“Race is the great American dilemma. This has always been so, and is likely to remain so,” says Jared Taylor at the start of his sober, blunt-spoken book, Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. Speaking bluntly about the thorniest issue in America today, race relations, seems to come as natural to the most urbane white separatist in America as speaking fluent Japanese.
What? A white separatist who speaks fluent Japanese? Aren’t those guys supposed to be hick English-firsters who speak German badly? If that’s what you think, then you, as Jared Taylor would put it, receive too much of your news from the establishment press. There’s a whole slew of brainy, white race advocates and defenders storming the liberal entrenchments from every direction. White student union groups are forming on American universities. Popular syndicated columnists like Samuel Francis (fired from the Washington Times for his racial views), and Joseph Sobran are unabashedly sympathetic to white race advocates. New York radio talk show personality, Bob Grant, was fired by ABC (rehired in NYC by a competitor) for, in part, promoting Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine. Pro-white groups have formed their own Campfire of the Saints on the Internet, and are probably outnumbered only by the innumerable pornographic websites.
What? Brainy white separatists? Aren’t those guys supposed to be dumb Southerners whose family tree shoots in a straight line? Not the man some call “America’s most dangerous racist.” Jared Taylor was born in Japan, and attended Japanese public schools until age twelve. He earned a BA in Philosophy at Yale in 1973. With his Yale degree under his belt, he traveled to French West Africa, then to Paris. While in Paris he attended the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, and received an MA in International Economics in 1978. He later worked in international finance, and was for a short time an editor working for PC Magazine. He started publishing his pro-white journal, American Renaissance, in 1991.
So how did this well-bred gentleman, with his enviable education and experience, become the “red-haired barbarian” who believes that revolution is his calling? “It is because I care deeply about the future of my people.”
Allerlei: I noticed from reading about you that you once lived in Paris awhile. I’ve always dreamed of visiting Paris. What did you do there, and how did the city of love affect you?
Jared Taylor: I think Paris is the most beautiful city in the world. It is a great pity that it is full of Parisians. I lived there for three years and fell in love with the architecture–also with a beautiful and accomplished Frenchwoman who kept trying to improve my outlook on the French by cooking me gourmet meals. I would probably still be living in Paris were it not for the fact that I had only a student visa and could not get a job.
Allerlei: Having spent sufficient enough time in France to appreciate their delicacies, I’m sure you have an opinion on their wines. Do you have a favorite French wine?
Jared Taylor: When I was living in France, my favorite wine was actually an Algerian cabernet called Sidi Brahim. Algerian vineyards tend to get more sun than those in France, so the grapes are a little sweeter and the wine is slightly more alcoholic. Sidi Brahim is very robust and full-bodied. I have never seen it for sale in the United States, but I think it would do well here.
Allerlei: You’ve piqued my curiosity. Surely, you’ve tried to find an alternative to Sidi Brahim in the U.S. Are there any wines similar to Sidi Brahim in the U.S.?
Jared Taylor: Once on a trip to Quebec, I found a good selection of Algerian wines, but Sidi Brahim was not among them. Now, I almost prefer to think of it as a kind of Platonic ideal–like the affair you might have had with that beautiful woman whose eye you caught just as your taxi was leaving the curb–and never saw again.
Allerlei: Please give me a few examples of nonwhite contributions to civilization you enjoy (food, wine, entertainment, etc.).
Jared Taylor: In an answer to an earlier question, I mentioned Algerian wine–undeservedly ignored in the United States.
It would be impossible to list all the things I admire and appreciate about Japan. Japanese food alone is a remarkable contribution to human achievement. Everyone has heard about sushi and tempura, but besides this there are entire worlds of Japanese cuisine virtually unknown outside of Japan: kaiseki-ryori, robata-yaki, menrui, teppan-yaki, and the huge variety of individual dishes that come under the broad category of I believe one can eat better food and of greater variety in Osaka than in any other city in the world (It is also frightfully expensive).
Wonderful food is just the beginning. Japan is also one of the most polite, well-run, crime-free, industrious, wealthy, and successful societies in history. I go to Japan three or four times a year, and when I pass through customs I invariably feel as though I have left the Third World and arrived in a genuinely developed country. I could write a book (and did) about what makes Japan different from the United States. Its racial and cultural homogeneity give it a cohesiveness that will carry it through the 21st century far more successfully than anything we can expect for the United States.
To switch gears completely, I am a great admirer of the blues–certainly a non-white music form. This is no idle or abstract admiration; I am quite accomplished on the blues harmonica, and in my youth played regularly in a blues band.
I am sure every people of every race has folkways and artforms that I would enjoy if I were acquainted with them. I have been in all the Arabic-speaking countries of North Africa and was overwhelmed by the friendliness and hospitality of the people–particularly in Libya. China is a huge reservoir of learning and culture of which I am essentially ignorant. Burma is a kind of time-stood-still paradise, but I cannot claim to know it well.
Man is infinitely varied and fascinating. He will remain so only if his distinct achievements and cultures are left to unfold undisturbed. There is no such thing as “multi”-culturalism; only mixture, dilution, inauthenticity, and–ultimately–destruction.
Allerlei: Jared Taylor plays the blues harmonica? Please name a few inspirational blues performers.
Jared Taylor: Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee, Sonny-boy Williamson, and Paul Butterfield on harp. I have always greatly enjoyed B.B. King, but was not happy to learn that he has 15 children by 15 different women. Really!
Allerlei: I’ve never had Japanese food. What dish would be most palatable to an American’s taste?
Jared Taylor: Never had Japanese food??!! I envy you your inevitable introduction to an infinitely varied and never disappointing world of pleasure.
Beef dishes are probably most suited to the Western palate. Sukiyaki and shabu-shabu are a good start. Though hard to find outside of Japan, yaki-tori (skewered chicken in many delightful forms) is very popular among the “red-haired barbarians” as the Japanese sometimes call us. I would leave the cuttle-fish intestines, fermented (rotting) soybeans, and raw sea urchin to the advanced students.
Allerlei: You are well traveled, and have spent much of your life in Japan, Europe, and West Africa. How have these experiences affected your worldview?
Jared Taylor: Probably the greatest effect has been to teach me that people and peoples are not all alike. It is, of course, fashionable to take the view that national and ethnic differences are quaint but ultimately trivial matters–that humans have great reservoirs of experience and expectations in common. I believe that the more one travels and really becomes acquainted with people of different nations the more one begins to understand just how different they actually are.
Allerlei: Mr. Taylor, here’s a laundry list of your skills and expertise: 1) You speak Japanese fluently, and taught the language at Harvard. 2) You worked as an International Lending Officer in New York and Tokyo. 3) You were a Contributing Editor and West Coast Editor for PC Magazine. 4)You have authored three books. 5) You are currently a consultant to American companies who do business in Japan.
With those skills, I would expect that you would be conducting international business full-time, and making a great deal of money. Why have you chosen instead to wrestle with racial politics?
Jared Taylor: It is because I care deeply about the future of my people–roughly defined as the biological heirs to the creators of Western Civilization. Whites, as a group, have lost all racial consciousness, and in a world where every other racial group is unabashedly advancing its particularist interests, loss of group consciousness is unilateral disarmament.
Most people would agree that every ethnic and national group has the right to self-preservation and self-determination. However, since whites have lost a sense of group identity, they no longer have the psychological requirements for long-term group survival, much less self-determination. The most obvious example of this is the unwillingness of whites to speak out against massive, non-white immigration. Everyone knows that America will be transformed by waves of Haitians, Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Cambodians–and in ways that most whites will not care for. Yet, whites fear to speak against this transformation for fear of being called “racists.”
Allerlei: There is quite a bit of information about you on the Internet, and very little of it portrays your character positively. Could you please explain how the media portrayed you prior to your foray into racial politics?
Jared Taylor: Before I started violating racial taboos, I was best known as a Japan expert. My book about Japan, Shadows of the Rising Sun, received enthusiastic reviews from virtually every major newspaper or magazine you can name. The Wall Street Journal, for example, called it “a delightfully readable account of what makes the Japanese tick.” A Japanese newspaper, the Mainichi, called it “essential reading for anyone visiting or living in Japan.”
Enthusiasm of this kind faded quickly when I came out on the “wrong” side of the race question, but I was not surprised. Race is probably the question on which the divergence between private thought and public expression is greatest. Also, there are many otherwise intelligent people who are incapable of entertaining an unfashionable idea, no matter how powerful its factual or moral basis. They do not think; they react.
Allerlei: Were you disappointed with the sales of Paved With Good Intentions?
Jared Taylor: No author is ever satisfied with the sales of his book. However, what was far more disappointing than sales–which were respectable–was the lack off reviews. The contrast with the treatment given my book on Japan could not have been greater. My publisher, Carroll & Graf, knocked itself out promoting the book, but most papers and magazines simply did not want to grapple with a serious (and I think unanswerable) assault on fashionable racial assumptions.
What sold the book was ardent readers. I have learned of many who bought dozens of copies and distributed them to friends. I also did a great deal of talk radio promotion (talk radio probably reflects the national temperament far more accurately than print media) which kept the book selling briskly.
Allerlei: May I ask, what you are working on now?
Jared Taylor: I am working on a book proposal that closely reflects the contents of American Renaissance–in other words, a book that ventures even further into forbidden territory than did Paved With Good Intentions. We will see how publishers react to it.
Allerlei: Getting down to race. To quote Rodney King, “Why can’t we just all get along?”
Jared Taylor: That is not a question without an answer, but it is a little like asking “Why can’t we love our neighbor’s children as much as we love our own?” The best explanations for parental love come from evolutionary biology, but they are neither conclusive nor simple. The fact is–and everyone accepts it–that people love their own children with a desperate passion that cannot be matched by their feelings for the children of others. We know this and we build our society accordingly.
Up until just a few decades ago, we also understood that people have parochial racial loyalties; we did not try to pretend otherwise. We built our society on a fact (that some found disagreeable) rather than on pleasant fantasies. It is a contemporary psychological aberration even to contemplate the possibility of “getting along” in the sense that the Civil Rights Movement so naively and bravely promised us we would.
In the history of the world there have been very few multi-racial societies, and all of them have been marked either by a rigid system of racial oppression or by constant racial friction. It is a pipe dream to think that human nature can be otherwise, just as it is a pipe dream to think that a “non-sexist” educational system could equalize the number of men and women behind bars for violent crimes (it is now ten men for every woman), or the number of U.S. patents granted to each sex (ninety-nine patents go to men for every one granted a woman).
The great, fatal, and breathtakingly arrogant assumption of liberalism is that human nature can be changed. “Education” and “programs” are the great panacea for liberals, and the credulity with which they embrace the latest “intervention,” despite the hopeless failure of all the rest, would be touching if it were not so destructive. The Roman satirist said it best: “Drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet she will always return.”
Ultimately, the reason for racial disharmony is the same as preference for one’s own children. Race is a kind of extended family, both biologically and culturally. Obviously, there can be divisions of language, religion, and nationality within races, but even these natural societal fault lines are shallow compared to the biological demarcation that constitutes race. Humans are not capable of a generalized loyalty towards the entire species, nor should they be. All past eras have understood this. Therefore, the more relevant question is, “Why would you expect us to ‘get along’?”
Allerlei: Let me turn the question around. Why do you think people would expect us to “get along?”
Jared Taylor: Why did so many people think that human beings could be taught to live in a socialist paradise, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need?” There is an enormous, child-like yearning for semi-magical solutions to the problems posed by human nature.
Communism was, of course, a gigantic misreading of human nature that resulted in untold horror. The idea that race can be made not to matter is an equally egregious misreading of human nature and we see evidence every day of the suffering it causes. The Soviet Union staggered on for seventy years under the burden of its foolish philosophy. We will probably stagger on for several more decades under ours until this social system, based on fantasy, collapses into anarchy and race war, or until whites regain their senses.
History is full of crazy idealism: “the war to end all wars,” the Crusades, Brown v. Board of Education, the kibbutz movement (now essentially dead), hippie philosophy (“love is all you need”), Prohibition, The War on Poverty, etc., etc. Most Americans seem to have no idea that current assumptions and policies about race are just crazily idealistic and just as doomed to failure.
Allerlei: As far as not being able to “love our neighbor’s children as much as we love our own,” it is becoming more fashionable for whites to adopt black children. What’s your view on this?
Jared Taylor: The number of whites doing this is very small, and I suspect that the number of whites who specifically want to adopt black children is minuscule. The most frequent cases are those of whites who become foster parents of abandoned or abused black children (because there are so few blacks who act as foster parents), and then come to love the child. As you probably know, the greatest opposition to this is from other blacks, who think that adoption by whites will destroy the “cultural distinctness” of a black baby.
There is a huge demand for white children to adopt, but only a tiny number available. That is why whites go to Guatemala and China, looking for babies. Interestingly enough, most Jews who want to adopt would greatly prefer a child of Jewish parents.
Allerlei: You mentioned that ninety-nine percent of the U.S. patents go to men. Let’s see if I can get you into more trouble. . Are men smarter than women?
Jared Taylor: Men and women have the same average intelligence, but the standard deviation for men is greater. This means that there are more men at both the genius and defective ends of the scale. When you get IQs of over 160 (or below 70) the disproportion of men to women is quite high.
It is also well established that men have a greater facility in spacio-temporal and mathematical ability, whereas women are more verbal. I think there is little doubt that these differences are genetic and are reflected in the sex ratios of awarded patents.
Men are also more violent, more aggressive, more selfish, less nurturing, and instinctively more promiscuous than women. This is true in all societies from all periods of history. Anyone who has worked with children of both sexes know that it is folly to pretend that these differences are merely the result of accidental cultural conditioning.
The idea of making combat soldiers or firefighters out of women is so stupid that only very intelligent people could fall for it.
There is an excellent book about sex differences called Brain Sex, written by Anne Moir and David Jessel. Every high school student in America (as well as every congressman) should be made to read this book. An enormous amount of suffering would be avoided if people were taught early in life than men and women are, by nature, different.
Allerlei: You say that history is full of crazy idealism. All those movements you described earlier can be attributed to mass movements. Is it fair to say that mass movements, right or left, are dangerous?
Jared Taylor: I think it would be more correct to say that mass movements are powerful, and therefore have the potential to do great damage or good. The United States mobilized in a way that could be called a mass movement to fight the Second World War–and so did the Japanese. Were those mass movements good or bad? Both nations felt justified in what they did, and the rights and wrongs depend on which side you are on. Many Southerners are very proud of the way their ancestors mobilized to fight for Southern independence.
Generally, I think mass movements have done more harm than good. In retrospect, was the anti-Vietnam War movement such a good thing? Given the collapse of so many families today, will history judge the feminist movement as a good thing?
The French Revolution, the Tutsi/Hutu conflicts, Central European pogroms–all were mass movements and were very destructive.
Allerlei: It’s been said that a man’s character is defined by the quality of his adversaries. Do you consider yourself as having any adversaries, and what does this say about Jared Taylor?
Jared Taylor: When I undertook to refute generally accepted ideas I expected to acquire powerful adversaries. However, on a subject like race, the preferred establishment tactic is not to debate dissidents, but simply to ignore them. This is generally very effective. A revolutionary idea may be utterly compelling, but if no one hears it it will have no effect. It is a great sign of success when the establishment is forced to take notice of dissident ideas, and I am pleased to have been noticed.
Allerlei: You are an intelligent, well-educated man. Does it bother you that the media associates you with skinheads, neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacist militias, and other kooks?
Jared Taylor: Easily the most annoying thing about the media reaction to my views is the instant tone of moral superiority. If you don’t take the official, liberal position on racial questions, you are not just mistaken, you are evil. Of course, by adding a moral dimension to questions of fact, my critics are behaving just like the Church authorities who denounced Galileo’s astronomical discoveries because they were immoral, not because they were incorrect.
A common variant of this approach is to say that my ideas are “dangerous.” Dangerous? What does that mean? Either they are right or wrong, justified or unjustified. People start calling you “dangerous” when they realize they can’t refute you. It’s just about the most graceless way of admitting that I have won the argument.
Another trick is to claim that what I say–which on examination, sounds disturbingly reasonable–is not what I think. Everything I say is “obviously” just a cover for racial hatred and the desire to oppress non-whites. The readiness to attribute base motives and the inability even to listen are simply breath-taking.
Most men’s minds are molded by fashionable cliches. Most men are constitutionally incapable of holding an unfashionable opinion. Nowhere is this more obvious than in discussions of race.
Allerlei: Getting back to race. You claim that whites have lost their sense of identity. However, other races in America are more likely than whites to marry outside their race. For instance, the Asian “out marry” rate is high. I’ve heard many Jewish leaders express concern that many young Jews marry outside their religion. Is it fair to say that loss of racial/cultural identity is a trend that, in some respects, whites lag?
Jared Taylor: Intermarriage is a perfect example of the “extended family” analogy I made earlier about race. Within the larger human family, North Asians and whites are close relatives. They are estimated to have separated from each other evolutionarily only about 40,000 years ago, whereas their common ancestors separated from African stock some 150,000 years ago.
Intermarriage, as well as peaceful race relations, therefore come more easily between whites and North Asians–who are near relations–than for either of those groups and blacks. On the other hand, peaceful relations and intermarriage are most likely between members of the same racial stock. Biology governs intergroup relations to a very large degree.
Over time, with enough exposure and positive propaganda, there would be intermarriage of all races. Given that whites are only eight percent of the world population, and are having only four percent of the world’s babies–not enough to replace themselves–this process would only hasten the extinction of whites. White conservationists will move heaven and earth to save the snail darter or spotted owl, for goodness sake, but no one is supposed to care that we have set out on a course that can only lead to the eventual disappearance of whites.
This would be a tremendous tragedy. If whites disappear, so will their culture. Asians will continue to play classical music, but who will read Shakespeare and Thackery? And, would the Japanese happily face extinction knowing that there are a few round-eyes who care about their art forms and folkways? No. Whites are now preparing to walk off the stage of history and become only a bemused footnote in the Great Chinese Encyclopedia of the World. As a black separatist once said to me, “I’m all for it, of course, but why are white people committing suicide?”
This was just his way of expressing surprise at the complete lack of white racial consciousness. White Americans are not even supposed to notice or care that immigration and high non-white birth rates are reducing them to a minority, whereas any other race would find this prospect intolerable and would do everything within its power to stop it.
Allerlei: You obviously are a man with a mission. What do you think would be an ideal solution to America’s racial dilemma?
Jared Taylor: My mission can be very simply described: to work for the survival of my people by awakening whites to the prospect of oblivion. We recognize that even stone-age New Guinean tribes have the right to preserve their culture and their biological heritage. Only whites can be bamboozled into thinking that it is somehow a virtue to be replaced, culturally and biologically, by aliens (Name a single non-white country that permits massive immigration or promotes “multi-culturalism”). To “celebrate diversity,” as we are so often urged to do, is nothing more than to celebrate our own dwindling numbers and influence. It is utterly unnatural and will, ultimately, destroy us.
What whites must understand is that if they are to continue as a people and as a culture, they must be prepared to think in terms of their own legitimate group interests. Whites must have a territory in which they are the clear majority, where the unfolding of their unique destiny will not be hampered by the unwanted embrace of the millions of non-whites who want to live among them.
Non-whites want to live among whites because whites have built the most desirable societies in the history of the world. Those who wish to live among us could never have built those societies and the attractive qualities of those societies cannot survive their arrival in large numbers. Whites must separate or they will be overwhelmed and disappear. Speaking as a white man, we have the right to be us, and only we can be us.