All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
57:44
Jared Taylor — “What We Believe and Why We Fight” (1998)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My name is Jared Taylor.
I'm the editor of American Renaissance, which is the publication that is sponsoring this conference.
If you'd like to get in touch with our publication and find out about our organization, please call the telephone number on the podium or visit our webpage, whose URL is up there also.
The title of my talk today is What We Believe and Why We Fight For It.
Now, this title immediately...
Raises a number of questions.
Who's the we?
And what do we believe?
And much as we might have an intuitive feel for the sentiments and the beliefs that characterize the people in this room, these aren't really easy questions to answer.
And partly for that reason, rather than answer those questions right at the outset, I'll answer a different question.
What are we supposed to believe?
About race and about nation and about the future of the United States.
After all, in this country, we have a very complicated racial etiquette, and you can get in bad trouble if you violate this complicated etiquette.
So you'd think there'd be nice, clear guidelines as to what is permissible and what is not.
In fact, as I'm sure you're all aware, there are lots of very ad hoc rules, arbitrary rules, that govern what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot say.
Despite the fact that many of these ad hoc rules don't seem to have any coherence, I think it's possible to extract some general principles that govern race relations, at least as they apply to whites.
And the central principle, I believe, is this: that for whites, race is an utterly insignificant matter.
Race means nothing, it explains nothing, and it stands for nothing.
Any generalizations about race, even if they're true, are meaningless and offensive because they depend only on temporary environmental circumstances.
And that the races, aside from gross and meaningless outward characteristics, are arithmetically, geometrically, mathematically perfectly equal in every respect.
Races are, in effect, supposed to be interchangeable.
So that if you took a whole generation of Japanese babies and replaced them with Australian Aborigines, And assuming that you could eliminate the ambient, quote, racism of Japanese society, these Australian Aborigine babies would grow up and Japanese society would continue utterly unchanged.
Now, given this assumption about race, that it means nothing, race is for whites not a valid criterion for any conceivable purpose.
Any decision that whites make on the basis of race is immoral.
For example, it is not permissible.
For whites to prefer to live in a white neighborhood, for them to want to send their children to white schools or to urge their children to marry within their own race, it's out of the question, of course, to suggest that whites should maintain their national majority status.
All of this is racist and unforgivable because race doesn't matter, so if your neighborhood turns Mexican or if your children marry Haitians, that should not matter.
These rules don't apply to non-whites.
It's entirely proper for non-whites to make race the central element of their identity.
But this difference is a subject for another talk and another day.
Today I'm talking about the rules for white people.
Of course, this notion about the meaninglessness of race, that leads us to what I think is a very important contradiction, because although it's a central proposition, it collides head-on with another.
Equally important and central proposition about race in the United States today, and that is that diversity is a good thing.
One of the most heavily promoted ideas, one of the current myths in America, is that racial diversity is one of our great strengths.
It's a wonderful thing.
The more of it, the more the better.
But how can racial diversity be a strength if the races are equivalent, if the races are equal?
For racial diversity to be a good thing or a bad thing or to be anything at all...
Race has to have, it has to bear meaning of some kind, it has to have some sort of significance.
If the races are identical, diversity is meaningless.
But, if diversity, and diversity depends on racial differences of some kind, why is it wrong for whites to notice these differences and base political decisions or personal choices on the basis of these differences?
Now, I don't think anyone has ever put the question quite in those terms before, and it deserves an answer, after all.
We live in a time when racial diversity is considered so important that it justifies racial discrimination against whites, what is euphemistically known as affirmative action, in order to promote racial diversity.
But for racial diversity to be that desirable, that important, obviously the races cannot be interchangeable.
So, what's going on here?
Race is supposed to be meaningless, and yet...
There is some racial factor going on that makes diversity a good thing.
Well, I'll tell you what's going on.
The real unspoken resolution to this contradiction is that it recognizes that race is meaningful, that the races are different.
But the key to the riddle here is that the way in which the races are different is that whites are inferior.
Diversity is a great thing for whites and white nations because it exposes them to people who are supposed to be superior in their ways of thinking and their ways of behaving.
After all, it's only whites who are to have their notions, have their nations and institutions diluted in the name of diversity, sometimes even destroyed.
Diversity is something that is urged only upon whites.
For non-whites, Words like diversity or tolerance, they're really nothing more than code words for advancing their own explicitly racial power grab agenda.
And I'll give you a good example.
I'll never forget what the leader of the Black Student Union at Auburn University said when their group finally persuaded the university to cancel its annual Confederate parade.
What did this woman say?
She said, that will teach them that they have to value tolerance and diversity.
For heaven's sake.
She's not using the words in the way those words literally mean.
For her, once again, tolerance and diversity are simply tools for a will to power, to advance her explicit racial agenda.
But to return to this idea that whites are inferior, or at least deeply flawed, this, interestingly enough, is the one distinctly racial sentiment that whites are supposed to have about themselves.
In any discussion of whites as a race, not as individuals, but as a race, it is virtually obligatory to write disparagingly about whites, to remind them of their past and their present crimes, to make them ashamed to be white.
So whites are supposed to believe on the one hand that race has no significance, it's utterly meaningless, but at the same time, without any sense of contradiction, they're supposed to have this strong sentiment about themselves that is one of shame.
This is the very opposite of the explicit self-promotion, the explicit racial self-promotion that's found in every other group.
Therefore, it's not uncommon for whites to write about themselves in absolutely shocking terms.
The white race is the cancer of human history, says Susan Sontag, and Noel Ignatieff of Harvard in his publication Race Traitor.
The motto of that organization is, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
And the lead article of the first issue of his publication, Race Traitor, was called Abolish the White Race by Any Means Necessary.
Well, someone named Christine Sleeter, writing for Mr. Ignatieff, explains what some of the defects of our people are.
She says, whiteness has come to mean ravenous materialism.
Competitive individualism and a way of living characterized by putting acquisition of possessions above humanity.
Well, I suppose you surveyed every ethnic group in the world to arrive at this kind of conclusion.
The U.S. government, it supports a publication called Managing Diversity.
This is one of these government handouts that's supposed to help bureaucrats through the thicket of multiracialism, this great strength that turns out to be rather a complication and a difficulty.
But one of its 1997 issues of managing diversity had a front-page story.
It's called, What Are the Values of White People?
Well, according to Harris Sussman, Ph.D., he first goes on and tells us how bad white people have been over the centuries, over the years.
And then he concludes by saying, In our postmodern vocabulary, whites or the white man is all we need to say to invoke this history and experience of injustice and cruelty.
When we say white people, we mean the people of greed, who value things over people, who value money over people.
Well, presumably this is the sort of thing that President Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea was supposed to be thinking about when she was assigned an essay by her private school to be entitled, Why I Am Ashamed to be White.
Well, I'll quote you a few more people.
Here's James Traub of the New Yorker.
He says, when whites talk to people of other races, the first thing they really need to do is apologize.
He says, the recognition of wrongs, along with the acceptance of the sense of collective responsibility, guilt, that comes with that recognition is a precondition to entering the discussion.
In other words, you've got to admit you're in the wrong, that you're guilty before you can even talk to somebody of a different race.
Here's Joe Klein in New York Magazine.
He says, any conversation about race must begin with the confession, quote, it's our fault.
We're racists.
Well, needless to say, this line suits blacks just fine, and many other non-whites have caught on and have cashed in on this tendency to apologize, too.
Here's James Baldwin, the black author.
He once wrote that any dialogue, any real dialogue between the races requires a confession from whites that is nothing less than, in his words, a cry for help and healing.
Well, that means if you let loose with a cry for help and healing, maybe he'll talk to you.
Now, perhaps Maggie Gallagher was crying for help and healing when she wrote in one of her New York Post columns, That although she thinks of herself as an American and as a Catholic and sometimes as an Irish-American, she goes on to say this,
quote, says, I hate the idea of being white.
I never think of myself as belonging to the white race.
Those who do, in my experience, are invariably second-raters seeking solace for their own failures.
I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white.
Now, there's no other group on earth that writes about itself this way.
Absolutely no other group.
And it seems to me we've got a pretty consistent message here.
You hate the idea of being white.
You have to apologize.
You cry for help and healing.
And if you're tempted to be proud of the accomplishments of your people, well, Maggie Gallagher has already told you you're a second-rater.
No. This sentiment that is allowed to whites as whites is one of shame.
And the only act that's allowed to whites as a race is an act of apology.
When is the last time you ever heard a public person, a media personality, a politician say anything about whites as a race that was positive?
It's all negative.
To sum it up, therefore, the current required orthodoxy is that whites have no legitimate group aspirations and no...
No legitimate expression of racial sentiment is permissible to them.
They're guilty, they're wicked, and the only hope we have is to dilute our wickedness in this marvelous racial diversity that our leaders have so kindly arranged for us.
Well, it's no trick really to see where all this leads.
And now, in fact, what used to be obscure Census Bureau predictions About the changing demographics of this country, about the reduction of whites to a minority, are now openly applauded by no less a person than the great white father himself.
President Clinton, he sees two crucial events in the American past.
Well, three, really.
The revolution, because it founded the country.
After that, the Civil War, because it freed the slaves.
Never mind about the destruction and the horror of the Civil War.
What matters to him is when it was all over, the slaves were freed.
Now, the next great event in American history, he sees the reduction of whites to a minority as, quote, the third great revolution of America, after the Revolutionary War and after the Civil War.
He looks forward to the challenge of seeking, quote, if we can prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture.
So for this man, since the founding, There have really been only two big events.
One killed off 600,000 white people, and the other is going to reduce whites to a minority.
Is there some kind of pattern here, by any chance?
Of course, I believe that Mr. Clinton is the worst and most contemptible sort of hypocrite.
He pretends to look forward to the day when the country is majority non-white.
But when he leaves the White House, what kind of neighborhood is he going to go move into?
Is he likely to go live in a majority non-white neighborhood?
Is he going to live with Mexicans and blacks?
No. I suspect, I'd bet any amount of money, that like all the other hypocrites who set policy in this country, he will nobly forego the benefits of racial diversity so that people who don't have the money to flee to the suburbs or send their children to private school can enjoy it instead of Bill Clinton.
So here he is, cheerfully endorsing policies that are turning more and more parts of the United States into precisely those neighborhoods in which whites, including William Jefferson Clinton, refuse to live.
Well, in the interest of good taste, I won't say anything more about what I think about that kind of behavior.
Now, whites are not supposed to object to the idea of being displaced.
I mean, ideally, I suppose they're not supposed to think about it at all.
If they do think about it, then presumably they should just whoop with joy at the prospect, but if they can't manage to whoop with joy, then at the very least, they should assume that this demographic transformation is going to be inevitable.
I think Robert Dornan of California is a pretty typical example.
Back in 1996, while he was still in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dornan, he was very pleased to say, I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our northern European stock, Your coloring and mine, that is to say, blue eyes and fair hair,
tough. He got his wish.
Judging from that reaction, it sounds as though I don't need to finish this story, but America continued to be a nation of immigrants, and it lost its European stock, particularly in his district.
Now, somehow...
Mr. Dorman was not at all pleased when at his next election he was defeated by somebody who had a greater appeal to these new Americans, someone with the name of Sanchez.
Of course, the really with it people, they think that it'll be just very exciting to be pushed aside by aliens.
Listen to this headline.
It's from a recent cover story of the travel section of the Washington Post, and it's about San Antonio.
It says, Forget the Alamo.
Today, San Antonio has little to do with that symbol of doomed Anglo-imperialism.
It's a thriving capital of Hispanic culture and a magnet for multicultural tourism.
Well, yes indeed, Hispanics there are making quite a noise about the fact they want to tear down the memorial to the people who defended the Alamo.
Here's Mary Lynn Henry, also very with it.
She works as a casting agent for ABC Television, trying to make their soap operas more racially diverse.
And as she explains her job, she says, we're looking to fill a lot of roles with Armenians, Israelis, Hawaiians, Jamaicans.
You can't think All-American anymore.
She says, I love to see their origins.
I love these mixes.
You got that?
No more All-American.
Now, I'd like to emphasize something, and that is that except for certain Hispanic activists in the Southwest, Nobody is explicitly saying, nobody's coming right out and saying, yeah, we're just going to get rid of these people.
But, in fact, the end result of all of this kind of thinking is precisely that.
The displacement and who knows, perhaps ultimately the elimination of the founding stock.
Here is Gwynne Dyer.
She's a London-based Canadian journalist, also very with it, as you'll see.
She takes for granted what she calls ethnic diversification.
It is a marvelous thing for white countries.
And wise politicians understand this, but they have to phase out the native whites and phase in the immigrant non-whites on the sly.
Here is how Ms. Dwyer paraphrases what the politicians are thinking.
She says, let the magic do its work, but don't talk about it in front of the children.
They'll just get cross and spoil it all.
In other words...
Being phased out is a very good thing for whites, but you mustn't tell them that that's what's happening.
And she looks forward to the day when whites are a little bit better educated and have a better understanding about these things and can be told quite explicitly, this is what we're doing and this is why it's good for you.
Now, you've all heard of Pauline Hanson.
She's the Australian politician who doesn't care for the prospect of whites becoming a minority in Australia.
She has spoken out against the prospect of being swamped by Asian immigrants, and of course, for whites, not to wish to be swamped by Asian immigrants is a horrendous crime, and she's provoked much shrieking.
Well, what's the American reaction?
I thought this was a good one.
The Chicago Tribune wrote an article about her, and they noted with considerable shock that, quote, Australians who still harbor notions of remaining a Caucasian society.
Well, fancy that.
Some Australians still harbor such a quaint notion.
But, now this gets even better.
Reducing whites to a numerical minority might just be the beginning.
That's just the beginning.
With interracial marriage, it might be possible that whites would just disappear completely.
These days, it seems as though it's all the rage to produce miscegenation as the final solution to the race problem.
After all, if all the races are melted together, then how could there be any more racism left?
Here's Morton Kondracki, writing in The New Republic.
He says, It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another color, and if, eventually, we were all one color.
In America, he adds cheerfully, this can happen.
John Carroll, the San Francisco Examiner, he says, I think intermarriage may be the only way out of our racial problems.
Ben Wattenberg, dear old Ben Wattenberg, he notes that interracial marriage is on the rise, and he writes happily, does all this mean that as we move into the next century, race will be much less of an issue?
That we will all end up bland and blended?
That, as I believe, we will fulfill our difficult destiny as the first universal nation?
Well, obviously, he wants us to answer all these questions.
Yes, yes, yes!
Even so-called conservatives have begun to endorse the final solution.
Douglas Besheroff of the American Enterprise Institute, he says, miscegenation may be, quote, the best hope for the future of American race relations.
And John Miller, who's been mentioned already today, another so-called conservative, he's a reporter for National Review.
That's supposed to be our main conservative magazine.
He thinks that intermixture is inevitable and the only way to end group conflict.
In the future, he says confidently, everyone will have a Korean grandmother.
Well, I suppose everyone will have a Haitian and a Guatemalan grandmother, too, or grandparent of one sort or another.
So, here we have the happy ending.
Whites, those wicked people who are the cancer of history, they can be just dissolved out of existence into this hippy-happy cafe au lait mishmash.
Of course, nobody seems to notice that this process will not eliminate race.
It'll only eliminate whites.
Because whites are only 15% of the population of the world and only having perhaps 7% or less of the world's babies.
And nobody is proposing the blender treatment.
For Africa, or for Asia, or any of these other countries.
There's not one non-white country that's supposed to solve its ethnic problems or its racial tensions through massive immigration and miscegenation.
No. The final solution applies only to us.
And it's being kindly proposed to us by our very own rulers and commentators.
But, once again, and I want to repeat this, only these Hispanic activists are saying, Let's get rid of the white people.
But it's now part of the zeitgeist to write favorably about the ultimate dissolution of whites, their reduction to a minority.
And once the zeitgeist takes on this kind of characteristic, ultimate disappearance is what we can foresee in the future.
Now, though, let me change directions completely.
And I'd like to step back in time.
And compare current orthodoxy with what used to be taken for granted in the United States.
Liberals act as if the racial consciousness of people like you sitting in this room is some kind of brand new aberration.
Well, in fact, our way of thinking has the very finest intellectual pedigree of any idea that ever took root in this country.
Sam Francis gave us something of a suggestion of that earlier today.
But the views about race of the people in this room are essentially the same as those of virtually every prominent American, clear up until the 1930s and 40s.
As you all know, Americans took it for granted the United States was to be a European country, founded for Europeans, that it had a European heritage to which no challenge could be permitted or even imagined.
Our ancestors were unalterably opposed to miscegenation, or what they called amalgamation.
And they took it for granted that this would always be and they could not imagine otherwise.
But let's let them speak for ourselves.
As I'm sure many of you know, Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in multiracialism.
He believed in separation.
He didn't think slavery was a good thing.
He wanted the slaves freed, but he wanted to send them away across the ocean, as he put it, beyond the reach of mixture.
He was also a great believer in the destiny of whites as a self-conscious racial group.
In 1801, he looked forward to the day when, quote, our rapid multiplication will expand itself over the whole northern, if not the southern continent, nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.
Neither blot nor mixture.
He wanted white people to inhabit the entire western hemisphere.
James Madison, just like Jefferson, believed the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and send them away.
And even proposed that the federal government sell off public lands to raise enough money to buy the entire black population of the United States and send it away.
After his two terms in office, Madison served as the president of the American Economization Society, which was formed, as Sam Francis indicated earlier, to send Africans to Africa.
And at its first meeting in 1816, Henry Clay explained the purpose I think Dr. Francis also mentioned some of the very,
very prominent Americans who were part of that colonization enterprise.
A list of the names of the officers, not just members, but the officers of the Colonization Society, sounds like an honor roll from early 19th century American history.
And although James Monroe, so far as I know, was not a member of the Colonization Society, He worked so hard to set up Liberia as a haven for expatriated blacks that the name of the capital city of Liberia was named Monrovia in his honor.
Obviously, these people didn't think that race was important.
They didn't want to become a minority.
They believed very, very strongly that race was a central element in our national identity.
Now, I won't go over some of the things that Lincoln had to say about race.
But what Dr. Francis was saying earlier this morning reminds me of something that George Bush said while he was in office.
This was during National Negro Week or one of these celebrations we have from time to time.
And he had a group of black journalists in his office at the White House.
And he told them that he looked forward to the day when the vision of Abraham Lincoln would be fulfilled and when a black man would sit at this desk in the Oval Office.
Well, this kind of ignorance about American history in the chief executive is simply appalling.
You wonder whether he really knew or whether he was trying to fool us.
It's just an amazing state of affairs.
In any case, Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, felt exactly the same way.
He'd be another shocker to old George Bush, I guess.
At one point he said, this is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.
James Garfield.
He wrote this before he became president, but he says, I have a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the Negro being made our political equal, and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.
What about 20th century presidents?
Here's Teddy Roosevelt.
He wrote about blacks, calling them, quote, a perfectly stupid race, and he blamed Southerners for bringing them into the country.
In 1901, he wrote, I have not been able to think out any solution to this terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.
He is here.
He can neither be killed nor driven away.
As for Indians, he said, I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.
Woodrow Wilson.
Of course, he was a confirmed segregationist.
He was the president of Princeton before he became president of the United States, and he was absolutely diligent about maintaining it as an all-white institution, refused to let blacks even apply or enroll.
During the presidential campaign of 1912, he took a very strong position on exclusion of Asians.
He said, I stand for the national policy of exclusion.
We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.
Oriental coolism will give us yet another race problem, and surely we have already had our lesson.
Warren Harding.
I don't know how many of these people you want to hear.
Just go on and on with this stuff.
Harry Truman.
Here, Harry Truman.
Why not Harry Truman?
He's remembered today because it's the 50th anniversary of his executive order desegregating the armed forces.
And that is supposed to be what crystallizes his views on race, as desegregating the armed forces.
Well, in his own correspondence, he was just as separatist as Jefferson.
He says, I'm strongly of the opinion, Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.
And in a letter to his daughter, he described the waiting staff, the waiters at the White House, as, quote, an army of coons.
As recent a president as Dwight Eisenhower, He argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political or economic rights, he said that does not mean social equality or, quote, that a Negro should court my daughter.
It's only really with John Kennedy that we find a president who has views on race that are remotely acceptable by today's standards.
And I've stuck to politicians because they usually talk in these big all-ratond terms that will not offend anybody.
They say the things that everyone takes for granted.
Well, what about the poets, the radicals, the hippies, the socialists?
Well, they really weren't much different.
Here's Ralph Waldo Emerson.
He says, It is in the deep traits of race that the fortunes of nation are written.
How about Walt Whitman?
He was sort of an early hippie.
He's a big favorite of our chaste and honorable president.
But he was no dreamer.
He was no dreamer when it came to race.
He wrote, Who believes that whites and blacks can ever amalgamate?
And who wishes it to happen?
Nature has set an impassable seal against it.
Besides, is not America for the whites, and is it not better so?
Finally, how about the socialists?
Well, Jack London, a well-known socialist, but he didn't think socialism was for everybody, not by any means.
He wrote that it is devised for the happiness of certain kindred races.
It is devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred-favored races.
So that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.
Very strong talk.
But there's essentially no limit to these so-called racist sentiments from prominent Americans in the past.
Virtually everyone who wrote about race, with some exceptions, expressed very similar ideas.
And, of course, these opinions were expressed not just in social customs but in the law.
I think Sam Francis mentioned this, too.
Our first immigration law was designed to admit only free white persons into naturalization.
And until 1965, we had an immigration policy explicitly designed to keep whites a majority.
Now, needless to say, all of this is terribly embarrassing to today's liberals.
Most of them, frankly, don't know the history of the United States, and some of them actually attempt to falsify it.
One of the most, I think, egregious examples is on the Jefferson Memorial.
On the interior wall, It quotes Jefferson.
One of the inscriptions says, Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of Fate than that these people, the Negroes, shall be free.
It makes him sound like Martin Luther King.
Well, when he wrote those words, he didn't end them with a period.
He ended them with a colon.
And after them he wrote, Nor is it less certain that the two races equally free cannot live under the same government.
Well, I think completing the sentence rather changes the first part of it, but...
This kind of falsification of history is the sort of thing we thought only the Stalinists were supposed to stoop to.
Conor Cruz O'Brien, as you know, he wants to kick Thomas Jefferson out of the American pantheon, as Sam Francis was suggesting.
Well, it really makes you wonder, because if you kick Thomas Jefferson out, you've got to kick everybody out.
Everybody up practically up until John Kennedy's got to kicked out.
Well, is Conor Cruz O'Brien stupid, or does he just think we're stupid?
It really makes you wonder what these people are thinking.
Are they trying to fool us, or do they really believe what they're saying?
Race, therefore, is this terrible dilemma for liberals.
They claim to love America.
They claim to admire its founders and revere the Constitution.
But the people who built this country were self-conscious, racially loyal white people.
And I can assure you they did not build the United States in order for our generation to turn it over to Cambodians and Nigerians.
And so...
Because of their racial feelings, of course, the founders, the greatest men our country has ever produced, were racist, and therefore the worst sort of scum by today's standards, not quantified to be dogcatchers, for heaven's sake, much less found and lead a country.
So here we have this amazing contradiction.
These wise, wonderful people founded a wonderful country and made it great, made it prosperous, but when it came to race, they got it wrong.
They just got it wrong.
Every last one of them.
Well, who got it right?
Bill Clinton?
Teddy Kennedy?
According to today's orthodoxy, these people are the moral superiors of Washington and Jefferson.
Well, I'll tell you this, ladies and gentlemen.
On the most basic questions of national destiny, it is we who are faithful to the great men of our past.
Can you imagine Jefferson having a conversation with the present document of the White House?
Can you imagine Lincoln addressing a Republican fundraiser?
Can you imagine somebody walking up to Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson and saying, you, you nativist, you!
Oh, these people would have thought somebody had just escaped from the nuthouse.
In fact, people like Roosevelt or Wilson, they'd have to come to an American Renaissance conference to find people they didn't think were completely insane.
If you look around the country, it's we who are faithful to their vision of America.
It's the peddlers of multiracialism and multiculturalism and multi-this and multi-that who are in direct rebellion against the central beliefs and most strongly held hopes of the finest people this nation ever produced.
And yet it is we who are hated for our views.
There are even some ignoramuses who have the temerity to call us un-American.
Of course, in retrospect, the wisdom of the past is even more impressive because it was based purely on foresight, not even on experience.
Our ancestors didn't have to try out integration and multiracialism to know it wasn't going to work.
But today's so-called leaders can't even see what's staring them in their faces.
They'll take a visit to Detroit or Miami, in their armored cars, of course, and then...
They'll stagger back to civilization and tell us with a straight face this is what they want the whole country to look like.
It's just amazing.
There's a point I'd like to make, though, about the racial attitudes of Lincoln or Jefferson or Roosevelt, and that's this.
Their views were so widely accepted, so taken for granted, and so obvious, there wasn't even a word to describe them.
They were just plain common sense.
Since then, of course, we have had a genuine revolution, a top-to-bottom, topsy-turvy revolution in thinking about race, and it's been just as profound and far-reaching as the revolution in Russia.
What used to be normal, what used to be common sense, is now essentially a thought crime.
You think about that for a moment.
How often does a nation go through a transformation of that kind, and what was absolutely taken for granted becomes a crime?
Well, when this happens, you have to invent new words to describe what used to be normal but is now a crime, and that, of course, is where the word racism comes in.
Believe it or not, it didn't even exist until the 1930s.
It didn't get wide circulation until perhaps the 1960s, and you don't find the word racism in the Oxford English Dictionary until the 1970s.
Well, it seems like such an indispensable word today, you wonder how people manage to communicate without it.
Well... This word only came into existence when what was normal and taken for granted suddenly became a crime.
Of course, just because today's crime is yesterday's common sense doesn't mean that you can't be strung up for it.
After the Communist Revolution, of course, the very same thing happened.
What was utterly normal and taken for granted became a crime.
And they came up with new words for new criminals.
I'm sure that when Stalin's boys were lining the kulaks up against the walls, some of them said, wait, wait, I'm not a petty bourgeois deviationist, I'm just normal.
Well, they were right, of course, but I didn't stop them from getting shot.
When the world around you is going insane, sanity and common sense can be dangerous, as we all know today.
So the last few decades...
They have beaten any kind of explicit sense of racial identity out of whites, and it is our purpose, frankly, to reawaken that sense of identity.
Whites no longer think of themselves as a people with a real destiny and a real future.
But they will.
Sam Francis has written that whites exist objectively, if you will, because what makes them a distinct people can be described in detail and at length.
But they don't exist subjectively.
And any kind of nationhood, of course, requires not just objective existence, but a subjective understanding of its own existence.
Of course, in their private lives, whites still show that they have all the proper instincts of racial consciousness when they decide whom they are going to marry, where they're going to live, what church they're going to join, where they're going to send the children to school, who they're going to invite to their dinner parties.
They show how important race remains to them.
We see signs of quiet racial consciousness at work all the time.
It's only at the explicitly political level that whites have been influenced by this tremendous anti-racist propaganda campaign that we're living through today.
And, of course, it takes a huge effort to suppress the natural consciousness of race.
Whites have to be reminded at least 20 times a day that race doesn't matter, that diversity is a great thing, that whites are somehow uniquely guilty, and they must be tolerant, sensitive, etc., etc., etc.
And so, to conclude, why do we oppose this?
Why do we fight for the preservation of our people in our culture?
You shouldn't even have to ask a ridiculous question like that.
Even the most ferocious anti-white activist, We'll understand immediately why other people want to maintain their peoplehood and their way of life.
If some Stone Age New Guinean tribe with bones in their noses, if they want to preserve their customs, the anti-racists are the first to spring to their defense.
Well, I'm the second.
If it makes them happy to put bones in their noses, who am I to tell them to take them out?
The way the world works today, just about any weird practice or weird people, so long as it is non-white, It's thought to be a priceless contribution to the culture of man.
And finally, what about biodiversity and the preservation of life forms?
We're supposed to move mountains to save the spotted owl or the snail darter, for heaven's sake.
But white people?
Well, gosh, they can just all be blended out of existence.
Good riddance.
In fact, the other day I was looking over the American endangered species list.
You find all kinds of interesting little critters on this list.
One is called the Tooth Cave Pseudo-Scorpion.
It's found only in Travis County, Texas.
It is four millimeters long.
And we are supposed to be working ourselves into a frenzy, I suppose, to save the Tooth Cave Pseudo-Scorpion.
Well, what about Europeans?
What about white people?
Well, yes, what about them?
Well, I say to you that we stand in defense of our people because that's what we owe to our forebears.
They reared us faithfully in the way of their people, and they never dreamed of the day when common sense would become a crime.
We owe this to our children who must never become minorities, despised minorities in their own country, who must be told the truth about the great people of which they are a part and about the glorious culture to which they are heirs.
And finally, we owe it to ourselves as loyal men and women of the West.
We are the crucial link between past and future.
It's only through us that a glorious past becomes a glorious future.
And our people may appear to be asleep, but they'll awake.
And our people may seem discouraged, but they'll take heart.
And once again the time will come when it will be taken for granted that we have the right to be us and only we can be us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I see we already have a hand.
Yes, ma'am.
Can you get to spend a little time on the role of the great tactics of the foundation
Well, the question was, what is the role of the great tax exempt foundations in pushing this dispossession?
You probably know more about it than I do, but Ford, Rockefeller, all of these foundations that were set up by people who, by contemporary standards, of course, would be considered hopeless and frothing white supremacists, all of their effort has been almost explicitly towards multiculturalism,
multiracialism. It's, to me, quite a baffling thing.
I know that in arts funding, for example, there are many organizations that supply money for arts organizations, and they will say specifically, We are supporting African dance.
We're supporting Filipino drumming.
We just don't make money available for opera or for classical music.
In fact, it's typical that the most prominent and the most elite institutions in the United States are those that are most faithless to the kinds of racial views that I've been talking about.
The higher up you go in society in terms of prestige, wealth, it seems the harder people are at work.
Trying to undermine the ancient vision of the United States.
It's only when you get down to more or less common people or those who have managed to avoid the kind of brainwashing that comes with a college education that you find people who still have any sense about this.
But yes, the non-profit institutions have been a tremendous force in racial disaggregation in the United States.
Yes, sir?
Isn't this an attack on Europeans and on Western culture?
It's really a symptom and a product of the unparalleled success of European civilization in the world.
When you think about the fact that since in this century that the leadership of the world has essentially been a contest among European powers for political and military supremacy, which has been achieved until the recent emergence of China.
That that was the case, and it motivates these feelings, these deep-seated feelings of inferiority on the part of non-Europeans, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the feelings of embarrassment or guilt on behalf of many of the European elites.
My question is, had Japan won World War II, would we be in this kind of self-identity crisis?
A difficult question to summarize, actually, but the question is whether or not our malaise is, in some respects, a function of our unparalleled success, that Europeans and whites were these great military and economic masters of the world, and if, for example, we had been defeated by the Japanese,
would we be going through these present evolutions?
That's a very interesting question I never thought about.
I think if we had lost the Japanese and we were occupied by the Japanese, for example, or there had been some kind of very, very punitive peace treaty with the United States, I think it probably would have had more of an effect on us, of galvanizing us.
After all, that's what Pearl Harbor did to us.
Someone was mentioning that earlier today, that it was in the face of outward attack that America girded up its loins and did great things.
I think all groups react that way, and I think it's possible that whites as a group could react to a crisis in that way also.
As far as the unparalleled success is concerned, I think that's a very important element of what's happening because it is our unparalleled success that attracts people who are unlike us from all around the world.
People don't come from Haiti or Guatemala or Nicaragua or Vietnam because they want to present us poor, homogeneous white people with the gift of diversity.
No, they come because whites have built the most successful, the most desirable, the most pleasant societies in history on earth.
We are, in that sense, victims of our own unparalleled success.
I think the Japanese and the Koreans would be victims of similar success.
Iraqis, Iranians, Bangladeshis would love to go live in Osaka, but the Japanese know perfectly well that that kind of demographic change is unthinkable.
So it's in that sense that, yes, we are victims of a certain kind of success.
Yes, sir?
The title of your speech is What We Believe and Why We Should Fight More.
Could you speak to how, the how aspect?
How? Well, that's a very difficult question.
There's a difference, I think, between education and politics, if you will.
American Renaissance is primarily an educational organ.
I, myself, personally, I don't think I have the turn of mind for practical politics.
There's another organization, though, that will be making an announcement later on today called the Council of Conservative Citizens.
And Gordon Baum, who is their chief executive, will be here to talk about some of the things that they're doing.
It's a more activist-oriented organization.
I'm happy to cooperate as closely as possible with them.
So it's not as though we are without...
Activist organizations.
There are activist organizations in California against immigration, for example.
I think this is something that is going to require a kind of, to use a hackneyed phrase, grassroots efforts.
The only time you ever see American politicians talking about immigration or restricting it or affirmative action is when they are forced to by propositions in California, for example, or by obstreperous constituents.
This sort of thing has got to come from us individually.
In this context, I would say one thing, and that is this.
Many Americans are absolutely terrified that if they say the sorts of things that I've been saying or that other people in this room are going to be saying here, that the sky will somehow fall on them, that they'll all lose their jobs, they'll be hounded out of polite society.
Well, I've been out of the closet, so to speak, for nearly ten years, and practically nothing of this kind ever happens.
My telephone number is in the phone book.
My address is in the phone book.
You can look me up.
You can throw a bomb through my window if you want to.
If you want to.
But, knock on wood, so far nobody has wanted to.
People, I think, have a vastly, almost paralyzingly exaggerated notion of how dangerous it can be to speak common sense on these subjects.
So please, yes.
And obviously,
Everyone has to make his own decisions about what he can say and under what circumstances.
But I urge you, I urge you, at every opportunity, tell people the truth.
Mark Twain, Mark Twain said something that always resonates in my mind in this context.
He said, nothing astonishes people more than tell them the truth.
He's right.
Tell them the truth.
Yes, sir, in the back.
Thank you.
Who's paying the taxes?
Who will pay the taxes?
They want the standard of living, they want the government of the machine, the checks that come in the mail every month, the stamps, the social security.
Where does it go if you're going to decline into a third world?
And they never think that part is going to make the crazy machine going.
So I say they're raising the world, the minority and majority who's paying the taxes for the government services.
That's the only role that we still have.
Well, the question was, we appear to be very badly served by universities.
I certainly agree to that.
I think many people in our universities today are, to use an old-fashioned word, traitors.
They are committing treason to their nation, to their culture, and to their race.
Thank you.
You also mentioned the fact that, oh, Hispanics, for example, are looking forward to the day when the productive, taxpaying white person is a minority.
And you're asking, well, who's going to pay the taxes?
Who's going to make sure the trains run on time?
Who's going to make sure that the roads get paved, etc.?
I don't think they think about that.
I don't think they think about that at all.
I think that because Mexicans, for example, still have a healthy sense of peoplehood, if you told them, look, if you take over the southwest of the United States, the standard of living isn't going to be as high.
If you take over, there's not going to be welfare anymore.
I think they would think about it for a moment and they'd say, I don't care.
It's our people, it's our race, we want it.
It's this preoccupation with who's going to pay the bill, who's going to pay my Social Security.
It's that kind of petty, niggling preoccupation that I think is part of the paralysis of whites.
Thank you.
The point is, other races know what's important.
We have lost sight of this.
And as I say, if you told them the standard of living is not going to be quite the same, it wouldn't stop them for a moment.
Yes, sir.
I'm a visitor from Amsterdam.
Your northern neighbor.
Many Americans may not realize the value of the thoughts of Teddy Roosevelt, but you'll be happy to know the Canada Customs censors do.
The booklet, the Teddy Roosevelt, Peter Roosevelt on race, revolution, and riots, has recently been banned as hate propaganda in Canada.
I'm wondering if there's no civil efforts in your country to suppress the thoughts of some of the giants in it, whom you mentioned.
The question was from someone who described himself as a refugee from Absurdistan, namely Canada.
And he pointed out that a recent booklet called Teddy Roosevelt on race, riots, and revolution, I believe.
This is simply a book of quotations from Teddy Roosevelt.
It has been determined to be hate literature and is banned from Canada.
These are the quotations of an American president.
You can't bring them into the country.
He wanted to know if there are any similar measures in the United States to suppress and outlaw this kind of speech.
Well, I think the example I gave about the Jefferson Memorial is an interesting one of falsifying the past.
The sentiments that Abraham Lincoln has been repeatedly quoted as having this morning, somehow somebody forgot to chisel them on the wall of the Lincoln Memorial.
An obvious selectivity with which the great emancipator, as well as all of these distinguished figures from our past, are presented to Americans.
But in the United States, there are two things that are happening.
They're sort of pushing in opposite directions.
One is that we do have the First Amendment.
I think it was Joe Sobern who once said, if the Second Amendment had gotten the same kind of exaggerated ballooning treatment that the First Amendment has had, we'd all have bazookas and machine guns.
But in any case, the First Amendment appears to be the only amendment that the Supreme Court seems to read when it reads the Bill of Rights.
So far, of course, it's been mostly commies and pornographers who have benefited from it.
But I think the time is going to come when we'll be very, very happy that it's there.
I am already very happy that it's there.
So on the one hand, it will be difficult explicitly and legally to stamp out the quotations of Teddy Roosevelt.
But this is the great tragedy of our situation today.
We don't need laws to do this.
We simply don't.
And that is why George Bush can in all honesty look forward to the day when there's a black president and say, this is what Lincoln wanted.
I'm sure that man believed it.
I'm sure he believed it.
When you have this kind of colossal ignorance at the highest reaches of American society, you don't need censorship.
We are all our own commissars and we all censor ourselves already.
All of the editors in our major newspapers, they're their own commissars.
They censor themselves if they're not already ignorant.
So on the one hand, we do have this.
So with things like the Internet, desktop publishing, all of these great things that make it possible to actually produce an alternative to the generic media, we can get these ideas out.
And I do not believe that the United States is going to make legal attempts to stop it.
Yes, sir.
There is censorship now.
What the courts are considering of hate language and hate literature.
So the First Amendment is being compromised in that sense, where eventually some day just commenting on something racial or anti-semitic or anti-religion or pro-religion could be considered in the eyes of the commissars as being The point was made that we already have speech codes,
hate crimes, etc., and so that we are already on our way to a kind of legalized censorship.
I actually don't feel that that's the case.
University speech codes have been, in some cases, struck down legally.
They reached a kind of high watermark, I would say, oh, maybe seven or eight, nine years ago.
And they're on the wane now.
They have been found to be unenforceable, ridiculous, double standards, and I think we won't see too much of them in the future.
As far as your other point, which now slips my mind...
The hate crimes.
Yes, the hate crimes.
Yes, right.
I do see that as moving in a dangerous and disturbing direction.
After all, what we're now saying is, if you use the word nigger when you hit somebody, It is a completely different crime for having said nothing when you hit him.
This, to me, is bordering on, if not censorship, at least a very, very disturbing criminalization of a point of view or an expression of a point of view.
▲
Export Selection