A Very Successful Unsuccessful Conference

AR Staff, American Renaissance, February 2011

Despite cancellation of the full-scale American Renaissance conference scheduled for February 4 through 6 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the speakers gathered to hold what is becoming known as a very successful unsuccessful conference. The talks were a marvelous combination of politics, history, commentary, and inspiration. They were all professionally recorded and will be available soon as both Internet downloads and CDs. All participants greatly regretted that the approximately 200 people who had initially registered for the event were unable to attend.

The conference was opened by Filip Dewinter, one of the top leaders of the Vlaams Belang. The VB is the main opposition party in the Flemish parliament, and is one of many increasingly influential European parties devoted to strengthening European and regional identities and to protecting the continent from religious and demographic transformation.

In his talk, “The Colonization of Europe: How Europe Will Become Eurabia,” Mr. Dewinter described in chilling detail the Muslim tidal wave that is sweeping across Europe. In the very period when Europeans birthrates have dropped well below replacement levels, Muslim populations are surging, and are projected to reach 73 million by 2030. The admission of Turkey to the European Union would add yet another 80 million Muslims.

Mr. Dewinter decried the current fashion of multiculturalism which, he said, “attacks national identity the way AIDS attacks the body’s immune system,” leaving Europeans defenseless against cultural invasion. But perhaps the most disturbing part of his talk consisted of quotations from Muslims themselves. Abu Imran, one of the Islamic leaders of Belgium has said:

“We won’t rest until Europe has become an Islamic state. And then we will march on toward the White House and Vatican. We will carry out the promise of our dear Prophet. In a peaceful way, but we will continue until the Lord Grants us victory.”

Haouri Boumedienne, president of Algeria, has said:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it.”

Recep Erdogan, the current prime minister of Turkey, makes no secret of his intentions: “Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers.” He has also said that “democracy is like a train, we shall get out when we arrive at the station we want.”

Fortunately, noted Mr. Dewinter, there many increasingly influential opposition parties in Europe in addition to his own, which are fighting what he called the “hereditary enemy of Europe”: the Northern League in Italy, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swedish Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, and others. They are joining forces across the continent to preserve the civilization and culture of the West.

The next speaker was South African Dan Roodt, the founder of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group (PRAAG). In a very thought-provoking speech, “The White Man’s Burden: How the Colonial Mentality Brought Down European Civilization,” Dr. Roodt described the mentality that led to the psychological capitulation of whites. He pointed out that despite ritual condemnation of “imperialism,” the white man’s colonial burden really was one of uplift and dedication. He quoted Kipling: “Send forth the best ye breed/Go bind your sons to exile/To serve your captives’ needs.” Even after the end of colonialism, the former metropolitan countries supported their former charges through direct aid, medicine, and transfers of technology. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an example of massive private charitable transfer to the Third World, especially to Africa.

At the same time, women in the West have largely abandoned their traditional role as homemakers, and many now put more effort into careers than into child-rearing. Dr. Roodt said it could even be argued that by seeking employment outside the home, white women have shouldered the burden of continued wealth transfers to the Third World.

In South Africa itself, whites are ruled by blacks who make no secret of their desire to Africanize the economy and culture. Virtually all salaried positions in government and large businesses are now filled by blacks, though whites can still offer expertise as consultants. He said that whites are now, in effect, the “intellectual slaves” of their black rulers. At the same time, whites pay in taxes 63 times more than the benefits they receive from government. Because of racial preferences and anti-white bias, there are now 700,000 poor whites, many of whom live in miserable shanty towns.

The dispossession of whites is symbolized in the most brutal way by the continued torture and slaughter of white farmers. As Dr. Roodt noted, the world looks on with indifference at this slow genocide of families who may have plowed the same earth for generations.

Dr. Roodt pointed out that South African and Zimbabwe are simply the end point of the trends set in motion throughout the West, as immigration thins the ranks of whites. The future of the West, he said, will be played out in the next 40 or 50 years, but the future of the Afrikaner will be decided in the next 2 to 5 years. “The lessons of our struggle will be invaluable for the coming existential war of the West,” he warned.

The next speaker, education expert Robert Greenberg, spoke about the lies whites seem to be compelled to tell to and about blacks. Michael Holzman of the Schott Foundation, he noted, claimed that 63 percent of blacks drop out of Chicago public schools because they do not have access to advanced math classes. Mr. Holzman never explained how students who are puzzled by basic math would be helped by advanced courses.

When Michigan voters banned racial preferences in higher education, the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman, said the ban would set back the university’s quest for intellectual excellence even though it was clear that the beneficiaries of preferences rarely met even minimal academic standards.

Dr. Greenberg argued that whites tell lies like this for several reasons: It is a way to endorse the black agenda and thereby take the side of the virtuous oppressed; it may be possible to say something slightly unpleasant about blacks if it is surrounded with flattering lies; saying fantastic things about blacks is a rite of passage that eases whites into the ranks of the elite. In a black humor vein, Dr. Geeenberg suggested that this may be a way some liberals vent their contempt for blacks–that a white who has gone before the NAACP to say that every black child has the brains to do well college may go home later and tell his wife that blacks are so stupid they actually believe this rubbish.

Dr. Greenberg was pessimistic about the likelihood of whites beginning to speak truthfully. Lies win plaudits, honors, and promotions, while the truth–which is usually unpleasant–is greeted with mock horror and obloquy. Lies will therefore continue to drive out truth, as the country continues its decline.

In a talk titled “The Current State of Race Relations,” Jared Taylor characterized the present age as one of “belief in miracles.” He recalled the rapture that greeted Mr. Obama’s election and inauguration, and attributed it to the realization among Americans that race continues to be a colossal problem that cannot be solved without miracles. He listed a few of the miracles in which we must believe: that the effect of genes can be overcome by environment, that diversity can be transmuted from a weakness into a strength, and that a ballooning population will somehow not thwart our goal of energy independence nor burden the environment.

He noted that one “anti-miracle” the country actually can count on is the sustained cowardice and stupidity of whites. He cited the vote in Congress last year to remove the ban on racial discrimination from the enabling legislation of the Coast Guard Academy. The academy is now officially free to discriminate in its admissions, prompting the black congressman Elijah Cummings to say with a straight face that blacks are now finally ensured of federal protections against discrimination. Mr. Taylor noted that 86 percent of US senators and congressmen are still white, and wondered what they thought as they voted for a provision that was clearly meant to discriminate against their own children.

Mr. Taylor chided some race realists for believing in their own miracle: that the economic and social systems will soon collapse, and that a strong white racial consciousness will emerge from the rubble. Instead, he urged whites to take advantage of the rising anger against the direction in which the country is moving and to undertake the hard, painstaking work of politics. Even just a few race realists on school boards or city councils would have a huge psychological and propaganda effect, and would begin to channel current frustrations in promising directions.

Mr. Taylor concluded by saying that although times have never been better for success, the chances of success do not matter because whites have a duty to their ancestors and to their descendants to work for the preservation of their people and culture.

Attorney Hugh Kennedy described the prospects for hate-speech legislation in the United States and ways to resist it. He pointed out that the robust First Amendment protections we take for granted are the result of judicial rulings that are surprisingly recent and vulnerable. In fact, only a few years after the adoption of the First Amendment, Supreme Court justices presided over Sedition Act trials that were plainly repugnant to the First Amendment as we understand it today. The rationale for these trials was that the amendment prohibited only prior restraint of certain kinds of speech, not punishment after the fact. It was not until 1931 that the Supreme Court struck down a government act as inconsistent with freedom of speech.

Mr. Kennedy suggested how a future Supreme Court might subvert its own, recent precedents and uphold a hate-speech law. One approach would simply purport to return to a pre-1931 “original understanding” or prior-restraint conception of the free speech clause. The Court could even point to the 1952 Beauharnais decision, which upheld an Illinois hate-speech law and has never been expressly overturned. The Court could also adopt Justice Ginsburg’s recommendation that our courts pay more attention to European law, which overwhelmingly favors hate-speech legislation. Mr. Kennedy nevertheless pointed out that the Court’s rulings that set an “imminent threat of lawlessness” standard for suppression of political speech are very strong, as is the American culture of freedom of expression.

Mr. Kennedy also described less direct means of government interference with speech, including enforcement of foreign hate-speech judgments in US courts, hate-crimes prosecutions, and federal, state, and local campaigns of harassment, defamation and surveillance. Mr. Kennedy urged the potential targets of hate-speech legislation to use the judicial system vigorously to resist such efforts. The affected groups may lack resources and experience with the system, but useful allies may be found among civil rights groups that often are hostile on other issues. Mr. Kennedy warned that cynicism about the courts does not excuse passivity in the face of threats to our freedom to speak.

Raymond Wolters spoke about some the work he has done for his forthcoming book, tentatively titled, Profiles in School Reform. He plans to devote a chapter to the arguments of race realists and their attempts to end the blackout on the question of race and IQ. He noted that the mainstream media give the impression that only a few “maverick” psychometricians think race has any link to IQ, but that ever since the famous–but anonymous–Snyderman and Rothman survey of 1988, this has been proven completely wrong.

The pressure of ignorant conformity is immense. Even James Watson, the Nobel-prize-winning discoverer of the double helix, could not endure the torrent of criticism he suffered when he suggested that the genes for intelligence would eventually be discovered and would be found to be unequally distributed in different populations. He apologized “unreservedly,” and claimed “there is no scientific basis” for the views he expressed.

Prof. Wolters also spoke of Chinese-American Professor Bruce Lahn’s research, which found evidence for racial variation in the distribution of mutations that affect brain development. At first, in the face of criticism, Prof. Lahn stood his ground, saying that “society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts,” but he, too, recanted, concluding that “some knowledge might not be worth having.”

Prof. Wolters gave other examples of submission to dogma but closed with the more encouraging example of John Derbyshire, who spoke about racial differences to the Black Law Students Association of the University of Pennsylvania. His comments were received politely by the students, and despite criticism, Mr. Derbyshire retains his position as one of National Review‘s best-known writers. He even received much praise for speaking the truth and refusing to back down.

Prof. Wolters concluded that the arguments for race realism are strong and widely known, and that society will eventually have to grapple with them.

David Yeagley, the great-great-grandson of the Comanche leader Bad Eagle, spoke movingly in a talk entitled, “A Comanche View of White America,” which was received with a standing ovation. He began by explaining that even as a young child, he was vividly aware of the threats to his people and culture. When his grade school teacher asked the otherwise all-white class to draw pictures to encourage fire prevention, he drew teepees engulfed in flames, along with the words, “Stop this.”

And yet, despite the dispossession of the Indian by the white man, Dr. Yeagley cannot bring himself to hate whites; he admires them. He noted that no other conquering people ever named its states, cities, rivers, and even athletic teams and advanced weapons after a conquered enemy. To call an attack helicopter the Apache, he said, is to pay homage to the bravery and prowess of the defeated enemy.

Dr. Yeagley fully recognizes the crisis the now-denatured white man has created for himself, as he lets others push him off his own land. The great tragedy is that although the Indian fought valiantly to protect his land, the white man has lost his warrior virtues and is giving up without a struggle. The American white man, said Dr. Yeagley, has voluntarily become the “Indian of the 21st Century,” adding, “Let me be the first to welcome you onto the reservation.”

Liberals, he said, have made Indians their favorite anti-white mascots and cannot comprehend an Indian who admires the warrior qualities of the white man of old. Conservatives, as well, shut their ears when an Indian warns them that they are destroying their country through immigration. Dr. Yeagley said that he used to speak often to conservative and neo-con groups, but that invitations are drying up. He added that after having listened to conference speakers from South Africa, Europe, and the United States describe the threats to white civilization, he found the invitation to speak at an American Renaissance conference to be perhaps the most rewarding of his career.

Adrian Davies, a British trial lawyer, spoke about nationalist developments in Europe. He noted that although generous welfare cushions the blows of economic hard times better than in the United States, the current crisis was causing many Europeans to rethink the directions in which their nations are heading. He noted the significance of Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent concession that “multiculturalism has failed.” He added that although British elites can insulate themselves from the effects of demographic transformation, the common people now understand that many aspects of Third-World immigration are incompatible with British values.

Mr. Davies surveyed the recent progress of nationalist parties in such places as Austria, Switzerland, France, and Eastern Europe, but lamented the inability of some nationalists to set aside ancient quarrels in the name of a united front in defense of Europe. He pointed out that, for example, the Hungarian nationalists of Jobbik are at daggers drawn with the Slovak National Party because it supports the mandatory use of the Slovak language, which Jobbik considers a form of oppression of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. It also has a dispute with the otherwise largely compatible Greater Romania Party over Transylvania. German and Polish nationalists disagree about the border that was redrawn after the Second World War.

The unfortunate effect is that nationalists have had great difficulty establishing parliamentary groups in the European Parliament, which confer considerable powers and privileges. Nationalists may also be unable to put together a single list for future elections to the Euro-Parliament in which some seats will be reserved for groups capable of agreeing an Europe wide single list, but Mr. Davies expressed the hope that Europeans will soon settle these family squabbles and unite to preserve the West.

Sam Dickson, who has addressed every AR conference since the first one in 1994, began by noting that the cancellation of the 2011 conference showed just how unsure of itself today’s racial orthodoxy has become. The city of Charlotte fears us and wants to suppress us precisely because our ideas are powerful and our vision is clear.

Mr. Dickson then made a heartfelt statement about the goals of our movement. He first noted that we should not be called “race realists” but, instead, “racial communitarians” or “racial idealists.” He pointed out that a sense of community with one’s racial kin is healthy and normal, and argued that to ask whites to turn their backs on their race and people is like asking parents to turn their backs on their own children.

He said he longed for a white ethnostate that would be a home for all whites–rich and poor, conservative and liberal, hetero- and homosexual, brilliant and slow–in which they could be confident that their traditions and peoplehood would flourish. He pointed out that only an ethnostate can practice a genuine tolerance for all, as opposed to the brittle, agonizing “tolerance” of the multi-cultural experiment. Whereas an ethnostate automatically accepts and nurtures all its members, an “idea nation” of the kind proposed for the United States is constantly fractured by the incompatible demands of warring ethnicities. Ironically, he added, it is only ethnostates that can preserve the true and beautiful diversity of man, which is destroyed in the multi-culti mish-mash.

Mr. Dickson described the creation of the state of Israel, reestablished after 2000 years of diaspora, as the most powerful expression of peoplehood in the history of the world. In that sense, he said, racial idealists are Euro-Zionists, striving for a land that reflects our values and aspirations, just as Israel reflects the values and aspirations of its people. His conclusion of the conference was met with a sustained standing ovation.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

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.

Comments are closed.