Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, December 1993
Naturally, it is disappointing that an old friend should read AR for three full years and remain unconvinced by it. Even so, you gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long time, longer than any friend or editor could have asked.
Of the many objections you raise, there is only one that really matters. It is the view that for whites to think in racial terms is inherently evil and can only be the result of animus, or “hatred” as the press invariably calls it. Racial consciousness among whites has been forced underground because so many people have been taught to think this way. I must say that it is painful that you should think this of me. It is irritating to be thought evil by strangers; it is dispiriting to be thought evil by one’s friends.
By your own admission, though, much of what AR says is persuasive. Am I wrong to suspect that if you no longer thought it immoral, your other objections would drop away? You are rejecting a view that, as you concede, promotes your own interests and that may even express your own instincts. Nevertheless, you are willing to forego an advantage because you think it wrong — an admirable position to take.
The scruples you express are, I believe, one of the hallmarks of our people. I think that to an unusual degree, whites must believe that what they do as a group is not just expedient but moral. That is one of our great strengths, and the last thing I would ask is that you set aside your scruples. My task is to convince you, and others who share your instincts for fairness and generosity, that it is not merely natural but right for whites to assert their own interests. Only then will they use their distinctive qualities to defend their race and culture rather than, as they do now, permit their own dispossession in the name of those qualities.
Before considering this all-important question I will reply to the objections I think less important. The first two are parts of the same argument: It does no good to promote the AR view of the world because that world will never be.
“Historical processes,” you say, “have already overrun the racialist’s hour.” A moment’s reflection should convince you that this is not so. Racialism now marches from strength to strength — but for everyone but whites. In the United States, blacks, Hispanics, and even Asians are banding together along racially exclusive lines as never before to extract privileges from whites. For millions of non-whites, race is central to their identities and informs everything they think and do. Indeed, every corner of every continent is exploding with assertions of peoplehood — sometimes violent — that reflect not just race but human differences of all kinds.
The current racial regimen is one of unilateral disarmament. Whites can be bullied and intimidated by non-whites because non-whites have clear understandings of their racial interests and whites do not. For blacks, especially, race comes before anything else. No matter how much they may differ among themselves, they almost invariably close ranks against whites.
This is why the rap singer Sister Souljah’s advice to blacks — that they leave off killing each other for a week and kill whites instead — was not repudiated by other blacks. It is why the thugs who nearly killed Reginald Denny at the start of the Los Angeles riots were lionized as “The L.A. Four.” It is why a man so corrupt and incompetent as Marion Barry has been re-elected as mayor of Washington, DC.
What you meant to say is not that there is no hope for the white racialist. To that I would say only that ten years ago no one expected the Soviet Union to disappear, Germany to be reunited, or Yugoslavia to be torn apart. History is far from over. French royalty was at the height of its glory when it was struck down by revolution. Who can say that the current “tyrannies of liberalism,” as even you call them, are not at flood tide and may soon recede? In Europe, the racialist right influences national policy. Is such a development unthinkable in the United States?
In any case, if you are a man willing to forego advantage in the name of what is right, surely you can understand persistence in a cause simply because it is right. There may never be world peace or a cure for cancer or an America as it should be, but people devote their lives to these things because it is right to do so and because much good can be accomplished short of total success.
Unless I have misunderstood it, your objection that racialism has no “religious possibilities” is the weakest of your arguments. I do not claim that the defense of race and culture is a religious task, but I see it as far more spiritually uplifting than its opposite. The reality of multi-racialism crushes the spirit. What are the special religious possibilities that are to be found in Detroit, Camden, Miami, or South-Central Los Angeles? Godhead may or may not be found in devotion to one’s people, but there is the very devil to be found in every American city that has been transformed from white to non-white.
Our country has made a kind of secular religion out of the belief that pouring the nation’s wealth into cities wrecked by non-whites will somehow bring back clean streets and polite neighbors. The real work that goes into this task is grim and spirit-killing; I do not believe that it is, for anyone, “the end of all our exploring” that you seek.
To turn your religious argument on its head, there are many things you care about passionately — poetry, integrity, beauty, work well done — that you do not, as far as I know, think of as having religious possibilities. Why must racialism have such possibilities in order to gain your support?
Questions of Biology
I am surprised that you write as if an interest in the scientific study of racial differences is only a cover for vulgar feelings of repugnance. Any number of people — and I count myself among them — have approached the questions of race and IQ from a desire to know the truth. And the truth, by the way, includes the likelihood that North Asians are more intelligent, on average, than whites. Let the chips fall where they may.
You remind me of the Victorian lady who said, when first hearing of Darwin’s theory of evolution: “I pray that it is not true, but if it is true, I pray that it will not become widely known.” The link between race and IQ is almost certainly true, and it is becoming widely known. AR has taken up this question at some length, so I will not cover old ground. I will say only that one of the greatest challenges our nation faces — and one utterly unacknowledged — is the desperate need to devise a humane system that recognizes the differences in abilities of the races.
The current pretense of equality only creates injustice, bitterness and a relentless destruction of standards. It guarantees that every attempt to solve racial problems will only make them worse. If all one did with one’s life were to publicize the truth about race and intelligence, it would be a great service to justice and progress.
Thus it is not the racialist who strings his views into “a veritable rosary, an unthinking incantation” as you so gracefully put it. It is the egalitarian who lets his predispositions blind him to the facts. There are no racialist or even conservative mantras to numb the brain like “All men are created equal,” “We are a nation of immigrants,” or “Diversity is our strength.” Liberals will chant these slogans right up to the edge of the precipice. These are your rosary, to which you might add another bead, “White racial consciousness is evil.”
We come, therefore, to the heart of the issue. Is it moral for whites to defend their race and culture?
The fundamental question you raise is this: Is it moral for whites to defend their race and culture? In a country in which every other group makes constant racial demands at the expense of whites the answer to this question should be obvious. And yet, many whites think that even though racial consciousness is fine for every other group, for whites it would be uniquely evil. Since they do not even think in terms of their common interests, they do not see how much they have already lost.
Conquest by Mexico
There are several ways to illustrate this. Let us imagine, for example, that Mexico were to invade and conquer the south-eastern part of the United States. What would the Mexicans do with their new territory? They would establish Spanish as the official language of school and government. They would expel much of the white population and replace it with Mexicans. They would abolish American holidays and replace them with Mexican ones. Music, food, education, work habits, and religion — all would become Mexican rather than American.
Of course, this is exactly what has already happened in many parts of California and Texas. Ballot papers are printed in Spanish, people speak Spanish in school and watch Mexican television, towns celebrate Cinco de Mayo instead of the Fourth of July, and whites have been displaced by Mexicans. A similar invasion from Central America and the Caribbean has, in 30 years, reduced Miami’s former 90 percent white majority to a 10 percent minority.
Those parts of the country are lost to our people and to our culture. What was once America is now ruled by aliens. Astonishing as this may be, we have given up the very thing that nations send their young men into battle to die for. The integrity of a people, race, or culture are among the few things that nations so cherish that they willingly sacrifice even millions of lives to preserve them. Why? Because the preservation of the nation of one’s forefathers is more important than life itself.
There is no prospect more horrible than the extinction of one’s people and culture. One’s own death is an irrelevance by comparison. Every healthy people knows this without a moment’s reflection, and that this knowledge should have slipped from the minds of white people is a sign of the sickness that must be cured.
If it is moral to resist an armed invasion of our nation, surely it is still more moral to resist one that is unarmed but produces the same result. If it is legitimate to kill people in order to prevent conquest, it should be even more legitimate to prevent conquest without shedding blood.
Ideas similar to mine have been expressed by former Senator Eugene McCarthy, of all people. He points out that the essence of colonization is the imposition of alien practices upon a native people. In this sense, Sen. McCarthy calls America a colony of the world. He notes that we have the power to resist alien impositions but that we fail to exercise it. We admire Mahatma Gandhi for resisting alien imposition from Britain, but any white American who resists alien imposition from every nation on earth is called a racist and bigot.
This inversion of morality is cultural and racial capitulation that may be without precedent in the history of the world. Never before has a dominant people simply abandoned territory to newcomers who decide to remake it in their own image. It is as perverse as would be an athletic team that cooperated with its opponents to defeat itself, or a political party that turned over all its elected seats to the opposition.
If the poorest, least educated Americans were pouring across the border into Mexico, going on welfare, demanding instruction in English, and insisting on the ballot for non-citizens, would it be immoral for Mexicans to send them home? Of course not.
Somehow, for us, it is not merely immoral to send Mexicans home; we are to think of their arrival as a “celebration of diversity.” To “celebrate diversity” is nothing more than to cheer the dwindling number of whites, be it in a school, an office, a neighborhood, city or nation — and only whites could have been browbeaten into applauding their own losses. Just how much “diversity” are we supposed to celebrate? Will whites be allowed to remain a majority, or does “diversity” require that we become a minority? May we continue at 49 percent of the population, or are we to keep “celebrating diversity” until immigration and differential birth rates reduce us to nothing?
Ultimately, our society is headed towards the marginalization of whites and their culture. Clearly, this would take several generations, but is that not the direction we have chosen? At “the end of all our exploring,” to use your phrase, I do not want to find Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines, or any combination of them. I want to find America. Why is that illegitimate or immoral?
Please note that the doctrine of diversity assumes that it is only whites who suffer from the strangely undefined horrors of homogeneity and who must be blessed with “diversity.” No one is asking Mexico to embark on “cultural enrichment” policies that would reduce the Hispanic population to a minority. People would immediately shout “genocide” at the very idea. Why do the same people view the equivalent “genocide” of white Americans with dispassion or even glee?
Within the United States itself, the same rule applies: Anything that was once all-white must be integrated, but non-whites may stake out an unlimited number of racially exclusive territories. This is most obvious in the case of blacks, who consistently establish black student unions, black newspapers, black political caucuses, black private schools, black neighborhoods where whites are unwelcome. The rule is consistent: “diversity,” dispossession, and dwindling numbers for whites; racial solidarity, ethnic pride, and increasing numbers for everyone else.
By now you may have noticed that the morality of my position is based on nothing more than equal treatment. I want for my people only what I am happy to offer to others. Is not The Golden Rule the standard for morality? It likewise applies to races: Do not do to us what you would not want done to yourselves.
Assuredly, whites have not always lived by that rule, but we have been punished enough for our past sins. What I oppose is the stark asymmetry of a regnant ideology that requires whites alone to sacrifice their racial interests while all others promote theirs at our expense. In opposing this, my heart is “clean and faithful.” Why could yours not be?
The Fatal Asymmetry
There is, however, one aspect of the racial problem that will always be asymmetric. Mexicans do not come to America and blacks do not demand entree into white society because they kindly seek to share with us the benefits of “diversity.” They do not come to give but to take. They come because we have built better societies than they can and they want to profit from the work of our ancestors.
I do not reproach them for this; they want a better life for their children. But it means that “integration” is always a one-way street — non-whites pushing their way in among whites. Whites do not move to El Salvador or Burundi for a better life.
It is this eternal, fateful asymmetry that explains why the false struggles over “multiculturalism,” “xenophobia,” and “racism” are always fought out in white nations and are always used to put whites on the defensive. White nations attract aliens. In their misguided generosity, Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have now accepted enough non-whites to create parallel societies and racial friction.
There is no “xenophobia” problem in Bolivia or Chad because no foreigners wants to live there. No outside forces threaten the cultural or racial integrity of Harlem or Mexico or Haiti or the South Bronx or Cambodia or Nigeria.
It is because of their ability to build agreeable societies that whites face a problem no other races (except the Japanese and, soon, other North Asians) face: They must exclude others or be swamped. Our crisis is unique, for it is only whites who will be swept away if they do nothing. Only white nations must guard against the relentless, transforming influx of aliens who are not only different from us but who, increasingly, despise us and everything we stand for.
The Question of Blacks
You will argue, as many have, that even if these arguments apply to non-citizens who want to come to America, they do not apply to the descendants of Africans we brought here by force. Their circumstances are certainly different but the threat they pose is essentially the same.
First, it is worth noting that today’s blacks live among us because they want to. Despite the current fashion for Afro-centrism, practically no American black wants to live in Africa. A single visit to the dark continent is usually enough to cure even the fiercest black supremacists of that desire. They may take African names and wear African clothes, but they would rather live in a country with good public health and reliable telephones. Also, despite cliches about white American racism, there are hundreds of thousands of visa applications on file with our consulates in Africa. Africans want to come here as badly as anyone else.
It is African Americans who, in fact, demonstrate best the irreducible nature of race. Blacks have lived among us for centuries. They have been culturally formed on this continent. Yet, as a group, they are a greater threat to Anglo-European civility than even the non-whites who arrive as genuine aliens.
Blacks, more than anyone, profit from the wealth and orderliness of a society they cannot build or even maintain, while they cry “racism” because they do not have as much as whites. They insist on full participation in our communities and institutions, yet many take it for granted that they may exclude us from theirs.
Nothing remains the same after blacks have put their mark on it. Once the number of blacks reaches a certain level, schools, cities, neighborhoods, and even nations quickly lose the qualities that whites find necessary for civilized life. For all the reasons that AR has discussed, this cannot be blamed on slavery or Jim Crow. Blacks simply do not build communities in which whites can decently live. And once we have let them into our own communities, many of them openly vent their contempt for us by despising our heroes, breaking our laws, robbing, raping and killing us.
Everyone knows this, of course, even if few admit it. The question for me is what to do about it and the question for you is whether it is moral to do anything about it. In fact, you already have done something about it — the very thing most whites do. You have disengaged yourself and your family from blacks (and other non-whites) as much as possible. I think we can be sure that if Cape Cod had a majority black or Hispanic population you would not live there.
It is still possible to disengage oneself from non-whites because whites are still a majority. The tide of color rises slowly — block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood — but eventually, the demographers tell us, it will swamp us all. In this sense non-white Americans are no different from immigrants. They push their way into the midst of whites, who quite naturally withdraw. The territory they occupy then changes fundamentally and is no longer subject to the cultural and civic traditions dear to us. If parts of Texas and California are, for all practical purposes, occupied by Mexico, many of our cities have been occupied by Liberia. Camden, New Jersey, is just as lost to Western civilization as central Miami. Unless whites, as a race, can disengage from non-whites, they are doomed as a people and as a culture.
Something that complicates this issue is the fact that there will always be some non-whites who embrace our civilization and make important contributions to it. Yo-yo Mah plays the white man’s music as if his ancestors wrote it. Thomas Sowell writes beautifully in the tradition of European scholarship. Moreover, if the number of non-whites is small, even unremarkable people adopt the majority culture; they have no choice. But once the concentration of non-whites reaches a critical mass, racial-cultural loyalty becomes fatally divisive. We see the evidence for this everywhere. Our country is well into the stage of fatal divisiveness, and the racial fault lines grow deeper every day.
The problem, then, is this. If we do nothing, all of America will in time become Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles. There will be nothing left of the Anglo-European culture you and I both love. Nothing. The hopes and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been wasted, the civilization they built wrecked. Our survival is at stake, and I see nothing that will save us unless we are free to disengage.
Once again, this is our unique dilemma. Non-whites pursue us wherever we go because they covet what we build. But once they arrive in sufficient numbers, they destroy what they came to find.
All I ask is that whites be left alone to let their culture and civilization unfold unmolested. Is this too much? Is it immoral?
The Threat of Blood Bath
You seem to assume that the faintest white racial consciousness and the mildest posture of self defense will lead to blood bath. By wanting to be left alone in the preference of my own people do I proclaim myself a potential mass murderer? By noting that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln thought that a multi-racial society could not succeed, do I become a successor not to them but to Adolf Hitler? Were the debate about anything else, I think you would see how fantastic a mental leap you are making.
Consider President Clinton. He wants America to have socialized medicine. He wants a system in which medical treatment is paid for and consumed “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” But was that not the theory that led to Stalin’s massacres, the Gulag, the enslavement of Eastern Europe, and slaughter in Cambodia? Perhaps you had better warn the President.
I might note that ever since the French Revolution, far more people have been killed in the name of equality and the brotherhood of man than in the name of separation. Why is your fear so selective?
There is no doubt that by defending ourselves we will deny others something they want. This cannot be avoided. If someone wants your wallet, by defending yourself you deny him its contents. Some non-whites who want to live among us and profit from our achievements will not be able to do so. That will be unpleasant for them, but they will be denied only the benefits of a civilization they did not build.
It is good and generous for you to worry that non-whites might suffer if whites regain a sense of their own racial interests. But do our sufferings count for nothing? Do the deaths and losses of whites at the hands of black and Hispanic criminals count for nothing? Do the collapse of our public schools and the vilification of our traditions count for nothing? Do the hardships of whites driven from their neighborhoods count for nothing? Does the transformation of our great cities into hives of degeneracy count for nothing? Does the long-term threat of cultural extinction count for nothing?
Sometimes it seems as though a majority of whites would prefer to disappear quietly rather than do anything that any other group would find unpleasant. Some people are extreme pacifists who would rather let themselves be killed than commit violence to save themselves, but they are invariably thought odd. Why is it that so many people who are not personal pacifists are nevertheless racial pacifists? They would not hesitate to defend their families but they refuse to defend their race and culture when threatened in a similar way.
Of course, self defense is not a license for violence, and it is not possible to guarantee that self defense will never go too far. However, our choice is between dispossession and some act to forestall dispossession. The normal, healthy, moral course is to act.
You claim to detect animus in the pages of AR and consider this reason enough to discredit racialism. Part of what you detect is, I believe, your own prejudices. Today, any expression by whites of racial consciousness is called “hate” just as the Soviets used to treat any interest in free markets as mental illness.
I have a first loyalty to my people, to my race and culture. It is not because they are the best — however much I may like them — but because they are mine. As the French proverb puts it: “All nations think themselves better than their neighbors; and all nations are right.” Somehow, in the last several decades, the rules changed, but only for white people. If a black man says “I love black people,” or if a Hispanic says “I love Latinos,” they are taken at their word and no one disapproves. If a white man says “I love white people,” he is treated as if he had said “I hate spics and niggers.”
I think that much of the animus you claim to detect is nothing more than the application of this double standard, but let us assume that there is more to it than that. If animus is to be found in AR it is certainly not the driving force of racialism; it is, instead, a natural response to a real threat to white, Western society. AR is not an intellectual pose designed to conceal the subjective sin of racial animus. Instead, both animus and white racial consciousness are natural responses to the objective threat of dispossession. Those who most naturally provoke animus are the people of our own group without whose help and encouragement non-whites could not threaten us.
You write as if we still lived in an overwhelmingly Anglo-European society with a smattering of helpless non-whites who deserve justice and tolerance. To feel animus toward a powerless out-group that poses no threat would be blameworthy; not to feel animus or at least dread for groups that threaten the very character of our nation — and for the whites who cheer them on — is wholly unnatural. As liberals always do, you see any healthy attempt to preserve the European character of our country as evidence of a moral flaw.
I will draw a parallel that may explain how it feels always to have one’s motives impugned and one’s arguments ignored. You love your sons more than you care for the children of strangers — not necessarily because they are better than all other children but because they are yours. That is natural and healthy. I think you would agree that loving your sons does not in any way imply that you hate other people’s children or wish them harm. Let us now imagine a society built on the assumption that all adults should care equally for all children. People have actually tried out this idea and, of course, it has failed.
In such a society, your natural emotions would be called bigotry. Any expression of love for your children would be called “hatred” for the children of others. Any attempt to explain that loving your own children implied no hatred for others would be called “cogent, calm arguments that chill the soul,” which is how you characterize racialist reasoning. How would you feel as the target of such accusations?
In fact, the real situation is far worse. All other parents take it for granted that they should love their children but they don’t give a fig for yours. It is only you, who must sacrifice for the children of others. To put it in racial terms, is this not what affirmative action and “diversity” require of whites? To love the children of non-whites more than they love their own? To accept race-based penalties so that other races can reap race-based rewards? To cheer their own dispossession and to rejoice as their numbers dwindle? And to be dismissed as degenerates if they refuse to embrace this travesty?
The defense of one’s people is not, as you call it, “the easy way out.” Your way — to do nothing — is the easy way. There will still be classical music and productions of Shakespeare and Independence Day parades for as long as you and I are around to enjoy them. Our country will slowly get grimmer and darker, more blighted and more violent, but even if we do nothing, there will always be enclaves of Anglo-European civility to which we can escape.
It is your grandchildren who will inherit a nation in which they are a despised minority, one in which they will be unable to avoid the barbarism, incompetence, and corruption of the third world peoples who may have displaced us. Your grandchildren may live on a spit of land called Cape Cod, but it will not be the Cape Cod you live on. Through your inaction it will have become what Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles are today.
My contemporaries may curse me for what I do; your grandchildren will curse you for what you did not do.