose is to examine proposed legislation from the point of view of what's in it for us black folks.
That's the only thing the Black Congressional Caucus does.
It doesn't even pretend to have the nation's greatest, the greater interest in mind.
They're interested in what's good for black people.
The Hispanic Caucus.
It has exactly the same perspective for Hispanics.
There's also an Asian caucus, likewise with a similarly narrow view, not what's good for the country, what's good for our group.
Of course, if anyone were to propose a white congressional caucus, that would be considered grotesquely immoral.
It's also well known that in every profession, every college campus, every police or fire department, Every part of the United States government, there are, again, racially exclusive groups working for the interests of Hispanics, Asians,
or blacks.
There would be in the Anthropological Association, for example, there's a group of black anthropologists, Hispanic anthropologists, looking out for their interests.
On university campuses, this is widespread as well.
But, if a white student were to propose that he would like to establish a white student union, that again would be considered grotesquely immoral.
Now, expressions of black identity are so common and so widespread, I won't bore you with a long list of them.
But what about expressions of Hispanic identity?
To get a good idea of how strong Hispanic identity is, Simply go to an athletic contest between, say, the Mexican national team and the U.S. national team in any sport, and the match is held here in the United States.
Just look around the stands.
You'll see tens of thousands of Hispanics, many of them, perhaps the majority of them, American citizens, rooting wildly, cheering wildly for the Mexican team and booing and hissing when the American team...
I think that gives you a good indication of where their genuine loyalties lie.
If we were to imagine a sharp diplomatic conflict between Mexico and the United States, I think there can be no doubt whatsoever which side Mexican Americans, citizens and non-citizens alike, would take.
And I can tell you that virtually every other Hispanic group would join along with them.
Because there's not just a Mexican identity, there is a pan-Hispanic identity, a kind of racial identity in which all Hispanics feel a loyalty to their group and work for their interests at the expense of others.
That's why Mexicans are just part of an organization called, for example, National Council of La Raza.
La Raza meaning the race.
Again, the perspective is a very narrow one.
What's in it for our group?
What's in it for our race?
Well, how about Asians?
Asians used to be considered the model minority, and one of the reasons was that they didn't form these race-based groups to agitate for their own interests.
Well, they have looked around, and they now see just how effective that approach is for blacks and Hispanics.
And so increasingly, what used to be Chinese, Japanese, or Korean groups They are spreading out, they're broadening their horizons to a kind of pan-Asian approach so that they can get this full-scale racial pressure on American politics the way Hispanics and Blacks do.
A good example of this new approach is something called the 80 /20 Initiative.
It's a political pressure group and it promises to deliver 80%, fully 80% of the Hispanic vote Either nationally or locally to any candidate who agrees to push the Hispanic agenda.
Well, let me make a confession.
I have a white identity.
I prefer the company and the culture of whites.
I have white children.
I hope to have white grandchildren.
I want to live in a majority white country.
I get along fine with non-whites.
But being white is an important part of my identity.
Now, does this sound scandalous to you?
Just think for a moment, though.
Virtually all white people agree, they quietly agree, with most of what I say and think about race.
The only difference is, either they don't talk about it, or if they do talk about it, chances are they lie about it.
White people say they're all in favor of integration.
And yet there is a profoundly important act of integration that they could undertake, but they almost never do.
A white person could buy a house in a black neighborhood.
Nowadays, there are plenty of middle-class black neighborhoods where a white person would be perfectly safe.
But not even the most liberal whites will take that basic integrationist step, despite what they say.
They, too, prefer the company of whites, just as I do.
Were you aware that the statistics for residential segregation in the United States are almost identical to what they were 50 or 60 years ago?
Despite all of the encouragement and propaganda in favor of mixing of the races, whites prefer to live with whites, blacks prefer to live with blacks, Asians, Hispanics.
There is self-segregation virtually across the board.
And if you're a churchgoer, consider your church.
95% of American churches are at least 85% one race.
This is because when people are free to choose, they choose people who are like themselves.
And by the way, if you're white and you can't think of a single majority non-white school you'd like to send your children to, then you have A white identity too, even if you didn't think that you did.
Now what would be the interests of whites?
What might they try to work for if they were able to express their identity in the way every other racial group does?
Let's think about immigration.
You can make a very strong case to shut down immigration tomorrow strictly on environmental grounds.
We already have 350 million people living in this country, and we import another 2 million every year.
At this rate, at this rate of growth, by mid-century there will be half a billion people living in the territory of the United States.
Half a billion!
Is this a good thing?
At this rate, not only would we have to be building infrastructure of all kinds, just for an example, At this rate of growth, we have to be building 8,000 new schools every decade.
We talk about trying to achieve energy independence, and yet the idea of adding people from outside the country to our country makes a complete mockery of that goal.
Shouldn't it be a legitimate subject for discussion in the United States, what is the optimal population?
What population should we have?
Should we have the 350 million we have now?
Or should we have 350 million?
Or should we move to half a billion?
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
We never talk about these things.
And the reason we don't is that as soon as someone talks about what is the optimal number, they have to think in terms of cutting back on immigration.
And if we cut back on immigration, all those non-white people who want to come will have to stay home.
So no one dares raise this question.
Even more difficult a question to raise is, assuming that we really should have immigrants to the United States, who should those immigrants be?
What sort of person will assimilate best into the United States?
After all, the choice as to who we admit is completely up to us.
There is not one foreigner anywhere in the world who has an absolute right To come live in our country.
Any more than there is a stranger walking the street outside your house who has an absolute right to come and move into your guest bedroom.
The choice is completely ours.
And yet, when have you ever heard a public debate on who would be good?
What sort of people should we admit to our country?
The reason for that again is race.
If we start talking sensibly and rationally, About who it is good to admit, someone will raise the question as whether it's a good idea for 30% of the population of Mexico already to have moved to the United States.
People will also begin to ask you, why is it that there are so many people moving here who have no job skills?
Or, people might very well ask, just what is it that Haitians or Haman or Somalis bring to the United States?
These questions are never discussed rationally.
Whereas, if you look at an objective measure, the profile of immigrants who come to the United States, what you find is quite shocking.
Our country, we claim to be fighting poverty, fighting school failure, fighting disease, fighting crime.
And yet, we import millions of poor people.
We import people who are highly likely to drop out of school.
We import people with exotic diseases we've never heard of and who are bringing back diseases like tuberculosis we thought we had eradicated.
We claim to be fighting crime, and yet we import people who have markedly high crime rates.
There are exceptions, of course.
Some immigrants are extremely productive.
But if you look at our immigrant stream in the aggregate, You find an enormous number of people who by no stretch of the imagination could be described as valuable or desirable additions to our population.
The reason we can't point this out is because it evokes charges of racism because so many who are coming are non-white.
Just think of this example.
In the 1960s, we already had a black underclass.
Now, 50 years later, We have imported, completely from outside of our borders, a brand new Hispanic underclass that shows the same kinds of dysfunctionality of crime, illegitimacy, welfare,
poverty that go on generation after generation.
I can't think of a self-infected wound that is quite so grievous and so utterly avoidable.
Had an immigration policy that was specifically designed to keep our country majority white.
And it was nearly 90% white.
Well, I will tell you, I think that was a very wise, that was a moral policy.
Any healthy nation wishes to preserve its character, not abolish it.
Any majority non-white nation has the right, I would say it has the duty, To preserve its white majority, because that is the only way it can preserve its national and cultural character.
However, given the kind of immigration policy we now have, by 2042, whites are supposed to be a minority.
Not even 70 years after the change in these laws.
Now, is it a shocking idea that whites should remain?
A majority in their own country?
Does that sound shocking?
It sounds shocking only when white people speak this way.
Every other nation in the world, every non-white nation, takes it for granted that they will stay the majority in their own house.
Let's just imagine the immigration shoe on the other foot.
Let us imagine hundreds of thousands of white Americans pouring across the border into Mexico.
And let us imagine that they are poorer than the Mexicans.
They have higher crime rates, higher illegitimacy rates.
Let us imagine also that they're demanding instruction in English rather than Spanish in the schools.
That they want ballot papers printed in English so they can vote for the candidates of their choice.
Let's imagine also that they're buying up radio stations, newspapers, broadcasting, publishing in English.
And let us further imagine that in just a few decades All of these English-speaking white Americans who celebrate Fourth of July rather than Cinco de Mayo, that in a few decades, they're going to be the majority of Mexico.
Do you think that it would be possible to trick the Mexicans into thinking that this was some sort of cultural enrichment?
Impossible! They would recognize an invasion.
They would recognize colonization when they saw it.
And they would not permit it.
And this is the same with any non-white country.
Anywhere in the world.
When people attempt to defend what I see as our utterly indefensible immigration policies, they invariably talk about diversity.
This immigration of people from all around the world who are as unlike each other and unlike us as possible, this makes us diverse.
And diversity is our greatest strength.
The idea that diversity of language, of culture, of race is a strength for a country is so obviously wrong, so obviously stupid, that only very, very intelligent people could persuade themselves that it's true.
Diversity of this kind is always a source of tension.
It's a source of conflict.
If you look around the world, it's precisely because populations that are diverse Along these lines are trying to share the same territory.
Whenever that happens, there is not only conflict, often there is large-scale killing because people prefer people like themselves.
Diversity is a source of tension.
It is not a source of strength.
Now we're always being told to celebrate diversity.
Celebrate it!
Celebrate it!
There are people for whom diversity is a celebration.
And why is that?
It's because in the United States, diversity means only one thing.
It means fewer whites and more of everyone else.
So, if you are more of everyone else, you may not practice diversity in your own life.
You may stick with your own kind when you have that chance, but you certainly want more diversity for the country, because diversity for America means more of your kind.
More of your ideas.
That means the country will reflect your history, your culture, your aspirations.
And less and less will it reflect the history, culture, and aspirations of the founding stock, the Europeans, the Whites who settled this country.
So for them it makes sense.
Of course they celebrate diversity.
They celebrate their growing numbers.
They celebrate their increasing influence.
Of course.
Now, think about Whites celebrating diversity.
If you ask white people to celebrate diversity, you're asking them to be happy, to rejoice at their dwindling numbers, their declining influence.
Whites are supposed to believe that dispossession is an exciting, a wonderful prospect.
Yippee! We're going to become minorities.
Yippee! Somebody else is going to make the rules.
Yippee! If this goes on long enough, There might not be any of us before long.
So you see, the fundamental expression of white identity is nothing more than the desire to survive, to continue as a distinct people with a distinct culture and destiny.
Survival is the most basic, the most legitimate, the most justified of all human desires.
And somehow, To have browbeaten and bamboozled whites into thinking that taking the simplest measures to preserve their own identity, their own cultural continuity is immoral, is utterly to stand morality on its head.
Survival of one's culture, survival of one's people, and the wish for it to last generation after generation after generation, that is a fundamental desire that is denied only.
Let me speak for a moment about what identity is not.
A white identity does not mean disliking people of other races.
Take for example the Japanese.
Japan has a zero immigration policy.
You can't go live in Japan just because you want to.
And many, many people around the world want to live in the successful country that is Japan.
The Japanese do not admit The millions of Filipinos and Iraqis and Arabs who would love to live there because they know that large numbers of non-Japanese would change the character of Japan.
They love their country as it is, and they are under no obligation to change it.
In fact, it would be immoral for them to change their country and then pass it on to their children.
The same is true for Israel.
Israelis love their country because it's a Jewish state.
They have every right to a state that reflects their culture and their history.
They know that if Gentiles from all around the world would immigrate to Israel, its character would change.
It would no longer be the country they love.
White nations in Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, they too should have this fundamental right to preserve their character and their peoplehood.
Let me finally touch briefly on the vexed question of racial differences in intelligence.
The genes that account for individual differences in intelligence are in the process of being found.
And the chances that they're going to be found to be distributed equally to all populations all around the world, the chances of that are zero.
Zero. The scientists who look into this Are all in quiet agreement.
The chances are zero.
We must accustom ourselves to this fact.
Some groups are simply, on average, more intelligent than others.
As it turns out, Ashkenazi Jews got dealt the best genetic hand.
On average, they are smarter than anyone else on earth.
After the Ashkenazi Jews come North Asians, that's Chinese, Japanese, Koreans.
And after the North Asians come Caucasian whites.
And after them, further along, Now, this is an unpleasant subject.
It is harsh to talk about differences in group ability, to talk in terms of one group never as a group achieving the same level of ability and achievement as another group.
Individuals, you never know, but when it comes to groups, some groups are simply not going to achieve at the same level.
Why must we talk about this unpleasant subject?
It's because in the United States, when blacks and Hispanics fail to achieve at the same level as whites or Asians, it's invariably whites who are blamed for this.
Whites, racist whites, past or present, the evil of whites, that is the only official explanation for differences of achievement of this kind.
And if the real reason is differences in ability and not white wickedness, then whites are not to blame.
And it is vitally important that whites be prepared to speak the truth on this subject because otherwise they will forever be blamed for the failures of other groups.
What does this increase in a black and Hispanic population mean for the United States?
According to current predictions, by mid-century the United States is going to be almost half either black or Hispanic.
And let me give you just one index, one indicator of what this will mean for the United States.
The average black or Hispanic high school senior in the United States reads and does math at the average of the white or Asian eighth grader.
They're four years behind.
This is not going to change.
And it's not just a question of academic achievement.
These population groups differ from whites or Asians in terms of crime rates, poverty, welfare, unemployment, school failure.
As our nation becomes more black and more Hispanic, our country will change.
Literacy rates will decline.
Our workforce will become less productive.
Our per capita income will stop growing, as it always has, and it will begin to decline.
It is the consequence of having a third world population in our country.
You cannot have a third world population without ending up with a third world country.
This, in my view, is the most serious crisis, the most serious threat our country faces.
And yet, there's not a single politician that has the backbone to talk about it.
During the upcoming presidential campaign, Democrats and Republicans alike We'll promise you the moon and the stars and the sun.
And not a single journalist or critic will ever ask them.
Well, Mr. Politician, how do you propose to accomplish these first world goals with a population that is increasingly third world, with a population whose high school graduates can only do math and read at an eighth grade level?
No one brings this subject up because It brings up the question of race and exposes people to charges of racism.
So let me summarize.
White identity, an understanding of white identity, really leads to an understanding of three things.
First, that it is perfectly natural, normal, and healthy for whites to prefer the society and culture of people like themselves, just as all other groups prefer the society and culture of people like themselves.
Second, we must understand that human population groups are not interchangeable.
If you swap out the white population in the United States and replace it with Hispanic, African, Latin American, everything about the country will change.
The United States will cease to be a European-style country and will become more like the third world countries from which today's immigrants come.
For these very reasons, for the first two reasons I gave you, whites have every reason to resist, strongly resist, any policy that will reduce them to a minority.
Are you still shocked by this idea of whites wanting to maintain majority status?
Well, at what point will whites have the right, just like everyone else, to have common interests and to defend them?
Only after they become a minority in 2042 as it's projected?
Only after they become 35%, 15% of the population?
Or should they wait until there are no whites at all?
When will whites have the moral right to defend their interests?
Because if whites do not rekindle a sense of group identity, they will be shoved aside.
They'll be shoved aside by groups that have a sharp racial identity that is just as sharp as their elbows.
If whites do not rekindle a sense of racial solidarity, they will leave to their children and to their grandchildren a country that is darker, poorer, more chaotic, more and more like the third world countries.
Whites will turn their descendants into a despised and dispossessed remnant.
Without a sense of racial identity, in the long run, what whites face is nothing short of oblivion.
▲
Export Selection