Talking Race and Immigration to Liberals

Wilburn Sprayberry, American Renaissance, June 8, 2012

We should try to get through to more whites.

Until recently, I attended a Dallas discussion group, where I promoted pro-white, traditionalist views. My participation for nearly nine years led to experiences that other racially conscious whites may find interesting or even useful.

The group was called the Dallas Salon, and is part of the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, a non-profit for adult education. The institute is staffed mainly by current and retired professors in the humanities. They tend to be liberals of the genteel type, not from the hard left.

Despite the liberal orientation, I have enjoyed some of the institute’s courses on such things as Shakespeare’s history plays and Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War, as well as symposia on American history. I never attended what has become the flagship event of the institute in recent years, its annual Martin Luther King conference. This attracts historians of the Civil Rights movement, King hagiographers, professional “diversity consultants,” and a number of speakers (mainly of color) who apparently do nothing but fly around the country lecturing on the continuing perils of white racism.

A statue of Thucydides in Vienna.

However, I regularly attended the Institute’s monthly discussion group, called the Friday Night Salon. Moderated by Larry Allums, the Institute’s executive director, the 20 to 40 people of the salon discussed topics submitted beforehand by participants, ranging from philosophy (e.g., What makes us happy?) to politics, (e.g., Does government have the right to draft people into the military?), to current events (e.g., the media firestorm over Tiger Woods’ extra-marital affairs).

Participants were evenly divided between men and women and were overwhelmingly white. The most common profession was teacher, followed closely by businessman and lawyer. Except for a sprinkling of economically conservative Republicans and libertarians, Salon members were liberal.

Dallas is usually thought of as conservative, but that is true only of the white suburbs. After decades of white flight, the city is 66 percent minority, with Hispanics the largest single group. Many whites in Dallas are childless liberals who stay for the “Stuff White People Like” cultural amenities and, allegedly, the “cultural diversity.” However, they tend to live in white neighborhoods that enjoy heavy police protection. So few whites send their children to public schools that only 5 percent of the 157,000 students in the Dallas school district are white.

From the first session I attended, I tried gently to prod salon members into considering race, which almost everyone else tried to avoid. For example, in our discussion of the draft (this was a year after the attacks of September 11), I noted that whites had been the only ethnic group to increase their enlistments significantly after the attacks, and that many blacks in “on the street” TV interviews were hostile to the idea of volunteering. When someone asked, “Are you saying blacks are less patriotic than whites?” I simply said, “Let the numbers speak for themselves.”

Not long after I joined the salon, we had a discussion about legal and illegal immigration. A young doctor, an Ivy League graduate and the son of Indian immigrants, asserted that our economy would suffer if we reduced immigration, since our prosperity depends on foreign brainpower and cheap labor. I said those were the same arguments big business made in the 1920s to try to stop Congress from reducing immigration, but that over the next 40 years America prospered as never before. It also won the Second World War with very little net immigration, and even net emigration in some years. Later in the discussion, a young woman spoke about the right of everyone to live where he pleased. When I asked her, “Does that mean the United States doesn’t have the right to keep anyone out?” she backed down.

That was the first time I shocked people. I reminded the salon that for most of its history the United States had an immigration policy designed to keep the country predominantly white, that no one had asked the American people if they wanted to change, and that if the current policy continued we would become a Third-World nation. This produced expressions of disbelief, but no one actually responded. Instead, the next speaker went off on a completely different tangent.

During the break, before discussing our second topic of the night, two young female school teachers approached me, looking like entomologists studying an interesting new bug. They had never heard views like mine, and wanted to know how I came by them. I gave them the websites of American Renaissance, VDARE, and Lawrence Auster, and recommended Mr. Auster’s, Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation.

I found that virtually all the participants in the salon took anti-white policies like “affirmative action,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” for granted, and almost all the younger participants knew practically nothing about how they came about. In a discussion on affirmative action, a nice young black woman who worked for a big corporation was baffled when I said companies are often forced to hire blacks or women to meet government guidelines. “No, you’re wrong about that,” she said. “At my company we value diversity and the contributions different groups make.”

The salon format didn’t give me enough time to explain the details of the “disparate impact” doctrine, or how most employment tests have been outlawed because whites score higher than blacks. I could say only that her company probably did not “value diversity” until it was faced with lawsuits. I don’t think she or the other younger salon members understood my point.

A salon discussion on “political correctness” sticks in my memory for how it exposed the liberal mindset. The first few speakers stoutly maintained that political correctness was a very bad thing, and that they were very much against it. After Mr. Allums, the moderator, observed that no one had offered an example of PC in action, I described the savaging of Nobel-Prize winning scientist, James Watson, after he speculated that the problems of Africa might be related to the low IQ of Africans. Three people in the Salon responded to my example, and all three said Mr. Watson deserved his fate. No one, not even those who had denounced political correctness, came to his defense. A few days later I wrote on the Institute’s blog that despite what its members claimed, the salon was in favor of PC and against freedom of speech. No one replied.

I also discovered that there were limits to how far we could go in discussing race. When I proposed the topic, “Is America a ‘proposition nation,’ or does it have an ethnic core?” Mr. Allums accepted the topic in principle but replaced ethnic with cultural. He rejected outright topics about the IQ or scholastic achievement gap between blacks and whites, and any other discussion of racial differences.

Reactions to my argument differed, with the most spirited opposition coming from men. However, except for one exception I describe below, no one ever got angry with me. After a spirited debate, male adversaries often came up later and said how much they enjoyed frank discussion of normally taboo subjects. Some said they found my ideas “interesting,” and a few quietly admitted they agreed with much of what I had said.

Women were different. Only a few were willing to argue during the discussion period itself, and I don’t recall a single woman telling me she agreed with me about anything related to race. Although the young teachers I mentioned earlier were always friendly, and most women were at least courteous, several others—usually younger ones—glared at me or turned away when we gathered in the lobby of the institute for refreshments. Occasionally during the discussion period, younger women in their late twenties and early thirties announced to the group that they were offended by my remarks, and were “very uncomfortable.” These and a few others were so disgusted they never came back.

However, the most frustrating reaction was no reaction at all. Often, when I would make a point that had racial overtones and begged for comment, the next speaker ignored it and shifted to a completely different subject. The rules of the salon made it easy to do this, because our discussions were not formal debates; they were supposed to be “prudent, thoughtful, conversations.” Most participants wanted to preserve harmony.

In retrospect, I may have pushed race too hard and too often, and alienated several people unnecessarily. No doubt, a more conservative discussion group in the suburbs would have been more receptive to blunt talk on race. Still, I thought I was doing the best I could under the circumstances. I enjoyed the salons, and as far as I could tell, most people seemed to enjoy my presence—although I had a reputation as the group’s “pet reactionary.”

The election of Mr. Obama brought changes. More minorities began showing up. Several were immigrants from places such as Mexico, North Africa, and Pakistan, with one or two from England and Russia. The Salon was still predominantly white, but the presence of non-whites altered the atmosphere. I noticed Mr. Allums began to cut off my remarks mid-stream, calling on someone else before I could make my point.

My last salon session was a discussion about the question: “Is diversity a strength or a weakness of Democracy?” Naturally, I said diversity was a weakness, and cited the rising crime rates in neighborhoods as they diversify. A young woman claimed her neighborhood was “very diverse” and had “no crime.” An older woman started rambling, eventually claiming that we had won the Second World War because we were more diverse than our enemies. I replied that diversity couldn’t have been important since the America that won the war was almost 90 percent white, and that the armed forces were segregated. “In fact,” I added, “non-whites were not allowed to become naturalized citizens until 1944.”

The Tuskegee Airmen were a segregated WWII fighter group.

This was too much for Habib, a Tunisian immigrant of mixed French and Arab ancestry. He interrupted me, screaming out, “No . . . No! That’s just wrong! That’s just not right!” Suddenly four or five people were yelling at once, the first time this had happened. It took Mr. Allums about a minute to restore order, and when we resumed he pointedly refused to call on me. The people he did call on steered us away from controversy with the usual platitudes and diversity happy-talk. As the discussion ended and most people went into the lobby for a break, Mr. Allums and I had a short argument. “You just can’t talk about race like that,” he said. “It rubs people the wrong way.” I accused him of being politically correct. He said he would arrange to have lunch with me the following week but never did.

Mr. Allums never explained why he censored me that evening. I had made much stronger racial statements before, but no one had reacted as Habib had. I suppose the increasing number of non-whites made the moderator less tolerant of my bluntness. Perhaps someone had complained about me. At any rate, I decided not to return for a while. No bridges had been burned, but we probably needed a cooling off period.

Still, I had a pretty good run. I spoke out strongly for eight years against what I saw as threats to my country and unfair treatment of whites. I believe I opened some minds to the idea that thinking about race is not a thought-crime. I felt good pushing back in a public forum against the forces that are attacking everything I hold dear. I urge others to take part in discussions of this kind, and if you do, I would like to offer some advice.

First, start slowly. It’s wise to let the first opportunities for making racially conscious remarks pass by. Establish some credibility on non-race related subjects. Once others respect you a little, they will listen more carefully to your racial views. I admit I didn’t do this myself, and I think it would have been better strategy.

Second, always be friendly and courteous. Present your arguments in a moderate and rational way. When challenged, maintain your composure. Don’t raise your voice even if your opponent does.

Third, express opinions other group members can agree with. Let them know you are on their side. My opposition to George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and No Child Left Behind helped me gain acceptance and made it harder for people to dismiss me as a kook or “hater.”

Fourth, bear in mind that most people, including those with many degrees, are ignorant about history and immigration policy. When the opportunity presents itself, think about how to fit into your remarks key facts that many older people have forgotten and younger people never knew. Most Americans have no idea the country had an immigration policy designed to keep the country white. If they think about that, they may realize that the current shift is not necessarily inevitable. You can even ask, “What’s wrong with keeping America majority white?”

It is also wise—especially with young people—to cite websites instead of books as sources. YouTube videos, such as Craig Bodeker’s A Conversation about Race, are even better.

Fifth, enjoy the conversation and don’t take yourself too seriously. Smile and laugh along with everyone else. A discussion group is a form of recreation. There is a point at which you should stop arguing and have a glass of wine with the guy who has been challenging your ideas. My experiences in the salon persuaded me that it’s worse to be called a bore than a bigot.

Racially conscious whites have an obligation to speak to as many people as possible, including liberals. So long as racially conscious views are carefully and moderately expressed, they only help our cause. It may be necessary to hold your tongue on the job, but I hope I have made it clear that in a discussion group like the salon, being the “pet reactionary” can be both useful and a lot of fun!

The Dallas Salon hasn’t heard the last from me. I’ll be back.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Wilburn Sprayberry
Mr. Sprayberry is a 6th-generation Texan, ex-Army officer, school teacher, and backpacker, now looking for his third career.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JackKrak

    It has always been interesting to me how people on the right side of the political spectrum often talk about how to introduce lefties to ideas, how to get a point across, how to make an argument, etc.

    Meanwhile, on the other side, be they leftists or “anti-racists” or whatever, there is the same sophistication and reason you would expect from a baby who has dropped his bottle. Crying, screaming and general hysteria is about all you will ever get from these people. If you’re really lucky, you’ll just be ignored and given nasty stares, like mentioned in the article.

    • Oil Can Harry

      The most interesting part of the story was how the liberals were willing to tolerate Mr. Martin’s heresy as long as the group was all-white.

      Once some non-whites showed up, however, they tried to silence Mr. Martin in order to protect the poor babies from having their feelings hurt.

      Yet another way diversity hurts the cause of free speech.

    • Memphomaniac

      Hidden in this discussion is the idea that Whites must breed like rabbits if they have any hope of keeping their own country. I have rejected that idea, as have White families in North America, Australia, South Afrika and Europe. There is no breeding contest between the races, with the winner inheriting the Earth. We should not think we have to all have 13 children just so an Afrikan or South American or Chinese does not take over the land now occupied by Whites. We can keep what we have as long as we are willing to defend what is ours. If we cannot find the will to keep others from taking what is ours, we will not have it very long…..regardless of population growth rates! No amount of begatting is going to save us, once the invaders find out that no one is minding the store. They have come here to steal from us. If we let them, then we can have no complaint. When I was a boy, the slogan of those who had rather surrender than fight was….
      The Cold War is over now (supposedly) but the struggle for national survival remains and that survival is not guaranteed by surrender today any more than it was 40 years ago. Once you let the invader rule over you, he will do with you as he pleases, without your agreement. Better to fight….whether you win or lose….than throw yourself on the mercy of those who hate you. Since you are going to die anyway, it is better to live on your feet than on your knees.

      • I myself believe whites need to have as many children as they can financially support (in wedlock.) If it wasn’t for Catholic attitudes toward birth control in the last thousand years, and the resulting growth of Europe’s population there would not have been enough whites to even settle America, much less to defend Europe from Muslim invaders or waves of Asian invasion. Whites were once 30% of the world population now we’re down to 10% or so. If we don’t start having more babies, we will quite simply be replaced by races that have babies. Determination is important, but I doubt whether a few white people living in, say the British Virgin Islands have any chance of asserting their will and their right through sheer determination alone.

  • WmarkW

    Finding a language to sell our ideas to white women has to be our top strategic priority.  The interests of Hispanic, blacks, gays and women (other than the ones who fall into the former categories) have nothing to do with each other; but as long as the New Left is able to sell those groups that their interests are united under the umbrella of “diversity,” we can’t defeat their coalition politically.  Keep in mind that MOST women still want a man in their life, and almost all white women want a white man (despite the over-coverage non-traditional pairings get in media.)  We need to show them that their desired life comes from a white man who will stand up for them, and raising their children in safe neighborhood in good school district, that comes from living in a white neighborhood.

    Aside: I made certain to say “New Left” in that paragraph to distinguish it from the traditional left, that stands up for labor, environmental protection, consumers and against the abuses of Wall Street.  It’s important (to me at least) that standing up for traditional Americans doesn’t get confounded with the agenda of pro-wealthy economics. 

  • Jared Taylor wrote a very insightful article ” Arguments for our side ” on how to debate with blacks and their enablers, self loathing whites.

  • Villly

    I do not think your approach will make much of a difference. People who think like that already chose to disregard any kind of logic and reason.
    You need to piss off anyone who doesn´t think like you, to make any kind of impact. Continue to “herass” them with hard facts till they can´t ignore them anymore. If they continue to disregard facts then they are hopeless.

  • Unless america eradicates its enemies, it will fall DEEPER into filth and degradation.
    Fancy ideals like Thucydides are themselves the luxury of femenized whites. 

    It’s time for action.

    • JohnEngelman

      What sort of action do you propose? Please be specific. 

      • My blog is specific. Comment there if you can’t find the answer.

  • Gerald martin, your conversation was foolish and missed the point.

    When you start a conversation with a liberal, always start by asking questions, not on lengthy philosophical lectures, which bore everyone to sleep.

    Ask the white liberals if they practice interracial marriage, interracial housing, interracial schools.

    If they don’t, tell them they are hypocritical frauds, and they talk diversity, but dont walk diversity.

    Tell them, their own habits tell that diversity is a con game.

    Ask them how can mass 3rd world immigration improves diversity if White population is already down to 10% of world, and going even lower.

    How is flooding mass 3rd world immigration into America improving diversity, cuz surely White births are not going up.  Tell them that this is genocide. like what china does to tibet.

    Whites liberals are crazy about tibet and dalai lama and this will run home the point. 

    Or your philosophical mumbo jumbo is all boring and useless and makes me sick in the stomach.

    Be direct dude, or you will keep hitting a dead end.  You want that?

    •  I agree. Challenge them on their actions, not their beliefs and principles.

      Ask them by show of hands how many of them send their kids to public schools, where they live, where they shop, how often they venture into ‘those’ neighborhoods, how many are involved in inter-racial relationships.

      These people hold the correct political views but they don’t practice them.

    • No, this would have only alienated them. Diplomacy. ” For he that is not against

      us is for us.”

      •  They have alienated and marginalized us. While it’s OK to start with diplomacy, once they begin ignoring and dismissing your arguments, you have to challenge them on their beliefs versus their actions. One way to do that is to expose their hypocrisies. They talk diversity but they don’t live it and they need to be made to see it.

      • geraldmartin

        Right. This sums up my attitude in the Salon, what I tried to do there, and my article in one sentence.

        • shawnmer

          Gerald, it’s Shawn, former moderator of the AR list.  Your name finally clicked.  Just wanted to say hello!   Hope all is well! 

          • geraldmartin

            Hey Shawn, good to hear from you. All is well! Hope the same for you.

  • Danimalius

    A pleasant and encouraging read. Many on our side are so used to exclusively reading or viewing the overreactions of professional gaspers, fainters, and finger-pointers that it often surprises us that a large portion of normal people out there will consider our views, if not immediately agree with them. I’ll use this as a call-to-mannerly-arms to seek more opportunities to speak out.

  • Liberal ‘progressives’ are closed-minded and recalcitrant.  When you present them with an alternative viewpoint, their minds go into lock down. It’s like the old computer phrase, ‘IT DOES NOT COMPUTE’.

    These people exist in a bubble where everyone shares their views and beliefs and anyone who doesn’t share their views is considered ignorant, unenlightened, and not worthy of consideration.

    I applaud your effort in entering the belly of the beast. Maybe you reached someone but it’s unlikely. I suspect most of them consider you a closed-minded troglodyte and not worthy or capable of understanding their superior viewpoints. 

    • Disagree. You’re right about hard-core libtards, but there are still liberal people with this tiny inner voice of doubt …

  • pc must go

     Wbite liberals (and I was one) will only see the light after dozens of treacherous incidents with non-whites.

  • pc must go

     I constantly post pro-white/politically incorrect stuff on my facebook page, along with other cool stuff, to show not all “conservaives” are boring/dull/lacking in other lovely traits, and to open up minds, even if they are all libs, maybe something will sink in.

  • Hirschibold

    The writer Wiilliam Burroughs once said, “You can’t tell someone something that they don’t already know at some level.”

    That is the real challenge, to speak openly, calmly, and bravely about that which liberals see on a daily basis, which contradicts their programming/propaganda. The spark was already in the minds of those willing to listen or debate. Feed the spark and it becomes a flame.

  • That was the first time I shocked people. I reminded the salon that for
    most of its history the United States had an immigration policy designed
    to keep the country predominantly white, that no one had asked the
    American people if they wanted to change, and that if the current policy
    continued we would become a Third-World nation. This produced
    expressions of disbelief, but no one actually responded.

    This is, actually, amazing. Although it should not come as a surprise- it is still fascinating how many people are socio-politically stupid to the point of imbecility.

    “Water is wet”. WOW. Incredible !

  • JohnEngelman

    The only Americans with the right to complain about ‘
    race-replacement” are American Indians. 
    Orientals and those from India usually perform and behave well in this country.  

  • JohnEngelman

    I reminded the salon that for most of its history the United States had an immigration policy designed to keep the country predominantly white.              
    – Gerald Martin, American Renaissance, June 8, 2012     
    The slave trade can be seen as an immigration policy. It existed because Southern whites were too lazy to grow their own cotton.
    Until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 there were no significant restrictions on immigration to the United States. 

    • kjh64

      “The slave trade can be seen as an immigration policy. It existed because Southern whites were too lazy to grow their own cotton.”

      Wrong,  only about 5-10% of Southerners, the wealthy plantation owners had slaves. They had slaves because they could get the labor for free, rather than paying for it. Greedy yes, lazy no. Same thing today all over the country, a small percentage of greedy Americans want the cheap illegal immigrant labor, rather than paying Americans a fair wage to do it.

      • IanJMacDonald

        Cheap illegal immigrant labor allows middle class families to afford servants to mow the lawn, cook their food (either in their home or at restaurants), and take care of the children.

    • Luke

       Engelman said:  “The slave trade can be seen as an immigration policy. It existed because Southern whites were too lazy to grow their own cotton.”

      I’m beginning to detect a very distinct air of anti-white hostility coming from Engeleman.     

      As for the slave trade – let me set the facts straight.   From every available research source that I’ve studied – at the peak of the slave owning days, only about 4 percent of White Southerners were wealthy enough to own enough farm land and use it to grow cotton and vegetables as well – to necessitate the need to own slaves to work the fields.
      Oh, and for the purposes of clarification – slaves didn’t ‘grow the white man’s cotton’; slaves were used to harvest it and tend to it’s disposition and upkeep.  This point might seem minor, but with the glaring example of mass starvation now going on in Zimbabwe, where blacks who can barely handle basic subsistence farming – can be compared to phenomenally superior and highly successful farming skills of the former White Rhodesian farmers, I think it needs to be stated that blacks are clearly lousy at farming.

      Let’s also set aside the fact that those Yankees up North didn’t refuse to buy cotton clothes and that they sure loved to chow down on all  those tasty vegetables that were shipped up North to the markets that those Yankees frequented.  Both of which were picked by slave labor. 

      So, reviewing the estimated population of Whites in the South prior to the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression – 4% of whom were ‘evil White Southern slave owners’, my calculations reveal that this 4% translates into somewhere close to 223,228 slave owning White Southerners.    So, with the ‘free’ (White, mostly) population of the South in 1860 recorded to be 5,582,222 – that would mean that there were 5, 358, 994 White Southerners – who didn’t own slaves.  

      Yet, every White man, woman and child who’s ever been born – according to Mr. Engelman and the Cultural Marxist, anti-white hate mongering crowd – and this includes Whites who didn’t even arrive in America until after Lincoln’s War had been completed and who therefore never owned any slaves themselves –  are all supposed to be assigned collective guilt due to the actions of 223, 228 White Southern plantation owners who were slave holders? 

      Oh, but I’ll bet I can read Mr. Engelman’s mind as he reads this reply.   I know exactly what he and his ilk are thinking.   I’ll take a shot at summarizing my hunch.  He is thinking that even those Southern Whites who didn’t own slaves themselves are ‘guilty’ and ‘evil’ because they chose to not destroy their gene pool by race mixing with these African Negroes.   And, they also chose to remain apart from them – so as to avoid presenting opportunities for black on white violence and other minority mischief to occur – and, hey, every Cultural Marxist will tell you that whenever Whites seek to avoid (a) White racial genocide via miscegenation or (b) take measures to protect themselves and their families and their communities from black criminality and black parasitism – why,  in the dictionary that these anti-White racists use, that is a clear sign of White racism.  
      Any effort by Whites to survive = is ‘racism’.  Right, Mr. Engelman? 

      Did I hit a nerve?   I think I hit the bulls-eye.   This simmering, barely beneath the surface hostility that bubbles endlessly out of the mouths and brains of self-hating White liberals, and especially out of the alien Founders of the Frankfurt School – is really all about their pathological, deeply engrained, psychopathic hatred for White European people and their all-consuming desire to genocide every White European from the face of the Earth.   Sure, they often times try to cloak it and camouflage it a little by dragging up some real or imagined transgression that the White race once did and by putting on this false mask of ‘universalism and concern for the downtrodden’ – but this tactic no longer fools most of the truly savvy and awake White Nationalists or White race realists.  The goal of these anti-White racists is the genocide of White European mankind. 

      • Long post, but ultimately pointless (although with some interesting observations & figures). Engelman is an East Asian fan, but not  a liberal (in modern sense of the word), nor a self-hater.

        • JohnEngelman

          Because I admire Orientals and Jews some AR posters assume that I hate white Gentiles. That is silly. It is true that I love facts. Orientals and Jews average higher on IQ tests than white Gentiles. I admire them for that and other reasons. 

    • Hah, now you wrote monumental rubbish. Are you implying that Black slaves were “immigrants” ? Immigration is a voluntary activity. No one asked those Blacks about anything.
      Besides- US slave trade was actually small in numbers compared with Brazil’s or Caribbean.

      • JohnEngelman

        Blacks cause more problems than any immigrant group. Whites brought them here as slaves to do work whites were too lazy to do, or too cheap to hire whites to do.  

    • geraldmartin

      Yes, I should have emphasized that it was the policy regarding naturalized citizenship (limited to free white persons in the 1795 law and not significantly changed until 1944) which was designed to keep the USA predominantly white. There was no immigration policy at all until the late 19th century, with stop-gap legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act, and no comprehensive policy until the immigration acts of the early 1920s shut down mass European immigration and introduced the quota system for the sharply reduced immigration thereafter, designed to favor northern and western Europe. (Bringing immigration policy in line with the already pro-white citizenship policy.)

      And, as the importation of slaves was against the law after 1808, it can reasonably be said that for most of its history, the United States has had a negative view of immigration from the Dark Continent.

  • JohnEngelman

    The salon format didn’t give me enough time to explain the details of the “disparate impact” doctrine, or how most employment tests have been outlawed because whites score higher than blacks.              
    – Gerald Martin, American Renaissance, June 8, 2012       
    In 2003 I got a job by passing a mental aptitude test. The test was not at all related to specific job skills. 

    • curri

      In 2003 I got a job by passing a mental aptitude test. The test was not at all related to specific job skills. ”

      That’s unusual , you should provide some details. 

      “Two points about quotas emerge immediately: Quotas are a very big deal. All employers with more than 15 staff, public, private or nonprofit, come under the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. All can be sued by the EEOC for”discrimination” if the racial, ethnic and sex mix of new hires diverges sufficiently from that of all other qualified applicants—for example, if the percentage of blacks hired is lower than the percentage of blacks applying. That covers 86% of the entire non-farm private-sector work force.
      Additionally, more than 400,000 corporations doing business with the federal government, covering about 42% of the private sector work force, have to file with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This process is so onerous that the OFCCP’s explanatory manual is about 700 pages long. Corporations with contracts of $50,000 or more must develop an “affirmative action plan” aimed at achieving staffing at all levels that is proportionate to the composition of the qualified work force.
      Many colleges and universities are subject to no fewer than three federal agencies: EEOC, OFCCP and the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office. And finally, there are federal, state and local governments. Here a racial and gender spoils system has effectively subverted the merit hiring rules so painfully established byProgressive Era reformers at the beginning of the century.
      All of which means that the 1984 poll that found one in ten white males reporting they had lost a promotion because of quotas was quite possibly accurate. Indeed, it could be an underestimate. Quotas have been implemented with extraordinary secrecy and deceptiveness, in part because of their dubious legal status.”
      “Twenty years after Griggs, Congress reaffirmed the continuing need for the robust antidiscrimination safeguards.  The 1991 Civil Rights Act codified the “disparate impact” framework first applied in Griggs.  LDF’s victory therefore continues to ensure that employees may challenge not only overt discrimination but also job-selection procedures “that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”  

    • geraldmartin

      Do you deny the pernicious effects of the disparate impact doctrine? In THE BELL CURVE, Herrnstein & Murray discuss how tests of general aptitude and IQ have proven to be the most reliable predictors of job success by applicants in a wide variety of occupations. These tests had a huge disparate impact by race, especially against blacks, and of course the Supreme Court outlawed them in the Griggs decision, making life more difficult for just about everybody except black job applicants and civil “rights” lawyers.

      • JohnEngelman

        The Griggs Decision was made 1971. Since then I have owed two jobs to three mental aptitude tests. 
        I agree with The Bell Curve, and wish that American Renaissance did more to defend and popularize it. 

      • MikeofAges

        Liberals  like to argue that general aptitude test (I.Q. or equivalent measures) largely are a test of how middle class the applicant is. Often that may be the case, but aptitude testing also allowed many people, in that era largely young whites males, from working class and economically disadvantaged backgrounds to jump start careers and enter careers that they might otherwise never had been considered for.

        You have the judge the cause by the effect. What happened as a result of “Griggs”, you have to think the establishment wanted to have happen. The Supreme Court fronted for the establishment giving business leaders, government and college presidents the cover they wanted.  “Griggs” was a huge sea change, not a trivial change, and became a huge factor in making the bachelor’s degree relatively worthless and inaugurating an era of expensive job related degrees for ordinary entry level work. Do you really need a “hospitality” degree to be hired as a trainee in hotel chain. Or a public relations degree to work in public relations. Most peoiple would say no, but that’s not the world we live in, thanks the Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and the gang.

        • geraldmartin

          Agree. Excellent point – the kind Steve Sailer often makes – about the reverberating side effects of “Griggs” in lowering opportunities for bright whites without the usual credentials, and for vastly  inflating demand for prestige credentials that may not be necessary for job success in order to be competitive in the job market.

          • MikeofAges

             Believe me, I’ve lived it.

  • I have a lot of experience debating sensitive subjects (not about race, but nationality etc.- similar stuff). IMO, the following is the regular pattern of behavior- those who disagree with the obvious will, when cornered:

    * abruptly change the subject
    * try to trivialize it by turning the subject into joke or by insisting on absolutely irrelevant and marginal issues
    * start their own train of thought on the topic, while not answering previously posed crucial objections to their position
    * start ad hominem attacks

    I’d say that ca. 95% people don’t change their central world-views. As I reflect, maybe two or three persons altered their POVs from belief in an evident lie to the position of skepticism. As LaRochefoucauld had said: “Heart deceives the mind, always.”

    • JohnEngelman

      The most common fallacy I encounter when defending race realism is the straw man fallacy. I will be accused of believing that every black person is less intelligent than every white person, that every black person is a criminal, and that no whites are, etc.
      Then there is guilt by association. Nazis believed race is important, so it is not. 
      There is burden of proof. Genes for intelligence and crime have not been discovered, so they do not exist.
      Then there is the bromide that race does not matter, except when it does for purposes for affirmative action.
      Finally, there is the personal attack. I will be accused of being a racist, and of consequently not having anything to say that merits consideration. 
      It does help to be calm and courteous in the face of egregious insults, and to have the facts at my disposal.  

  • Kevin W. Cornell

    Incredibly, this past fall semester I had a social psychology professor at Southern Connecticut State University who said that she was firmly against political correctness but then later promoted the SPLC and their highlighting of “hate groups.” This professor would bloviate incessantly about prejudice and stereotyping so often and so inappropriately that I finally intervened, against my initial inclination to keep my mouth shut when it came to the really touchy matters, and mentioned the importance of statistics. I argued to her in front of the class that she kept knocking down straw-man arguments (amazingly, she wasn’t familiar with the term “straw man argument”), and that it is perfectly rational to assume someone is likely, but not definitely, such and such if the statistics bear that out. I had the whole class laughing multiple times when I intervened against her preaching and made politically incorrect comments. I said things like “the birth rates do in fact differ amongst certain groups” and that “most obese people are obese because of their poor health habits rather than any hereditary problem that behavioral adjustments cannot correct.” This was in a racially mixed classroom with male and female students.

    There also have been plenty of times in which I’ve been able to get away with making derogatory and politically-incorrect comments about women in front of classes and what not. I once had to attend an ADL seminar at Southern (all the school employees had to) in which I deviously stated in response to something that it’s true that women can’t drive cars well, and that elicited a few laughs and caused me to suffer zero repercussions, even with the ADL thought police present!

    • kjh64

      Um, not true. Men cause more fatal accidents than women!

    • Kingoldby

       ” I’ve been able to get away with making derogatory and politically-incorrect comments about women”

      Why would you want to make derogatory comments about women?

  • JohnEngelman

    A heterogeneous work force is easier to organize into labor unions than a homogeneous work force.
    Social Democracy only works where nearly everyone is white. I am confident that it would work for an Oriental population. Other races tend to game the system. 

    • MikeofAges

      People should familiarize themselves with the concept of “third culture”. If they understood the idea, they would understand also that “diversity” provides business with a homogeneous work force. “Diversity” thus turns what we intuitively consider to be “homogeneity” in the American context, meaning assimilated whites and even similar blacks, into  a form of disruptive heterogeneity. In street language, people who get in the way.

      BTW, thank for picking up the idea I have promoted regarding social democracy, that it only works when you have a homogenous population. Very important to understand particularly with regard to Scandinavian social democracy, since there are people who seem to think that Scandinavian social democracy can be transferred verbatim to the United States.

  • JohnEngelman

    On any debate on any subject one should avoid descending to the tactics of one’s adversaries. Do not trade insult for insult, and cuss word for cuss word. Let your intelligence, learning, and civility speak for themselves.  

    • MikeofAges

       No. You have to dish back. Maybe not with insult and profanity. But you have to dish, or you will be, at best, ignored.

      • JohnEngelman

        A good argument is the best response. If you can prove that your opponent’s argument is based on a premise that is factually incorrect you’ve defeated him decisively. 

  • I congratulate you for sticking with it and stating your points Mr Martin.

    Firstly, it is much better than preaching to the converted, and secondly, it must give you experience in handling a live debate, reactions, public speaking, honing a skill of recalling killer lines, facts, issues and points of history etc.

    Not many people do it, or can do it. Due to a few personal flaws in my ability to speak freely, nevermind me being a bit a of a “scatter-brain” when it comes to sticking on a thread or remembering names, facts, figures etc, I do not possess the right tools or qualities for public engagement in this way.

    It is frustrating at times, I wish I could be a Jared Taylor or some kind of Jonathan Bowden or James Edwards or Richard Spencer type, and go out to confidently sell my wares to the wider public. But alas, I am not such a person. I am better at other things, so I apply myself where I feel I can best fit.

    If people are good at giving public addresses, can speak for 20 to 30 minutes with authority on different subject matters, feel they can handle themselves and what may get thrown at them, know how to box away those usual quips from the opposition, it must be great buzz for them to do that, then to walk tall and off towards the next encounter.

    On the internet is easy to compose yourself, compose a reply, dig out facts and figures and refresh yourself on the arguments and lines of thought. In the public, it is much harder for some people.

    Gerald Martin, going off this article, is somebody who can rise to that sort of challenge, right in the vipers nest of non-WN audiences. People might say “bah, a waste of time” etc, but the way I see it, is him taking the fight to his people and his adversaries and learning some kind of debate jujitsu. Good for you Gerald.

  • Danimalius

    I’m not sure if it’s already been mentioned, but the more pessimistic posters here should recall that Jared Taylor himself was a “conventional liberal” on racial matters up into his 30s. People can change, and it is our duty to bring about that change, not to sulk in defeatism.

  • I empirically know what happens with such kind of people. Before & during ex-Yu wars a small, but influential group of people identified themselves as “Yugoslavs” & espoused pro-Yu irrational and incorrigible views. Then the wars of 1990s came & everyone was forced to take their stand. You are here or there and there is no middle ground. With us or against us. These folx- cuddled, pampered & at the same time powerful & dictatorial during the previous regime- disappeared into thin air. Most of them are now in New Zealand, US, Germany, Sweden, France, Canada  …. Some of them- maybe 10% or less- still remain in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina,.. and are disproportionately influential due to Soros & other US funding- but they cannot change the history & dictate the public discourse.

    In short- they mostly emigrated or uneasily submitted to new realities.

  • kjh64

    Wonder what about people who say that there is only one race, the human race? It’s true all races are human but still that arguement is used a lot.

    • geraldmartin

      kjh64: That’s true. And that’s a big reason why AmRen and other pro-white advocates spend so much time on the statistical evidence of race differences, to the unending irritation of some people on our side. IMO it’s necessary to keep teaching, over and over, the basics of Race Reality 101. Sooner or later, it will sink in with at least some of our more hard-headed and stubborn race idealists.

  • OldAtlantic

    Great article and sound advice.  But do it anyway you can.

  • JohnEngelman

    Better genetic research, further, has turned up examples of haplogroup X in Native Americans, strengthening the already well-supported link between Asia and the Americas. Researchers have also pointed out that conditions were likely not favorable for an Atlantic crossing at the time of the supposed Solutrean migration; it is uncertain whether an extensive ice pack existed between the continents, and no evidence of boats or human habitation have so far been found along the route.

    Finally, even though Clovis and Solutrean points are similar in design and manufacture, most critics dismiss this as mere coincidence, since there are only so many ways of making stone tools, and further state that art like that found in European caves has never been discovered in the Americas; it seems unlikely that the Solutrean people would have brought their tools but not their art to the New World.

    Read more at Suite101: The Solutrean Hypothesis and Prehistoric America: Did Europeans Precede Native Americans to the New World? |

  • Now, I’ll write a spectacular “novelty” that is, actually, something everyone knows already: rational discussion is, at best, just a prop. It can be useful in two cases:

    a) as a weapon in conceptual arsenal of race realists & other normal people in verbal confrontation with libtards. In short, you win a discussion & non-involved people just like winners.

    b) as an array of subversive arguments that may definitely transform a view on these matters in persons who have already, for some time,  harbored doubts about liberal race orthodoxies & platitudes

    Otherwise, any discussion with convinced libtards is a waste of time.

    As far as women – mostly liberal arts college young females, but also other demographic profiles- are concerned:

    a) AmRen is mostly- I’d say 80-90%- a male site, which is our weakness. The majority of opinions are typically male, including male prejudices.

    b) while, being a man, I ineluctably write from a male standpoint, I also tried to see how things could be bettered for White cause presentation. Some posters have intuitively – or from experience- concluded the best race realist approach to shatter White females’ liberal dogmas intoxication was- appeal to emotions.
    A small number of females has a partly “male brain” & they could be, theoretically, persuaded by arguments. But, the vast majority are touchy-feely type & the litany of statistics won’t work at all; neither would abstract concepts like “race replacement”.

    BUT- what may work are graphic stories about Blacks’ victims,  direct questions of the type: what would your or your child’s life look like if …; documentary stories about White people’s experiences with Blacks in schools, public transportation, work place, …. Nothing abstract, just emotionally charged raw life material.

    • geraldmartin

      These are all good points and should be borne in mind by anyone trying to appeal to women. We have a few female members of our movement – like Courtney from Alabama – who’s understanding about race is about three levels above the average white male’s and six levels above the average white female’s.  But they are rare and, as Mr. Kaldian says, stats and terms like “race replacement” (most women are knee-jerk conformists and will claim the only race is the human race) are a waste of time with such women. Personal stories – the more “touchy feely” the better – have a greater chance of getting through.

    • robinbishop34

      But, the vast majority are touchy-feely type & the litany of
      statistics won’t work at all; neither would abstract concepts like “race

      White women (I’m one) have to understand why they are targeted and manipulated as an ‘honorary minority,’ and the psychology behind it that makes it so effective. They have to come to understand that what defines ’empowered’ actually is an oppressive form of exploitation. Use humor and drive by facts. Try to find some morsel of their argument to agree with to make them feel smart and validated before countering it. Always think about the other people who are reading your comments and not responding.

      • Yeah, but you’re atypical. I’d say you have- metaphorically- a partly male brain. About most females, Chesterton was, IMO, perspicacious: “A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition.”

        Anyway, you’re right about tactics.

        • robinbishop34

          “A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition.”

          The same psychology that appeals to a white women’s emotions can be applied to her common sense (male brain) just as well. The emergence of Western civilization and the lack of day to day struggles that has allowed modern white women to moralize nonsense is the problem.

          How often will you find a Chinese woman who feels racist because she finds a genetically inferior negro unattractive?

          The inborn genetic wrinkle in the white women’s brain is there, it’s just been disarmed by propaganda.

  • Fredrik_H

    From my experience, they (liberals) will always keep silent on these issues. Simply because they too, are racist. They will always overlook homophobia, misoginy, animal cruelty when it originates from a non-white group.

  • MikeofAges

    Noticed that the subject of the contrived holiday of Kwanzaa came up again. I think it is useful to take a separate look at the stated principles of Kwanzaa apart from any criticism of the idea of recognizing such a holiday or examination of the character of the holiday’s inventor, Maulana Karenga-Ronald McKinley Everett.

    Some of concepts incorporated in the principles of Kwanzaa might be considered good ideas for anyone. Taken together, they represent a recipe for gridlock, and I think point to one of the very large cultural problems the AA community suffers from. That, in my mind, is the preoccupation with formulating abstract solutions to concrete problems and just a general difficulty with envisioning material solutions to material problem. I have said before, if Rev. Dr. King’s dream was realized one fine Saturday afternoon, Monday morning at lot of people would have to go to work largely in not very glamorous, and be prepared to get along with their fellows from other side of town. Toward the end of his career, King recognized the need for an economic agenda, but he had a lot of trouble putting the idea into concrete terms.

    Interesting, too, that Kwanzaa is not a day, but a week. Okay, it’s timed to coincidence with a period when most people are not doing a lot anyway. But it’s still a ponderous, time-consuming festival which in the end sends people off in the wrong direction. Village communism and economic self-isolation are not recipes for inclusion and success in contemporary North America.

  • Athling

    Now that our children are officially minorities in the very nation their ancestors built, time is of the essence.

    The Caucasian majorities in the West are now approaching one of two choices — racism or extinction. Either they will boldly identify with and promote their own racial group interests or they will continue down the egalitarian path to extinction.

    It is the height of absurdity to witness on a daily basis every racial group in this country standing in solidarity with their own racial group and blatantly promoting their interests while Whites deny themselves even the slightest hint of racial awareness.

    Either this changes or we cease to exist as a unique people.

  • Mahound

    I’m not sure it’s significant, but Martin mentioned that most of these liberals were childless. Not having to put any children in non-white schools sure help them stay clear of negative experiences with diversity, but I think there something deeper in human nature at play here.

    In my 20s, before I had any children of my own, I pretty much used to be a libertarian. Although I lived in a diverse inner city neighbourhood with a fair amount of colored crime, the negative impact on society of non-whites didn’t bother me that much. At the time I though it more a class based problem, and I didn’t really think about the genetic issues or the long term impact. More just a kind of fact of life and that all problems would be solved if the government just implemented more market-friendly policies. 

    All this changed dramatically when I had my fist child. All of a sudden my outlook on life changed. As a father one becomes more protective. I’m sure this is an evolutionary trait. At first I became more conservative in general. And it wasn’t long before the racial realities were staring me in the face.

    Now, those liberals who don’t have any children of their own, will they never have that epiphany?

    • It’s a four phase process:

      1) first, you have to have a child

      2) second, when the time comes, a child has to go to the school

      3) then you see it has to be an all- White school & act accordingly

      4) then, draw the conclusions

      The step 4) is crucial. Many will go from 1-3, but not finish at 4.

  • Jane Smith

    Oh my God! I couldn’t wait to post this. I just found a video on Youtube that reveals DNA testing for some famous people. Eva Longoria got the shock of her life! She’s 70% WHITE!!!!!
    So….she’s spent her entire adult life as an anti-white, claiming to be an “indigenous” brown,
    while defending massive third world immigration to the USA. HAHA!!!
    The implications of this are obvious and hilarious. The light skinned portion of the hateful invaders are WHITE, and yet they want us to “go back to Europe.”
    The stupidity here is almost more than I can stand. This is the best laugh I’ve had all year.

  • JohnEngelman

    The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with much experience with blacks by whites who had little experience with blacks. 
    Segregationists were their worst enemy during the civil rights movement. Among most American whites Martin Luther King Jr. had the image of a humble man of God who was too much of a Christian to hate his enemies. His enemies had the image of bar room bullies. It was difficult for segregationists to convince most whites that blacks are dangerous when segregationists were beating up and sometimes killing peaceful civil rights demonstrators. 

    • geraldmartin

      “The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with much experience with blacks by whites who had little experience with blacks.” — a perfect description of what happened in 1964 (Civil Rights Act), 1965 (Voting Rights Act), and 1968 (Open Housing Act).  I wonder what Everett Dirksen would say if he could see in 2012 what he wrought in 1964?

      “Segregationists were their own worst enemy during the civil rights movement.” — True enough. The Southern elites had opted out of the struggle so they could keep persuading arrogant yankee corporations to re-locate to the South (and make a killing in real estate).  Without the restraining leadership of the elites, the working class whites succumbed to their baser impulses. 

      But the fault lies with the elites, not the rank & file who made up the KKK.

  • JohnEngelman

    Professor J. Philippe Rushton’s essay, “RACE, EVOLUTION,  AND BEHAVIOR” is brilliant.
    Unfortunately, he does not document most of his factual assertions. I am confident that whites have larger brains on the average than blacks, and that brain size correlates with IQ, but he does not substantiate that assertion with a link to a credible source.

  • mikejones91

    There is so much gray area with this, though. Its not black-and-white (even though it is lol). It’s not just one or the other. You need to think realistically. I used to think of it like that but I realize that is un-realistic for the time being. First–WE need to promote white identity/culture. WE need to make the white identity/culture/pride a tangible thing among US. We need to maintain are spot as the majority. Once that happens—your ideas/beliefs will come along. To transform someones thinking, takes time. Just like most of us here. We didn’t just start coming on Amren one day. We watched the news. Picked up on the anti-white/passive aggressive undertones of MSM/pop culture. Small steps, turn into complete transformation.  

  • mikejones91

    Think of it/Ask it like this—TO those who question our believes/to those who write them off as xenophobic/paranoid/typical ect. Ask them–Does being a minority in ANY country inevitable lead to oppression; perceived or real? Most of the time, THEY will say yes. You then ask–Why would you wish that upon ANYONE. Especially your OWN people. You might trouble though in saying “your own people” to a liberal. They usually snap back with “we are ALL people”. Yeah, yeah, yeah… Being a minority has it’s benefits, and has it’s downfalls. I certainly do NOT want to be a minority in the country MY ancestors built. 

  • kerrysmith

    What makes you think that liberals would object to the American population doubling or tripling? Here in Canada — which is not as different from the US as people in either country usually assume — articles have been published in which the usual tenured types argue for bringing the population up from 32 million to 100 million or more, through immigration. Anything that hastens the decline of white civilization is good news to liberals, on either side of the border.

  • This is the action we all need to take.  Most important thank you for the five points of advice.