In defense of an openly-racist magazine

Dear Hannah,

One nearly universal fact of human nature is that if you tell people not to read something, they'll begin to want to read it.  Another fact is that if a man begins to feel like the "good guys" are hiding something from him, he'll wonder whether the "bad guys" are going to give it to him straight.  The unfortunate but expectable result of these is that if you have a kid spend his childhood watching movies with "anti-racist" themes (with whites as the racists, naturally), and send him to a leftist college, and he hears little-to-nothing in the media about atrocities committed by non-whites, and then suddenly encounters a website like American Renaissance, he's going to find it extremely interesting.

An openly white-nationalist magazine like American Renaissance can only have a limited impact upon a mixed-breed half-Hispanic like me.  Dozens of horror stories throughout the year about Hispanics can only go so far when a man already has a large and rock-sturdy Hispanic family.  But the fact that American Renaissance has so many horror stories about them at all is what matters.  A nearly total silence from the mainstream media for years involving any black or Mexican or Arab atrocities, and you suddenly begin to realize you've been duped -- that everything you've ever known about whites being the aggressors against minorities has been a superseded by something much uglier: a world in which no group is innocent. 

Suddenly, you begin to encounter horror stories in local news pages about white women being tortured and murdered by black men; illegal aliens raping people in alleys; Muslim fanatics beheading their own children for falling in love -- with honkies.  And after a few of these stories, you begin to develop something aside from a general sensation of shock.  You almost immediately begin to get angry.  

Not at the white-nationalists who talk about these things, or even simply at the people who did them, but overwhelmingly at the people who hide them.  You begin to wonder why, as soon as Obama took office, the US Department of Justice's National Victimization Report doesn't inlude racial statistics; or why nobody really knows which races and religions are responsible for the majority of discrimination lawsuits.  Or why lynch mobs are being organized whenever black thugs get shot by police, and nobody is protesting too openly about black shootings.  And the answer is clear.  A man who overwhelmingly showcases the atrocities of one race is running a propaganda war against it.  And the people in charge of our government and media believe we're stupid enough to believe them.  On the whole, they're right. Except the problem with Westerners isn't even so much that we're stupid: it is that we lack the balls to read papers by the unpopular but intelligent people we disagree with.

The irony of the situation should be plain to everyone.  A magazine like American Renaissance is doing what the champions of diversity are supposed to be doing -- which is giving us a complete picture of mankind, so that we can know what to do with it.  If nearly everyone is interested in the crimes and follies of whites, American Renaissance is the magazine interested in the crimes and follies of everyone else.  We say they're one-sided, but they really bring balance.

The unfortunate truth about interracial relations in a multiracial society is that there will be more interracial murders and rapes and robberies, not less -- because murder is what people do.  And there certainly won't be murder in the same proportions -- because difference is what happens when races are diverse.   Asians for the next hundred years will never have neighborhoods as bad as Ferguson or Compton; which is why American Renaissance's Jared Taylor touts the intelligence and civilization of Asians.  Thus diversity will absolutely mean more black and white and brown men holding hands in prayer.  It will also mean more black and white and brown men hacking one another to death with machetes.  It's impossible that it could be otherwise, and the more accurate knowledge we have about these things, the better.  For we can only act wisely when we know what we're dealing with.  We can only progress when we know where we stand.

If there's any lesson to be learned from this, it's that we can no longer trust any side of the matter entirely.  If we're going to follow Matt Walsh on Facebook, we must also follow Rachel Maddow.  If we're going to watch Glenn Beck or read The American Thinker, we have to read The Daily Kos and Salon.  And the reason is simple.  Not because our ideologies are equally valuable, but because everyone has an agenda; and they'll report what they're most interested in reporting and nothing more -- not because people are evil, but because we don't have the time or the attention spans to think about everything. 

We have already entered a new and multiracial world, something not altogether unlike The Tower of Babel.  But a difference in language isn't the only reason men end up parting.  They can also end up fighting because their perspectives are totally different.  Thus it's our job to be the complete men -- the well-rounded men -- the enlightened men.  But to be complete men, we have to first be humble men.  And if being enlightened means watching out for uncomfortable truths, then let us thank even the openly-racist men like Jared Taylor for making us uncomfortable.

Your father,


  1. What a pleasure to come across a well written political blog where actually thought is occurring.

  2. *Racist* is a word you use often. After reading this essay and its portrayal of Jared Taylor as "openly racist," I fear you use it *too* often. When we describe a scholar who thinks the races are not endowed with equal helpings of intelligence with the same word we would use to describe a beer-bellied vandal who burns crosses, we put both the scholar, who is right, and the vandal, who is scum, in the same moral category.

    The British have a word, *racialist*, for one who believes the geographic divisions of man to differ in ways that are more than superficial. The Brits distinguish a racialist from a racist, someone who would visit harm upon or withhold courtesies from those of a disfavored race.


Post a Comment