A Brief History of American Race Relations

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, September 27, 2013

Conflict is inherent; tragedy is frequent.

I would like to thank Professor Hoppe for inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure and an honor to be before you today.

I have been asked to give you a history of American race relations in a half hour—not an easy thing to do. It would be easier to give you a history in a single word, and that word would be conflict. Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.

Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.

Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict.

American race relations in the Anglo-American sense began in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony on the coast of Virginia. Jamestown is not only where American race relations begin, it is also a fascinating example of the inevitability of racial conflict.

The purpose of the colony was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.

The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.

In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.

There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.

The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance.

I don’t know how much I can assume about this audience’s knowledge of colonial history, but the chief of the neighboring Indians was named Powhatan, and his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, converted to Christianity and married the English planter John Rolfe. That was in 1614, and it inaugurated a period of real harmony. The new head of the colony, George Thorpe, was especially solicitous of the Indians, whom he genuinely tried to help. When English dogs barked at Indians, he had them publicly hanged.

But four years after Pocahontas married John Rolfe, Chief Powhatan died, and his younger brother, Opchanacanough, became chief. Opchanacanough did not have a marriage alliance with the English, and he wanted to drive the invaders out. In 1622, four years after he became chief, Opchanacanough struck. By then there were about 1,200 English in the colony, spread out in several different locations. Every morning, Indians would come to work with the English on farms and in workshops, and on March 22, they were to all rise up and exterminate the colonists. The main settlement at Jamestown was warned, however, and the men kept their weapons handy and nothing happened, but in other areas there was complete surprise, and the Indians killed about 400 colonists. Interestingly, they were especially brutal to George Thorpe, who had hanged dogs that annoyed Indians and who had been so concerned about their welfare.

There was war on Opchanacanough, and reprisals, but the two groups returned to peaceful relations, just as before.

Amazingly, in 1644—22 years later—Opchanacanough launched an identical sneak attack, and this time managed to kill between 400 and 500 people in yet another attempt to exterminate the English. This time the English went on what amounted to their own extermination campaign, killing many Indians, including Opchanacanough. Two years later, in 1646, the Virginia General Assembly noted that the natives were “so routed and dispersed that they are no longer a nation, and we now suffer only from robbery by a few starved outlaws.”

Here we have what I would call the inherent tragedy of race relations. The English appear to have brought with them genuinely cooperative intentions. They were unaggressive and trusting and had no sense of racial superiority towards the Indians. This was in complete contrast to their feelings towards the first blacks who appeared in Jamestown in 1619, whom colonists considered alien and inferior. As we look back on the Jamestown colony, it seems as promising an effort to establish peaceful race relations as could be imagined for the times.

And yet the very presence of the English was an act of aggression. The Indians were there first. Someone is always there first. We may deplore the series of Pearl Harbors that Opchanacanough launched on the colonists, but that was the only way the Indians could have driven out the white man and remained masters in their own house. Those attacks failed and the Indians were destroyed.

And this is the story of the conquest of the continent. The intentions of whites—sometimes good, often bad—really did not matter. The fundamental fact is that one people had the land, and another, more advanced and powerful people wanted the land. The result was dispossession, and even now, despite a great deal of intermixing, Indians are a distinct people with a distinct identity that shows how difficult assimilation is across racial lines, even after 400 years. Race relations mean conflict.

It was just plain bad luck for the Indians that Columbus couldn’t have waited 500 years. If Chris had showed up in 1992 rather than 1492, the whole hemisphere would have been declared a World Heritage Protection Area with perhaps a small amount of eco-tourism but certainly no colonization.

Let me now turn the vexed question of black slavery. I would emphasize, first of all, that it was a hugely varied institution. Most generalizations are likely to be wrong. The practice of slavery differed greatly from state to state, and the treatment of slaves varied enormously from owner to owner. Some states did not tolerate freed slaves and required that any freed slaves be expelled beyond the state’s borders. Other states accepted freed slaves. Some states changed their laws back and forth.

Some masters were unquestionably cruel and drove their slaves very hard, but others treated them almost like family members. Jefferson Davis was a Mississippi planter who became president of the Confederate States of America. He had to leave his home to take up his post, and when he took leave of his slaves, he wept and they wept. His older brother Joseph Davis ran a plantation on which slaves were disciplined only on the recommendation of a council of older slaves.

You may not be aware of this, but there are more than 2,300 accounts by slaves themselves of what their lives were really like. These accounts are part of an oral history project from the 1930s. One of the reasons you don’t hear very much about these narratives is that many former slaves show considerable nostalgia for slavery. I recall one in which a former slaves looks forward to meeting his master again in heaven where he can serve him “just like in slavery days.”

Southerners often claimed that their treatment of slaves, whom they cared for from birth to old age, was better than the way Yankee capitalists treated the working class. At least in some cases, I’m sure that was true.

Let me also touch briefly on the little-discussed question of black slave owners. Not all blacks in the South were slaves, and some free blacks owned slaves. According to the census of 1830, nearly 4,000 blacks were slave owners. In 1860, there were at least six blacks in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves, and the largest black slave owner had 152 slaves. This rivaled the largest holdings by whites, and I should point out that only about 20 percent of white households in the South owned any slaves at all.

Slavery described as a means of trying to control the conflict inherent to race relations, but its successes in that respect must be based on the naked threat of force.

I’d like to turn now to the abolition movement, which I think is one of the most misunderstood movements in American history. Most Americans today think the abolitionists wanted to free the slaves and make them equal to whites. Not at all. The huge majority wanted to free the slaves and send them out of the United States, in a process that they called colonization.

I assume you have heard of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote the great anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Her brother, the famous Brooklyn preacher Henry Ward Beecher, had what was very much the majority view, and I quote: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”[i] Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but it was coupled with a desire to expel the free blacks from the United States.

Abraham Lincoln is known as “the great emancipator,” and most Americans believe he wanted to make blacks equal to whites. Again, they are wrong. He, too, wanted to free the slaves and send them away. Like the other abolitionists, he did not want free blacks in the country. Why? He knew there would be conflict.

In August 1862—while the great American war was raging—he appointed James Mitchell as Commissioner of Emigration. Mitchell’s job was to find a place for free blacks to go and to persuade them to go there. Mitchell also arranged the first visit of a black delegation to the White House on official business. It was a group of free black preachers, to whom Lincoln explained the war was being fought because of them.

“You and we are different races,” he said. “We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.” Lincoln went on: “There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He then told them he had in mind a colony for them in Central America, and asked them to go back to their congregations and preach emigration. In other words, the first time blacks were invited to the White House on official business was to be asked to leave the country.

I would add that what whites feared as much as conflict with free blacks was miscegenation. Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their history.[ii] Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban because most people thought legal prohibition was unnecessary. As the repeal act noted, inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so there was no need for a law to prevent something so abhorrent.

Legal prohibitions against miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, 16 states still had them on the books.[iii]

Needless to say, racial conflict in America cannot be separated from bad behavior by whites. Lynching is often cited as a particularly vicious example. There has been a careful count of lynchings, and between 1882 and 1968, 4,743 people are known to have been lynched in the United States. However, of that number 1,297—more than a quarter—were whites. There were actually a few cases of blacks lynching whites and, although it is not possible to know the truth in many cases, so far as anyone can tell, most people lynched had probably committed a crime. It was not a matter of just rounding up a black man to torture. Of course, there were false accusations, and mob hysteria. Most people think that the typical lynching was of a black man who was said, truthfully or not, to have raped a white woman, but only about 25 percent of lynching victims were accused of rape. The most frequent accusation (40 percent) was murder. Murder is almost never an imaginary crime. There is a body to prove it.

The worst form of racial conflict, however, is race riots, and the United States has had some bad ones. The first race riots were attacks by whites against blacks, usually set off by an actual or alleged crime by a black. Undoubtedly, the worst was the Tulsa riot of 1921. Whites simply attacked the black part of town—about 35 blocks—and burned it to the ground. No one knows how many blacks were killed. Some estimates are 30 to 40; others say as many as 300. Blacks fought back, however, and 10 whites are known to have been killed.


Another bad one was the 1906 riot in Atlanta in which an estimated 25 to 40 blacks were killed. I think it is fair to say that these riots, in which any available black was fair game, were an expression of outright hatred by whites of people they considered unalterably alien. We see similar acts today in the Hindu/Muslim mass killings in India and the Muslim/Christian massacres in Nigeria.

But the last riot of the traditional kind in which whites attacked blacks was in 1943, when whites went wild in Detroit and killed 25 blacks. Again, blacks fought back and killed 9 whites. Since that time—in other words, for the last 70 years—the meaning of “race riot” has changed and now means rioting by blacks—and sometimes by Hispanics.

In 1992, after police officers who beat a black man, Rodney King, were acquitted of criminal charges, there were riots in Los Angeles in which 53 people were killed. Of that number, only eight were white, but unlike the considerable number of blacks and Hispanics who died at the hands of police or in traffic accidents, all appear to have been killed by rioters, who were overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. There have been riots in Miami, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc., in which blacks attacked whites. More recently, there have been what are called “flash mobs,” in which gangs of blacks suddenly descend on a white area to beat and rob people.

This is a very important shift. In the past, whites used to attack blacks, but now blacks attack whites. This has to do with an even more important shift, and that is the revolutionary change in the way whites think about race.

Until about the 1950s, this is what most white people believed:

They believed people of different races differed substantially in intelligence, temperament, and ability, and that was why different races built different kinds of societies. They wanted America to be populated by whites, and thought only people of European stock could maintain the civilization they valued. They considered immigration of non-whites a threat to their civilization. It was common to argue that if non-whites could not be removed from the country they should be separated socially and politically. Whites were also very strongly opposed to miscegenation, especially with blacks.

What whites now think about race represents a complete reversal. I can think of very few examples in human history in which important attitudes have been completely turned inside out in so short a period. This is like Iran having an Islamic revolution or the Soviet Union ending Communism.

What whites are now supposed to believe I would summarize as follows: First, the races are absolutely equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable. Race is therefore not a valid criterion for any purpose—except, perhaps, for redressing wrongs done to non-whites. Whites have no valid group interests, so it is illegitimate for them to organize as whites. Racial diversity is a wonderful thing in and of itself, so whites should welcome large numbers of non-whites into their neighborhoods, schools, institutions, and into the country as a whole. Immigration of non-whites strengthens the United States even as it reduces whites to a minority. As for miscegenation, we are not yet at the point where whites are actually criticized for marrying each other, but dating and marrying non-whites is thought to be wonderfully progressive.

Something else that is extremely important: Prohibitions against racial solidarity, against preferring one’s own kind, against wanting one’s numbers to increase—these prohibitions apply only to whites. All non-white groups take it for granted that they have collective interests that they must band together to promote, at the expense of whites, if need be.

Any white who is out of step, by the way, who expresses a preference for European civilization and the company of other whites, or who opposes the replacement of whites by non-whites is not merely wrong, but evil, and not fit for polite society. Every era has its unforgivable crimes, and for today’s American whites, the one unforgivable crime is what is called “racism.”

Let me illustrate this revolution in white thinking with a few quotations, all of them from presidents of the United States.

James Garfield wrote, “[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.”[iv]

Theodore Roosevelt blamed Southerners for bringing blacks to America and wrote, “I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . .”[v] As for Indian, “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.”[vi]

As recent a President as Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”[vii] He referred to the support staff at the White House as “an army of coons.”

Let us contrast these remarks with those of a more recent president, George W. Bush. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans, a black rapper named Kanye West said that the federal response to the hurricane was too slow because New Orleans was heavily black and President Bush didn’t care about black people.

In 2010, after he left office, Mr. Bush said that being accused of not caring about black people was the worst moment in his presidency. The worst moment! And this is a president who had some bad moments, alright. The September 11 attacks of 2001, for example. The most crushing economic slump since the Great Depression. A catastrophic war in Iraq that was launched for reasons that turned out to be completely false. And yet, for Mr. Bush, the worst moment in his eight years as president is being called a racist by some two-bit Negro entertainer.

This shows you just how terrified Americans have become of race. And this terror leaves whites trapped in an impossible—an intolerable—position. Take the assumption that all races are equal in every way. It’s simply not true.

So what happens when the less intelligent groups—blacks and Hispanics—fail, as they inevitably do, to perform at the same level as whites? Because all races are officially equal, the failures of blacks and Hispanics must be due to one thing only: oppression by whites. White racism. Astonishingly, hardly any whites dispute this reasoning, and submit to humiliation and outright discrimination in the name of redress. Whites are thus punished for the failures of others, and taxed so that America can spend billions of dollars trying to eliminate gaps in achievement that cannot be eliminated.

This is so absurd, and so unfair to whites one can only wonder how they should have permitted it to become orthodoxy. You would think foolishness of this magnitude—and which is such a psychological burden on the majority population—would collapse under the weight of its own utter implausibility, but egalitarian doctrine shows no sign of diminishing.

In the meantime, whites have no moral or intellectual grounds on which to say, “No, hold on a minute. I want my grandchildren to live in a nation with a European culture and a European people.” To say such a thing is called “hate mongering.” It’s blasphemy. As a consequence, whites have no way to stop their own dispossession through immigration and high non-white birth rates. American whites are expected to become a minority race by 2040, just 27 years from now, and the youngest whites are already a minority in their age group. By 2060, Hispanics will be the outright majority and whites will be only 30 percent of the population.

When whites parrot official orthodoxy and claim to believe that this transformation will be a real tonic for the country, I ask them to name just one majority non-white neighborhood they would like to live in, or just one majority non-white school they would like to have their children attend. Of course, they cannot name any. Whites show what they really think of diversity by having as little to do with it as possible, even as they pretend to cherish and adore it.

Demography is destiny. The United States once seemed to be solidly part of Western Civilization, but it is slowly being detached from that civilization. America’s slow collapse into Third-World squalor will be a good thing for certain other countries. At the risk of only slight exaggeration, America’s conception of foreign policy seems to be that if we invade a country and shoot enough people, the survivors will automatically become Jeffersonian democrats. Our capacity to do that kind of mischief will decline very quickly.

And yet, for someone like me, whose ancestors have lived in North America for 350 years, it is an unspeakably grievous thing to watch my country delude itself into self-destruction. I began this talk by saying that the history of race relations can be summed up in one word: conflict. I would conclude by summing it up with yet another single word: tragedy.

This article is adapted from a speech given at a meeting the Property and Freedom Society, September 2013. Jared Taylor’s account of the conference can be found here.

* An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the majority of those who died in the 1992 Los Angeles riots were white.

       [i] Quoted in George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), p. 115.

       [ii] Ibid., p. 2.

       [iii] Jon Michael Spencer, The New Colored People (New York: New York University Press, 1997), p. 38.

       [iv] Quoted in George Frederickson, The Black Image in the White Mind (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), p. 185.

       [v] Archibald Roosevelt, ed., Theodore Roosevelt on Race–Riots–Reds–Crime (West Sayville, 1968), pp. 12, 13., quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 317.

       [vi] Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” Journal of Ethnic Studies, Fall, 1987, p. 142.

       [vii] Rick Hampson, “Private Letters Reveal Truman’s Racist Attitudes,” Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1991.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
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.
  • “Conflict”

    Which is why warfare is the dominant theme of any world or Western civilization/history textbook

    “White race riots”

    Another notable example close to the time of Tulsa is the East St. Louis riots of the summer of 1917. Largely white led, but mainly a result of pent-up white frustration over the crime and misbehavior of blacks who were starting to settle into ESL from the Deep South. As an aside, I don’t think blacks were totally blameless re Tulsa.

    “And yet, for Mr. Bush, the worst moment in his eight years as president is being called a racist by some two-bit Negro entertainer.”

    Probably Jared Taylor’s line of the year for 2013.

    • Stentorian_Commentator

      Regarding “All men are created equal”, as Jared Taylor points out in his speech, any observer who is not deluded can easily see that no two men are created equal, so that statement cannot possibly mean what it has been interpreted to mean in modern times. Jefferson Davis and H.L. Mencken argued that Jefferson meant that no one is by birth given a right to rule another, which fits with the other and actually more important concept, that a just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. However, I find that a bit of a strain, and I have read some statements that Jefferson might have actually thought that concept was true, in what I consider his tendency to be naïve and overly theoretical in his approach to life. Still, that’s Jefferson, and not the slaveowners who also signed the DoI. I think the others, and perhaps Jefferson, were probably more

    • Sick of it

      Like many of the original colonists, however, they often took great pains to not mistreat the Indians, including those who had been moved onto reservations where they would be watched over by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. People went to prison or lost their lofty positions when it was found out they had stolen money dedicated for their care, for instance. Agree regarding egalitarianism, as that had been peddled in Europe by Voltaire and company. The revolutions born from their ideas were quite a bit different from our own.

      • Brian

        It’s one thing to have egalite for your own countrymen, quite another to import all manner of oil-and-water aliens and apply it to them. I think Voltaire would have preferred the ethnic composition of his France to the one of today.

        • Sick of it

          His followers included everyone from Mulattos to Mestizos to you-know-who. Jacobins, like the later Communists, accepted every ethnic group in their nasty little rebellion against God.

          • Brian

            They weren’t rebelling against God, but against the religious institution of their time. There is a difference.

      • That’s because we have to understand the difference between revolution (e.g. France, 1789) and secession (America, 1776).

        • Sick of it

          One could say that our country had one of the few conservative revolutions in human history. Our people actually became more decent than those who lived in their various home countries.

    • Garrett Brown

      Yes, a smile from cheek to cheek came over me right as I read that. Calling out a talentless, incredibly stupid race mixing bantu for what he is and always will be. Jared Taylor is not only a very powerful speaker but also a very entertaining one.

      • It also goes to show you that the previous President has a lot of low information qualities about him. I can assure you that if I ever became President, I wouldn’t have enough time to care who goons like Kanye West are, much less what they “think” about me or anything else.

  • Hal K

    Think about the hardships British settlers endured in order to create the country that so many people benefit from today. All Americans should all be grateful to them, with the possible exception of the Indians. White Americans, especially those descended from British settlers, should demand gratitude. They get the opposite of that now.

    • Sick of it

      Not only do we descendants of the original settlers receive ingratitude, many of the latecomers demand that we alter this country in a way that pleases them. Well, my thoughts on the matter are…if you don’t like our country, go the hell back home! Of course I look at 19th century arrivals and their descendants as latecomers.

      • IstvanIN

        Not me. We assimilated completely. My people are completely American.

        • Sick of it

          You’re good people then. Wish every immigrant did the same way back when.

    • Brian

      I heard a black woman on the train spouting the usual line about how ‘slaves built this country’. Yeah, that cotton-picking expertise came in really handy when we put men on the moon. Everything that black woman depends on for life, from the printing press to the Internet, antibiotics to air conditioning, sprouts from the white man’s brain. Ford, Edison, Whitney, and Gates are required for progress and prosperity; a horde of Africans is not.

      • Sick of it


        • Brian

          I’m an electrical engineer so you know I love me some Tesla. Didn’t mean to slight him at all; just figured Edison’s name would be more recognizable and get the point across. Both were great men, and both had some flaws too. Both were worth more than ten million Zulus.

          • Sick of it

            Alternating current alone is a big friggin deal. His REAL work is astounding in its possibilities. The things he dreamed of, that he touched on, could have changed the entire world completely. The elites may well have lost all of their power if they had not so marginalized Tesla.

      • tech

        Anytime anyone says that, I say, “yeah, and the donkeys built the west, right.”

      • Spartacus

        No country in the history of the world was ever built on farming equipment.

        • Bossman

          Everything begins with land: Adam Smith, world’s first economist.

  • Spartacus

    “Interestingly, they were especially brutal to John Thorpe, who had
    hanged dogs that annoyed Indians and who had been so concerned about
    their welfare.”


    Not surprising at all, mister Taylor. The weaker you appear, the less respect you command. This is true of all races .

    • curri

      Only a low and despicable type of white man would hang dogs. Brings Michael Vick to mind.

      • Sick of it

        The dogs that were hung had more sense than the colonists who wanted them hung.

        • Terra Magnum Imperium

          Agreed, Dogs bark when they feel threatened, the colonists should have trusted them.

    • Spartacus

      Speaking of weakness, they’ve just arrested most of the Golden Dawn leadership in Greece, precisely for being afraid of how strong they have become . You guys could show support by signing this petition to not ban GD :


      You don’t have to use your real name or provide any personal info.

      • Whitetrashgang

        Well sir I am long past being scared to use my real name (never was) etc, this is white genocide nothing else. The only reason as some one said why don’t I lead is because I don’t have the temperament. You know If we start speaking out and forgo everthing but your house and car.I mean live cheap all you need is your house, car. and firearms. The tribe does all this to our white countries and we sit around and vote getting use nowhere since the jewdical just overturns our vote.The sooner we stand up the better,people follow who they think are winners, white people are heads and tails over any other race yet we sit.

        • Spartacus

          We have too many damn would-be Fuhrers as it is, and too few Stormtroopers . Good that some others are more realistic about their part in this…

          Share that petition with everyone you know, it may not be much but it’s all we can do at this point in time.

  • Spartacus

    Mister Taylor should write an article(or speech) about eastern Europe. We’ve been through things no African can even comprehend,and yet we surpass them in every field imaginable .

    • Vercingetorix

      If things continue at this pace, I don’t see any future for us anywhere except eastern Europe.

      • Spartacus

        There’s a future for you in North America, if you’re willing to fight for it. Seceed, make your own White nation, and they just wait until the vermin eat each other, and you can reclaim the land which is rightfully yours.

      • KingKenton

        I very much agree. The Pilgrims’ came to this continent because they felt they had no other choice. If we cannot secure a homeland for ourselves within our borders then I think we have to start thinking as our ancestors did and seek out new lands. Russia is desperately trying to reverse its population decline. I wonder if Putin would be willing to welcome White Americans into the fold.

        • Bossman

          These pilgrims first went to Holland and no one was bothering them there but they still wanted to come to America because they thought they could become rich there. The populating of the Americas by Europeans was all about lust and greed.

          • ncpride

            Then it’s fair to say that people of every race come here for exactly the same reason, yes? To live the ‘American dream’ and get rich so they can live a better life?

          • Bossman

            Yes, I would agree to that proposition.

        • Brian

          You would have a better chance of being accepted if you’re really into shirtless hunting and fishing.

      • Spartacus

        Amren deleted my previous post…

        Stop thinking about emigrating, you don’t need it. You need to secede, even if it’s just one state, and make that your homeland, and let the rest crumble and die. Then you can reclaim it again.

        • The Tank

          You are correct. Personally I think race-aware whites should focus on settling in and developing Alaska. It is a huge land, rich is resources and potential, sports an environment the Bantu dislike, and is full of people who understand living with a degree of autonomy those in the Marxist states do not.

          • Spartacus

            Are you sure about that ? Because I’ve seen who Miss Alaska 2013 is, and she seems “adapted” …

          • This is unreal. Miss Alaska 2013:

          • Spartacus

            Allow me to add the picture for you :

          • I’ll take the blonde, thanks.

          • Brian

            This was a beauty contest, right? SMH.

          • Spartacus

            Well… They didn’t specify the beauty of which species .

          • cecilhenry

            This is a classic example of PC thinking–give her the title and she will be deserving of it.

            WEll no, not for a beauty contest.

            IT just makes it a farce, and makes a fool of everyone involved.


            You can’t win by denying reality.

          • WASP

            I didn’t know Alaska had crowned their first Black Miss Alaska. I don’t keep up with the beauty contests. If the state of Alaska had to be so multi-culti PC about it, then surely they could have at least crowned a true Alaskan native — an Inuit-Yupik. She would have looked better too.

          • You think Inuit are “true Alaskan native”? They wiped out the previous Amerindian population of Alaska, Arctic Canada, and Greenland.

            With that said, it would’ve been easy to find even a black girl who at least looked female.

          • WASP

            Yes, probably thousands of years ago the Inuits did displace a previous Amerindian population. I’m not familiar with that ancient history. We know such conflict has gone on since the dawn of mankind. My point was that the Inuits, Yupiks, Aleuts were native to Alaska when the Whites arrived in our recent history. I don’t know what may been thousands of years ago concerning the Europeans. I’m not an archaeologist nor ancient historian. My point was an Inuit, Yupik, or Aleut would have been a much more appropriate choice to represent Alaska — if they had to have a minority — than an unattractive African, which makes no sense at all. This African Miss Alaska does not represent anyone nor Alaska in any way. It’s just another reason I don’t pay any attention to these stupid beauty pageants — just a lot of phony, silly, PC nonsense. Thanks for posting that picture. I just had to put in my thoughts on the subject.

          • Bossman

            Is that true? I didn’t know that. Historically, American Indians have had great hatred for Eskimos. The hatred has been described as homicidal and maniacal.

          • Sick of it

            This is another glaring example of the lack of aesthetic sense among liberals. I have seen many black women who looked far better than the one they chose. So even if they just had to have a black Miss Alaska…there were assuredly much better choices.

          • WASP

            Exactly what I thought. Thanks.

          • ms_anthro

            It was never about finding a beautiful black woman to be Miss Alaska. It was always about tearing down the culture that invented the concept of Miss Alaska. They are culture destroyers, nothing more and nothing less. It’s a metaphysical middle finger to White American values as well as the value we place on grace and beauty in our traditional Western cultures.

            Once you stop assuming they think like us, and start realizing that they think like people who hate us and want to see our entire way of life utterly degraded and destroyed, the crazy state of the world makes a lot more sense.

          • Sick of it

            Oh I agree with you. Just complaining about their usual idiocy.

    • ThomasER916

      Mister Taylor couldn’t write an article(or speech) about eastern Europe without glossing over the details of his beloved Jews.

  • DonReynolds

    Excellent speech. What I have come to expect from Jared Taylor over the years.

  • MikeofAges

    One thing I take issue with, and not the only thing, is that a race riot is worst consequence of troubled race relations. Worse than a riot is daily bleeding — a small though steady stream of autonomously perpetrated but racially motivated murders, assaults, and disturbing acts of harassment — going on over generations of time.

    • ThomasER916

      Street violence comes from the darkest first, then slowly into the lightest. There’s no mystery.

  • DailyKenn

    My understanding is that slave ships docked in the North.
    Am I mistaken?

    • Oil Can Harry

      Correct. Slavery was legal in all of the original 13 US states, whether north or south.

      Teddy Roosevelt blaming slavery on the South only was typical of his windbag demogoguery.

      • Brian

        True, but I’d take TR over anyone we have in office today.

        ‘This is a nation, not a polyglot boarding house’ — TR

    • Sick of it

      Also at Charleston, South Carolina.

  • Luca

    I’ve had the books “Bullwhip Days” and “Before Freedom” for decades now. They are drawn from the the same Federal Writers project with selected narratives. They are surprisingly well-rounded and politically incorrect, especially “Bullwhip”. They never cease to amaze me. Narratives are a more true-to-life way of studying history

    I highly recommend these to Amren readers.

    • JohnEngelman

      Some of the slave owners were cruel. Others were kind.

      Most blacks benefit from some sort of benevolent paternalism. Many seem to realize this. Slavery was not the best way to achieve this, but it sometimes did.

      Whether “freedom” is defined by the Libertarian Party or the American Civil Liberties Union most blacks do not benefit from it.

  • Funruffian

    Powerful. This is powerful and compelling literature. I foresee a very grim destiny that will mirror the dystopia predicted by the late Dr. William Pierce.

  • panjoomby

    This is indeed an excellent essay. perfectly argued without having to cite stats & #’s on IQ differences, achievement differences, heritability coefficients, & how we’ve turned our own laws against us with the inequity of disparate impact & affirmative action. This essay should be widely distributed – it could become the new Tom Paine’s “Common Sense.”

  • itdoesnotmatter

    Mr. Taylor hits another one out of the ballpark. Compelling, a must read.

    Pass it on.

  • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

    “By 2060, Hispanics will be the outright majority and whites will be only 30 percent of the population.”

    thank God, I will be gone by then

    • IstvanIN

      Children? Grandchildren? Nieces and Nephews? I grieve for their future.

    • Garrett Brown

      Wonderful speech Mr. Taylor. Sad, but very realistic and one that we all must hear/read.

    • BernieGoetzFan

      I was born in 1969 and longevity runs in my family. I may well be around in 2060. But when I was born, whites were roughly 90% of the population (the 1965 immigration bill did not take effect until 1967). If I die in the 2060s we will have gone from 90% to 30% in one man’s lifetime.

      • Brian

        I think there’s a word for this but I can’t quite place it….djinn, gin, jenn…?

        Ah. Genocide.

  • Brent Wood

    WHITE RACIST GENOCIDAL PARASITES CAME TO THE US AND WIPED OUT THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS… If the same thing was done by the blacks or hispanics, AMREN readers would be up in arms…However, because they’re rabid racists, they celebrate GENOCIDE…Shame…

    • Garrett Brown

      The Americas never had “original” inhabitants

      • Brent Wood

        They did… the native americans are the TRUE and ONLY RIGHTFUL inhabitants of the americas… Syphilitic white toads from across the pond came here like disease-riddled parasites to spread vermin among the unsuspecting population and wiped them out !! You ignorant buffoon !! And by your “reductio ad absurdum” argument, ALL PEOPLE OF ALL RACES need to go back to AFRICA !! since we ALL are from Africa…

        • BernieGoetzFan

          They were not wiped out as there are millions of Indians in the Americas even today. Whites could have wiped them out – and may have had good reason too given the constant murders, rapes and attacks they suffered. And the Indians certainly tried to wipe the whites out. But whites – perhaps alone among all the races – had some compassion even for people trying to kill them off.

        • BernieGoetzFan

          The “native Americans” are not so native. The oldest bones found in the Americas are Caucasian.

          • Bossman

            So what exactly happened to those Caucasians? How come Columbus didn’t meet any of them in 1492?

          • Jefferson

            Bernie is trying to Whitewash world history that has nothing to do with Europe.

          • Sick of it

            Well, Kennewick Man was brutally murdered by an arrowhead which fits with types we associate with more modern natives.

          • Jefferson

            So North America, Central America, and South America is the ancestral home of Caucasians ? Not Europe and the Middle East ?

        • pcmustgo

          Your hateful attitude towards whites and “get revenge” mentality is exactly why we seek to avoid people like you.

    • BernieGoetzFan

      These “parasites” built America and created the roads, hospitals, schools, cars, businesses, computers, medicines, machines … etc. that we use everyday.

  • let me give you a slightly different version of race relations in america (and i am not a liberal (or a conservative or libertarian)).

    When the whites came over to north america, the indian population had already been decimated by exposure to smallpox etc. Their population had been reduced by up to 90%. There was already plenty of room.

    North America was a place to make money for those who had a little to spend. So they forced the poor of the british isles to work as labor in america. They did this in various ways. Kidnapping was one way. They would grab up kids in england and scotland and make them hoe the tobacco fields of north america. That was where the word ‘kidnapped’ came from. It was first ‘kid nabbed’ and it changed to kidnapped. Or they would drug you or knock you in the head and you would wake up aboard a ship bound for north america. The people they hired to do this were called ‘spirits’. That was where the phrase ‘spirited away’ came from.

    The upper class also created laws aimed against the poor (begging, sleeping outdoors etc). That way when they broke them, they would be sent to america to work in the fields.

    This was called being ‘transported’.

    Why were there so many poor people around? The rich people had decided to take most of the common land in england and scotland for themselves and throw the peasants off the land.

    That made many people homeless.

    Supposedly the people who were sent from england and scotland and ireland to work in america were to be set free after a certain number of years. But this was propaganda. Once they got you over to america, you were typically stripped and sold at auction. Sometimes you would be set free after your indentureship was through, and sometimes not.

    Sometimes they worked till you dropped dead or escaped. If you worked near the towns, you had a better chance of getting set free once 7 years expired (or 4 sometimes). But out in the country, you were often dead meat.

    They were white slaves. They were often even called white slaves.

    Then after a few decades the poor of the british isles got smart and the supply of white slaves ran low.

    So they got some black slaves. At first the black slaves were also indentured for a period of years. However, the upper class got the idea of separating the whites from blacks by creating laws against whites and blacks mixing. Remember that during the 1600s in order to run for office you had to be a property owner. The masses of indentured slaves and freed slaves could not vote.



      But the whites and black slaves did mix. In one survey taken in
      maryland in the 1600s, about one third of all babies born to female
      white slaves were mixed race.

      Then in about 1670 the whites and blacks rebelled together in bacon’s rebellion and burned Jamestown VA to the ground. That rebellion was actually class warfare, the lower class, white and black, rebelling against the upper class. So the upper class
      decided to divide the races using laws the upper class politicians
      created (politicians who were elected by landowners). They created the
      miscegenation laws and similar laws to divide the poor whites from the
      poor blacks through a “screen of racial contempt” (quote from Dr

      They did this to bind poor whites to the rich whites through skin color. Thus
      they split their lower class enemy into two weaker enemies. Divide and
      conquer. This is the primary tool of the upper class in america.

      Thus the upper class created the genesis of all american culture, where
      whites share an elevated social status, above blacks. This culture was
      created by the upper class to save their necks in the 1600s.

      The upper class also created the ‘one drop’ rule. One drop of black blood and you were a slave.

      THat was how the upper class created a supply of cheap labor.

      The upper class always seeks a supply of cheap labor. Nowadays they get it
      from the third world. Mass immigration. In decent nations, like the
      small nations of western europe, mass immigration is controlled by the
      people. Not in america, however. The upper class rules america. Always

      The only way out of this mess is by racial segregation and dissolution of the federal union.

      You learn something today?

      Read THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES by Michael Hoffman and read REDNECK MANIFESTO by Jim Goad.

      • Martel

        “In decent nations, like the
        small nations of western europe, mass immigration is controlled by the

        Is this a joke?

        • everything in life is relative. Small nations like denmark for example have a MUCH LOWER RATE OF IMMIGRATION THAN AMERICA.
          Do you see how I provide actual evidence? And you how provided nothing? That is the difference between you and me.

          • Martel

            In Denmark 50% of rapes are committed by immigrants. Enough evidence for you?

            There are entire neighbourhoods where police do not dare to enter, these are occupied by africans, arabs and other scum let in the Danish government.

            I’m literally a minority in the three largest cities in my country, and you claim we have any influence on immigration policies. America is salvageable, Western Europe is not.

          • I have no doubt that the immigrants in europe are bad actors in general. They should all be run out of there.

            But my point, which seem to miss, is that Denmark and most of the other western nations are in MUCH BETTER SHAPE THAN AMERICA. Why? Because they have FEWER IMMIGRANTS BY PERCENT. IS that so hard to understand?

          • Other than the percent demographics question, Europe is paradoxically and simultaneously deeper in the hole but closer to getting out of the hole than we are in America, not as deep in the whole but farther from getting out of the hole.

            The reason Europe is closer to solving the problem than we are is because of the ethnonationalist implications of most European countries, that their parliamentary systems and political cultures are conducive to multi-party political systems. Therefore, it is worth the while of ethnonationalist political parties to exist and for people to invest time energy and activism in them because the chances of that leading to real sociopolitical change is credibly high.

            Look at Norway. The Progress Party got 16.3% of the vote, about one-sixth, but it’s going to be able to wield some influence in the new Norwegian government. An American political party that gets 16.3% of the vote won’t be able to influence anything.

          • kjh64

            A lot of the non-Whites in the USA are not citizens. The census does not distinguish between citizens and foreigners. The USA has millions of non-White illegal migrants as well as millions of non-White foreign nationals here legally such as students. The percentage of non-Whites would be a lot lower if you only counted citizens. However, whether these non-Whites stay or go home will depend on the USA economy. If this nation and its’ economy gets bad enough so that there are no jobs, no money and no welfare, then the percentage of non-Whites will drop drastically. If things remain as they are however, it’s not likely these foreign non-Whites will go anywhere.

  • Garrett Brown

    Wonderful speech Mr. Taylor. Sad, but very realistic and one that we all must hear/read.

  • KingKenton

    Apparently Mr. Engelman is becoming notorious. I found the following comment(s) on cofcc DOT org.

    The Walking Poison
    • 5 days ago

    Where are CofCC’s resident Khazar apologists? This website needs its equivalent to Amren’s John Engelman.

    16^ 1v

    IBWHITE The Walking Poison
    • 4 days ago

    Oh please don’t let that jacka$$ come here and disrupt things!


    Original article:

    topconservativenews DOT com/2013/09/one-of-the-largest-eastern-european-white-slavery-rings-goes-down/

  • Brian

    Bravo Mr. Taylor.

  • these books are a fantastic resource. I have read many of them.

  • Bossman

    The natives of the Americas had no concept of private property. They shared everything with the European newcomers. They even offered their wives and daughters to the settlers. Conflicts arose only after they felt they had been used and abused.

    • basically true. As someone who has part indian heritage, I have read extensively on the subject. In fact, rifles given to white american soldiers were closely guarded in the 1600s, 1700s, even 1800s, because a rifle and ammo stolen by an deserting soldier would let that soldier live like a king in any tribe.

    • BernieGoetzFan

      Tribal slaughters between Indian tribes were common so they certainly had some conception of land, territory and ownership. As noted in the article, the English came with very good intentions and were still almost wiped out by the Indians.

      • Alfred the Great

        Absolutely true. I am sick of hearing that the “nobler than thou” American Indian had no concept of private property. They did share much within each tribe (racially families, that’s what tribe means). However, even within the tribes certain men had more property than others, e.g., the chief and his string of horses. It is also true that the Indians invaded each other and slaughtered each other by the thousands. In the State of Texas, it was the Comanche that came in and killed and/or ran off all others, that is, until the Texans killed and/or ran them out.

      • Bossman

        They were not perfect but Europe and white North Americans benefited greatly from American Indians. I recommend that you read the very wise book: Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed the World by Jack Weatherford.

        • Garrett Brown

          Are you delusional? They literally fought each other for over 300 years until there were hardly any indians left.

          • Bossman

            What are you talking about? Native people of the USA? or Indians of the Americas? There are half a million Indians in Canada. Two million in the USA and 10 million in Mexico. And also many more millions in Latin America.

          • Garrett Brown

            You’re either trolling or incredibly ignorant. I don’t even know why mods are allowing your comments, they are all sorts of wrong.

          • Bossman

            You’re the one who should not be in this forum. There are half a million status Indians in Canada and half a million non-status Indians for a total of one million. A non-status Indian is one who has left the tribe to marry a non-Indian. There are 2 million Indians in the USA and 10 million Indians in Mexico. And many more millions in Latin America. So if you believe that there are no more Indians in the Americas, you’re free to keep on dreaming fanciful dreams.

          • Jefferson

            Don’t forget the millions more people in North America, South America, and Central America who show visible Amerindian features in their phenotypes, but are not officially enrolled in any tribe.

            There are the people I call ancestrally Amerindian, but not culturally Amerindian.

            It’s comparable to a German American for example who does not speak a lick of German. That person is ancestrally German, but not culturally German.

          • Bossman

            Yes, you’re correct about that. You should try to pound that fact into the head of people like “Garret Brown.”

          • Garrett Brown

            This isn’t a forum. You’re totally clueless son.

          • Jefferson

            If there were hardly any Indians left in the Americas when the Europeans came, than almost nobody in the Americas today would have Amerindian features and the Illegal Immigrants from south of the border would all look a lot Whiter.

          • Garrett Brown

            Reading comprehension is a valuable thing to have.

  • dmxinc

    Magnificent speech. Full of wisdom and insight. I hope many were swayed.

    The only word I wish he would have excluded was “Negro.”

  • cecilhenry

    Great speech.

    I can use some this in a mini-Mantra to get the message out.

    Thanks as always Mr. Taylor

  • Bossman

    There are several stories of different encounters between the native Americans and Europeans, some very friendly and some not so friendly. As soon as Columbus landed in the Caribbean, his men were out in the bush making love to the native women. As soon as Magellan arrived in Brazil, his ship was invaded by native women wanting to make love.

    • Source?

      • Bossman

        If you’re really serious about this, you can go out and buy the book about Magellan circumnavigating the globe.

      • Sick of it

        It is true that natives we have historically encountered all over the world seemed to ahem enjoy our advances. Liberals lie and say we raped them all. I’ve read various accounts of native women in the Americas offering themselves to European visitors and colonists.

        • I can believe that, but Bossman seems to be talking about a female Amerindian rape squad who desperately wanted to bang them on sight.

  • JohnEngelman

    Jared Taylor and I share basic reality perceptions about the significance and reasons for racial differences. We differ about many of our likes and dislikes.

    A multi racial meritocracy is the direction I see the United States evolving in. It is not necessarily the direction I would like for the United States to evolve in. I doubt the direction can be stopped or slowed. Moreover, I appreciate the presence of Orientals, Jews, and people from India in the United States.

    Whenever races have mixed they have merged genetically. The trend in human evolution has always been in the direction of higher intelligence.

    • Brian

      The trend in human evolution toward higher intelligence was 99% before the Industrial Revolution, modern medicine and the welfare state, all of which are dysgenic. How is this trend to continue in modern circumstances? By genetic engineering?

      • JohnEngelman

        The welfare system is being scaled back.

        The industrial revolution eliminated low skill jobs in agriculture, but provided low skill jobs in factories for those who could learn nothing else. The factory jobs paid at least as well as farm labor jobs.

        Computer technology destroys comparatively well paying production jobs, without providing anything for those who lose those jobs.

        Computer technology makes automation and the off shoring of jobs possible. It is one of the three major reasons for the growing income gap. It enables geniuses to earn vast fortunes. It provides good careers for those of superior intelligence. It reduces wages for those of average and below average incomes.

        • Brian

          The thing that matters, in terms of dysgenics/human capital, is the effect on breeding. How many children will Zuckerberg have? How many will LarQuavious have? It doesn’t matter if LQ has any income at all; can he produce offspring who survive to reproductive age?

        • Jefferson

          You think the invention of the internet was the worst thing to ever happen to low skilled workers ?

          • JohnEngelman

            Computer technology in general has been bad for them. The introduction of the IBM Mainframe in 1964 probably eliminated at least a million clerical jobs without replacing them with anything.

            Being able to buy stuff on the internet has eliminated many retail sales jobs.

          • Jefferson

            As long as the number of people who love to go to a shopping mall is still huge, retail sales jobs will not go the way of the typewriters, phone booths, beepers, and dinosaurs anytime soon.

          • JohnEngelman

            Those jobs will continue to exist, but there will be fewer of them. There will be more competition for them as people continue to lose production jobs, and apply for them.

          • Bossman

            I think you should just relax and enjoy your leisure time. Automation does indeed do away with lots of jobs. But society will not return to the days of the horse and buggy.

          • JohnEngelman

            During the 1960’s economic problems seems solvable. Back then many people thought that the increase in automation and computer technology would lead to more leisure and also to more generous pay checks.

            Instead, automation and computer technology have lead to more unemployment, and longer working hours and leaner pay checks for most of those who have jobs.

  • Freedom Hayak

    wow I hope you received a standing ovation for this! I gave you one. Of course, I’m at home and you can’t see me, but I did it anyway.

  • MikeofAges

    An other corollary to this idea. The old saw about primitive culture falling apart upon contact with advanced Westerners. What about advanced civilization deteriorating in the face of barbarian infiltration and polyglotism. No guarantee that any civilization will survive the decline of the race or type which founded and developed it. Not in the form it existed at the time that contact with alien types began.

  • John R

    Of course it’ll never happen, but that speech by Jared Taylor should be taught in every High School in America. Our children should study it, and remember it.

    • Bossman

      Encounters between native Americans and Europeans was not always hostile. More often than not it was friendly.

      • Sick of it

        Mr. Taylor mentioned both kinds.

        • Thaddeus Stevens

          I suppose between any two groups of people, there will sometimes be friendly, sometimes unfriendly relations.

          For example, Russians a Poles, Serbs and Croats, English and Irish, Chinese and Japanese, etc…

  • Thaddeus Stevens

    I’m sure if the Native Americans happened to be racially white, the conflict would have been just as vicious. After all, Serbs don’t like Croats stepping on their patch, Irish the English, Ukrainians the Poles. Google “Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia”.

    Whites have been killing one another for eons, as have Asians (Japanese vs Chinese), and Africans.

    To say that race was the main ingredient fueling conflict between English and Indians is pretty far-fetched.

    • unadorned

      And this is the story of the conquest of the continent. The intentions of whites—sometimes good, often bad—really did not matter. The fundamental fact is that one people had the land, and another, more advanced and powerful people wanted the land. The result was dispossession, and even now, despite a great deal of intermixing, Indians are a distinct people with a distinct identity that shows how difficult assimilation is across racial lines, even after 400 years. Race relations mean conflict.

      • Thaddeus Stevens

        You missed the point. The “Race relations mean conflict” means that Taylor attributes the conflict between Indians and whites to racial differences. Which is absurd. The conflict has nothing to do with race hatred. It has everything to do with one group of people trying to dispossess another. Just like the Irish were not too happy about the English coming over – and these two groups look more or less the same.

        • unadorned

          No, you miss the point. Nowhere does Taylor say that Indians didn’t want whites to take their land because whites were of a different race, thus this proves race = conflict, QED.
          You are absurd. Perhaps you don’t like Taylor, perhaps you don’t believe that race = conflct, that’s your problem.

          • Thaddeus Stevens

            Actually I don’t believe that race necessarily leads to conflict – but racism does.

            The fact is we have had white people living for centuries with only white people, Asian people only with Asian people, and black people only with black people. So most people up until quite recently only ever had contact with people of the same race.

            Did that prevent horrific wars and conflicts being fought in Europe and Asia. Of course not. So race in itself really has nothing to do with it. The problem is white supremacist ideology.

          • unadorned

            Ah! At last, you reveal yourself— Anti-white.

          • Thaddeus Stevens

            Anti white supremacist. Not anti-white. I’m against any form of racial supremacism.

          • unadorned

            Let’s see.

            White supremacy is the belief of, and/or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically dominate non-whites. The term is also used to describe a political
            ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical and/or industrial dominance of whites.

            And this is the cause of all conflict on the face of the earth now, then, and forever. God, you are a simplistic moron. I would feel sorry for you, but you are my enemy. No pity. But here’s a question, do you ever think for yourself? I understand you either belong to some minority victim group, or you’re a brain-dead white Left-liberal raised and nurtured on History according to the anti-American, anti-white, Howard Zinn, and as such, it makes you feel so good to be able to put aside your own whiteness and embrace the Other.

            It is now fashionable to not only claim that white supremacy, aka white people, is the total evil in the world, but also that white people didn’t really invent, or create the greatest civilization that the world has ever known. Oh, no. We can’t have little Chinese, Indian (from India), Africans, Latino kids knowing that the West invented everything while most of their kinsmen still haven’t invented the flush-toilet. Truth be damned.

            If I were you it would scare the hell out of me to think that I have been lied to all my life. You will go to your grave clueless. But then, lies mean nothing to those who don’t believe in truth.

            Like I said, you’re my enemy. I’m done with you.

          • Thaddeus Stevens

            Actually non-whites have invented quite a lot. And China and India were way ahead of the West in technology up until a couple of centuries ago, and way ahead in economic terms up to around 150 years ago.

            By the way, the numbering system you use for mathematics, that dot you use to denote a part of a whole —-all crucial for scientific and industrial development. Not invented by whites.

            The fact is, in the US at least, it is precisely white supremacy that is responsible for most racial conflict, now and in the past.

            By the way – declaring from one pseudonymous account to another that you are my enemy has me ROFL

          • unadorned

            “By the way – declaring from one pseudonymous account to another that you are my enemy has me ROFL”
            By the way—everything you say and everything you stand for makes me PUKE. Looks like you got the best deal.

          • kjh64

            While it’s true that non-Whites invented things in the distant past, most modern inventions in the past 500 years up until now have been created by Whites, airplanes, cars, phones, computers, the internet, trains, planes, the use of electricity, central heating/air, toilets, most modern medicine and surgical procedures etc. That is a fact.
            As far as racial conflict in the USA now, it is NOT White supremacy as Whites are subordinated to non-Whites in today’s America. Our racial conflict, much of it between non-White groups such as Blacks vs Hispanics is caused by multiculturalism and mass immigration and the fact that multiracialism does NOT work . In past history, if the USA had never had slavery, then Blacks would not have experienced “White supremacy”. As a matter of fact, in EVERY non-White country, the people there have “supremacy. In Mexico, there is “Mexican supremacy”, in Nigeria “Black Nigerian supremacy”, in Japan “Japanese supremacy”. Non-White nations do NOT allow mass immigration of other races because they feel they are supreme. This is why the races should stay in separate nations. That way no person is subject to the majority’s “supremacy”.

          • Sick of it

            White supremacists have not ethnically cleansed Africa and Asia of various white groups over the centuries.

    • Sick of it

      Indeed, the Scandinavians were quite unpopular when going a viking.

    • Carney3

      Yes, but race is an aggravating factor. Overall and in the long run, the presence of racial differences reduces sympathy and increases hostility.

      • Thaddeus Stevens

        I don’t really know about that. When you get Japanese treating the Chinese the way they did at Nanjing, or the way Croats butchered Serbs, or Ukrainians Poles, or the horrific African conflicts, then basically the hatred and viciousness is already at 100%. You can’t go higher than that.

  • Thaddeus Stevens

    One of the reasons you don’t hear very much about these narratives is
    that many former slaves show considerable nostalgia for slavery.

    Nowadays, many whites love prostrating themselves in front of non-whites, and even go out of their way to marry non-whites (at least that is the position of many Amren regulars).
    Does that make it right?

    • unadorned

      Taylor did not write about the narratives to imply that this made slavery right. He was showing the disingenuousness and disregard for the truth on constant display by the Left. But, of course, you knew that. Talk about disingenuousness.

  • Thaddeus Stevens

    The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial
    superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as
    essentially no different from themselves.

    Is Mr Taylor saying that racial awareness is not biologically rooted, but instead culturally rooted?

    I’ve read that Thomas Jefferson had similar views of American Indians, and was even enthusiastic about miscegenation between whites and Amerinds.

    • Bossman

      You’re correct about Jefferson’s views. He didn’t have a problem with that.

      • Thaddeus Stevens

        Have found some quotes —easily “Googleable”

        “In the third year of his presidency, Thomas Jefferson pleaded “to let our settlements and theirs [Indians] meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people.” Six years later, just before returning to Monticello, Jefferson promised a group of western Indian chiefs, “you will unite yourselves with us,… and we shall all be Americans; you will mix with us by marriage, your blood will run in our veins, and will spread with us over this great island”

        • Bossman

          Jefferson developed the idea that all men are created equal while as a young lawyer he took up the case of a young Mulatto who wanted to be free because his grandmother was white..

      • Thaddeus Stevens

        So are you saying Jefferson, while perhaps a race realist, was hardly a white nationalist? It seems he is to the left of Taylor and co?

        • Garrett Brown

          He doesn’t know what he is saying.

  • Spartacus

    See below .

  • Brian

    No, it isn’t. I’m as pro-white as anyone, but there’s nothing to be gained from wishful thinking and pseudoscience.

  • Vyncennt

    “The willingness of people with high IQ’s to support the illegitimate children of those with low IQ’s seems to be coming to an end.”

    I’ve seen little evidence of this trend slowing or reversing to any significant degree.

    “They will have descendants on this planet hundreds and thousands of years from now. LarQuavious and his unemployable friends, girl friends, and illegitimate children will not.”

    The staggering disparity in birth rates between these two groups will likely overcome any advantages of the steady shrinking “genius” one. Superior numbers always prevail, and if nothing else, they have that.

    • JohnEngelman

      Kevin Phillips wrote most of “The Emerging Republican Majority” in 1966, but it was not published until 1969.

      In this book Phillips wrote that the New Deal taxed the richest ten percent of the population to fund programs that helped the remaining 90 percent, so it was politically sustainable. The War on Poverty taxed the richest 90 percent of the population to fund programs that helped the poorest 10 percent. Therefore, Phillips predicted that the War on Poverty would provoke a backlash that would help the Republicans.

      This is just exactly what did happen. No Democratic politician who actually wants to be elected talks about ending poverty anymore.

      The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which President Clinton signed, ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children as a lifetime entitlement.

      Liberal activists try to preserve as much of AFDC as they can, but they know that the voters are not with them.

      When the War on Poverty was begun declared in 1964 there was optimistic talk about ending poverty in ten years. No one talks that way now.

      • Vyncennt

        There’s little need to “talk that way now”…the programs are already implemented and the sheer number and scope of them far outway any good that Clinton did.

        I believe that the percentage of our population that suckles from 1 or more welfare programs is now 48 or 49 percent. Correct me if I’m wrong, but even after subtracting the sub 18 demographic, that is a rather powerful voting block. Of course, we all know how the sub 18 block will vote post 18…..

        I’m not sure where you live John, but I know that where I am, there is no dearth of welfare parasites…nor any fear of losing benefits from these parasites. You wouldn’t believe the amount of LOCAL welfare programs here that are not lumped in with the state/federal ones. It’s one hand out on top of another.

        • JohnEngelman

          I believe that the percentage of our population that suckles from 1 or more welfare programs is now 48 or 49 percent.

          – Vyncennt

          That is only true if you include Social Security and Medicare. Go to a teabagger demonstration, explain that everyone receiving Social Security and Medicare checks is a welfare recipient, and look out for the angry cane wielding teabaggers.

          • Vyncennt

            Social Security and Medicare are not considered welfare programs. SSDI and Medicaid may be what you are referring to.

            Those angry cane wielding teabagger, as you so eloquently describe them, have been contributing to SS and Medicare every single paycheck of their lives.

          • JohnEngelman

            Social Security and Medicare are not paid for with gold coins stored in the basement of the Treasury Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are transfer payment from those who work to those who don’t work. It is not possible to substantially cut taxes without reducing Social Security and Medicare payments.

    • Sick of it

      Superior numbers prevail in the absence of technological superiority. Technological superiority has been destroyed via globalism and the anti-progress societies which have developed in the western world under so-called progressives.

      • Vyncennt

        Technological superiority has also suffered immensely from our watering down of education and low both rates to those who can take advantage of an education.

        These problems will continue as long as our schools teach to the lowest common denominator and force one segment of the productive population to forego having children in order to subsidize the less productive remainder.

  • Sick of it

    Any decent person needs to read the works of the Marquis de Sade…and then decide how they feel about the so-called Age of Enlightenment, the French Revolution, etc. These people were clearly insane or so evil that the only word to describe them would be abomination.

    • ms_anthro

      And their moral and spiritual successors rule us to this day.

  • Sick of it

    Yeah and the Japanese have no problem discriminating against gaikokujin even after they become Japanese citizens. They have no problem keeping Japan as Japanese as possible. They have no problem enjoying their own culture without casting it all away in lieu of a foreign one. As a result, they are in far better shape than we are as a nation. Kudos to them, I wish we had a similar situation here in America.

  • Sick of it

    Quite a bit of foreign admixture can be found in the histories of said nations, with one of the most major being from a tribe known as the Khazars. Arab/Berber conquests in Spain and Sicily changed the character of the people who lived in both Spain and Italy. Colonialism caused intermixture in the cases of Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and Britain. The Nordic countries have historic admixture with Mongoloid peoples who lived in the far North (trust me, meet different people from Scandinavia and you can see the difference between the pureblood and the part skraeling). It should also be noted that after the Scandinavians became Christians, but before they gave up the prctice of slavery, they took slaves from among both the pagan Baltic peoples as well as the Saracens, as they could no longer treat their fellow Christians with such disdain. There are also possibilities of intermixture related to the invasions of the Huns, Avars, Mongols, Turks, and Soviet troops from the East.

    I do agree that what they are doing is horrible and that said countries were originally populated by Caucasoid peoples. That changing the ethnic character of those nations should be considered genocide. Obviously there is no historic basis for changing the ethnic base of the population.

  • Sick of it

    Birth control was a sure fire way to destroy civilization around the world.

    • kjh64

      No birth control doesn’t destroy civilization, it helps it by keeping populations from getting out of control. However, the problem is that the dumbest people who need birth control the most, don’t use it.

  • Thaddeus Stevens

    Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.

    Notice how Taylor in his essay, at no point, provides any evidence whatsoever as to why conflict between races is ‘deeply biological’.

    His kindergarten logic goes like this: There was conflict between Indians and whites. Indians and whites are of different races. Therefore the reason for conflict is ‘deeply biological’ (read racial).

    Well I also believe the reason for conflict between human groups is ‘deeply biological’ – but not racial. All humans and human groups want to hold on to land and resources perceived as their own – that may well be a biological instinct.

    But Irish have fought hard against English to hang on to what is there own, there has been all sorts of intra-European blood-lettings throughout history.

    So is that some sort of evidence that people hate people of their own race? Using Taylor’s argument it could be.

    • MBlanc46

      I believe that his argument is on the order of “whenever groups belonging to different races come into contact there is conflict between them”. The universality of this is the evidence. There’s nothing in that statement that is inconsistent for there being other sources of conflict.

      • Thaddeus Stevens

        There is absolutely no evidence that race is the aggravating factor. Rather it is one group attempting to take land, resources, women etc off another group.

        If all people in the world were of the same race, inter-group conflict would not be reduced by one iota – this is supported by the evidence of history.

        • MBlanc46

          “There is absolutely no evidence that race is the aggravating factor.”

          I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Jared Taylor provides no such evidence? As I said, I think that he might have intended the examples of racial conflict that he gives as the evidence, but I’ll let him speak for himself.

          “If all people in the world were of the same race, inter-group conflict
          would not be reduced by one iota – this is supported by the evidence of history.”

          A single counter-example suffices to disprove this, the Chicago Race Riot of 1919 or the Detroit Race Riot of 1967, say. If it’s your view that race had nothing whatever to do with either of these events (or the hundreds or thousands like them throughout the world), then all I can say is that yours is distinctly a minority opinion.

  • Sick of it

    The Mauris/Mauretanians/Berbers may not have been, but muslims ALWAYS brought along black converts and black slaves. The evidence is overwhelming in Sicily.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    Wow, can you imagine if Jared Taylor were allowed to give this talk, not at a freedom society or racialist group, but at a college convocation? No one would fall asleep, that’s for sure!

    I’ll bet it would be the most interesting (and informative, and honest) talk most of the students would hear during their entire four years there. It might be the most interesting talk they would hear during their entire life. I’ll bet Taylor would be mobbed with questions afterwards.

    But alas, it will never happen. Dissenting opinion from the new state religion is just not allowed!

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    I can’t say I have. I’ll give that link a shot. I so wish he had written something different, because perhaps no other clause has resulted in so much pain, destruction, and waste in American history.

    • Terra Magnum Imperium

      Good points, my guess the founding fathers were against Hereditary Nobility Titles granted by accident of birth…

  • ms_anthro

    Go for it.

  • Paleoconn

    The more I pore over the years that Bush the Lesser was in power, the more I realize he was probably worse than Obama. First, because he is White and therefore a traitor to Americans. Second, because man of us pinned so much of our hopes on this nonentity, after 8 years in the Clinton wilderness.

    But, the Bushlet got his deserved lashings from the media on a regular basis, whereas the Caramel Messiah gets nothing but hagiographies. And this bugs me. As much as I loathe Dubya.

  • Carney3

    “America’s slow collapse into Third-World squalor will be a good thing for certain other countries. At the risk of only slight exaggeration, America’s conception of foreign policy seems to be that if we invade a country and shoot enough people, the survivors will automatically become Jeffersonian democrats. Our capacity to do that kind of mischief will decline very quickly.”

    Very disappointed to see this gratuitous, distracting cheap shot on foreign policy.

    I’m constantly struck by how so many people who have sound and sensible views on race are in complete agreement with anti-white, anti-American leftists, even Marxists and Islamists, on foreign policy issues. While remaining entirely oblivious to the massive contradiction involved. On the one hand you’ll hear eloquent speeches telling whites to shake off white-guilt mythology, embrace the superiority of Western Civilization, understand that we are altruistic in a way no other people is. And from those very same people you’ll hear nonsense implying or flat-out stating that modern America is a monstrous aggressor, victimizing innocent brown Muslims, that the sovereignty of some tinpot Third World dictatorship should be gravely respected, etc.

    We invaded Germany, Japan, and Italy, and all three nations are now as democratic as can be. Germany and Japan had had essentially no prior history of democracy or limited consensual government, and with Italy, you’d have to go back to the Roman Republic thousands of years ago to find anything like it. One might be forgiven a certain skepticism about the prospects of installing a functional democracy in those states, given the lack of any roots for it.

    Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are different. Their peoples have an IQ of averaging 85. They are multi-ethnic, multi-religious states with no real nationhood. They would probably be better off broken up into component nation-states. But our invasions of those two countries were not only justified (9/11 in the first case, a long history of deliberate violation of peace agreements and treaty obligations in the second), but were benevolent, not acts of wanton massacre.

    Taylor does the greatest white nation that ever existed a gross disservice with such petty calumnies.

    And then to exhibit lip-smacking relish at the prospect of American decline, one which would enfeeble us and make us no longer able to stand up to some other nonwhite petty tyrant and give his long-suffering subjects a replacement regime that, while not Heaven on Earth, is at least something better than they had before? Outrageous.

  • Blah Halb

    It’s interesting how everything that was typed in this article would never have happened if Europe was actually such a great peaceful place and Europeans wanted to stay there instead. Think about it for a minute. White people oppressed other white people so they left for a better life and ended up oppressing everybody else while claiming cultural superiority. In reality whites have been oppressing and killing each other since before medieval times. In modern times, more than 85% of whites that are murdered are killed by other white people but you supremacists are still more scared of darker people. You look like clowns, join rest of humanity already.

    • Bossman

      And the most stupid thing about all this killing of Europeans by other Europeans was about whose god was the right god.

  • Brian

    Yes I agree. My point is only that the OP makes it sound like the Solutrean idea is a slamdunk, and it is far from that. There are assertions made in support of the hypothesis that are themselves not generally accepted.

  • Thomas_More

    Very interesting piece. One concern, not so much with the author but with a commonly accepted notion that “Hispanics” will outnumber “whites” on some given date. What is not addressed in this statistic (I do have a bit of formal research training) is that a large percentage, if not the majority of Hispanics’ (including myself) birth certificates read “Caucasian”. The ethnic flavor (not racial) of any specific Hispanic ranges from traitorous members of La Rasa to those of us who those of us who have for 3-4 generations assimilated to the point of losing our original language and being opposed to any slackening of immigration statutes. In addition, my Mexican (pure Spanish) ancestors and my current “old-country” relations have held no confraternity with Cubans, Puerto Ricans,etc. (in fact, they often express disdain for being confused with them). We are essentially ignored in the national dialogue because we have adopted American individualism and while waxing romantically about our heritage from time to time, consider ourselves white Americans…and often have the blue eyes to prove it :-)!

    • MBlanc46

      I’ve known a few pure-European Mexican immigrants, but in my part of the country, at least, the overwhelming majority of them are pure Indian if they’re pure anything.

  • WASP

    Thanks for the article on the Thule, Dorset, and Sadlermiut cultures. I wish we could have known more about them.

    • IDGAF about them, but they’re a good example (out of many) of how Whites aren’t the only people who’ve ever taken over land. It counters White guilt BS.

  • MBlanc46

    I believe that it was taken seriously by the Whig political class, but, as you say, it’s feasibility was so minimal that it barely got off the ground. And I believe that you must mean Benjamin “Spoons” Butler.

  • Terra Magnum Imperium

    If you play by the rules you have already lost the game…

  • Derp

    Pocahontas is one of my fore-mothers.

  • Derp

    That IS my point.

  • Derp

    I thought flash mobs were when people suddenly sing and dance in shopping malls and whatnot.

  • Epiminondas

    Very nice, Mr. Jared. Succinctly put.

  • Padrig

    “Of that number, only eight were white, but unlike the considerable number of blacks and Hispanics who died at the hands of police or in traffic accidents, all appear to have been killed by rioters, who were overwhelmingly black and Hispanic.”
    I think his assertion matches your information exactly.