We then coincided at a brunch that was held the morning after the event. As I was to take a flight back to the United Kingdom in the afternoon, and as his base is on the way to the airport, he suggested I take an early cab and stop by for a visit later in the day.

I accepted his invitation, and ordered a cab to collect me from the hotel at the appointed time.

The cab driver was a 46-year-old immigrant from Egypt, tall, slender, dark, with a lightbulb head. He had been in the United States for 16 years, during which time he had become a citizen, having previously worked for a five-star hotel in Saudi Arabia. From what he told me, he had been involved in the services industry all or most his working life, first in the hospitality business, and later in his present occupation, transporting live humans.

He told me that he had moved to the United States in order to rake in the cash, that he had sent his wife and children back to Egypt in order to spare them the West’s corrupting influence, that he intended to bring them over to America once they completed their secondary education, that he would put them through university there, and that he intended them to remain in America, where they would become citizens, so that they too could rake in the cash. As to himself, he would eventually return to Egypt and start a business there. He added that although living in the United States had transformed his life for the better, his heart was and would always be in Egypt. He put his palm over his cardiac muscle and looked to the sky as he thought of his homeland.

In due course this amiable conversation turned to more pressing matters, as the cab driver got lost. Without a satnav, and relying on a printout from Google Maps, he drove us in the wrong direction for lightyears, perplexed by Google’s elliptical instructions, before finally turning around and stopping at a petrol station to ask for directions. (While I waited, I noticed prognathous Hispanics, shod in rubber flipflops, idling in the parking bays immediately in front of the shop, joking casually and munching snacks; they only moved when the cab driver shoved them aside with his Lincoln.)

Armed with new instructions, my Egyptian driver headed towards Jared’s green and pleasant woodland suburb. There, however, he got lost again, and he drove us up and down a main road four times, forsaken by Google, until he telephoned my host to get further instructions. The situation became comical, since poor Jared, otherwise an accomplished linguist and polyglot, could barely understand the driver, who butchered every street name in his heavily accented English.

‘Menrod. Am in menrod,’ he said.

The Egyptian had to repeat himself twelve times before his pronunciation could be decyphred.

But, eventually, we made it.

I asked for a discount to my fare, which was granted—I think the driver was about to offer it anyway. I caught a crease on his brown forehead as he turned to leave, shaking his head, annoyed with himself.

‘I thought a lot about you on the way here,’ I told Jared. Indeed, the incident seemed an oddly appropriate staging for White Identity, the Virginian’s most recent book, which I obtained during my visit.

White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century is a sequel of its author’s earlier book, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America.

The book is everything I expected it to be: elegant, measured, well argued, accessible, and vacuum-packed with information.

The latter is, without a doubt, the tome’s most salient feature, for the author backs up his theses with such a profusion of examples that it becomes impossible not to see it as missionary zeal, despite the sober prose. The examples range from the infuriating to the grotesque, and in some cases the situations or incidents described are so ridiculous that they would be risible, were they not so tragic.

White Identity contains little about White racial identity. This is because these days there is generally no such thing. There is plenty, however, about Black and Hispanic identity in it, which the author argues is normal, natural, and good—except, of course, for Whites in the United States. Because said Whites have unilaterally disarmed themselves while simultaneously arming their competition out of fondness for universalist abstractions.

The main argument of White Identity is that in a world where everyone else thinks in terms of race and pursues their racial interests, Whites will need to rediscover theirs if they are to avoid being eaten alive by racially conscious groups.

In turn, the main assumption behind the book is that it will be read by Whites and that enough of them will be persuaded by its contents to reassess the value of an egalitarian diversity ideology. This assumption belies a secondary one: that anger at and frustration with the negative effects of diversity will eventually cause Whites to develop racial consciousness. The more fundamental assumption, therefore, is that humans think and act rationally.

But of course, this is not the case, as otherwise there would not have been any need to write White Identity.

Consequently, there is a depressing contradiction between the book’s cause and its intended effect. This broken causality chain means that, for all its merits, the book will fail to achieve its objectives: it will be read by those already favourably predisposed to its author or his worldview, by the author’s existing fans, and by ideological enemies seeking to scare people away from identifying with its theses; and readers outside these categories will, if they are ever allowed to catch a glimpse of the book, content themselves with imagining what it says based on what they know or think they know about the author.

The lack of a way forward has already been noted by another reviewer, and results from an ultimate belief in the rationality of man.

That aside, White Identity makes two valuable contributions.

Firstly, and as has already been noted, it collates in a convenient, single volume a wealth of data from innumerable news and scientific sources. It is, in fact, fully comprehensive on diversity as a weakness. This makes it a powerful armamentarium for anyone desiring to impress debating this issue. It is very much its author’s brainchild, as Jared Taylor’s effectiveness in debate results from, besides his polish and intelligence, his ability endlessly to back up his arguments with precise data.

Secondly, it implicitly articulates the notion that Enlightenment ideals are only viable in homogeneous societies composed of White Westerners. This was not the author’s intention, but follows from his historical overview of White racial consciousness in the United States.

For the author, two centuries of coexistence between White racial consciousness and the Enlightenment ideals of the U.S. constitution rules out fundamental contradictions between them, and in quoting statements by the country’s founders he seeks to illustrate that they never intended to create a universal proposition nation, as Marxist revisionists and forgers pretend. Jared Taylor’s point is that they were racially conscious as Whites and that this consciousness was normal and natural up until fifty years ago.

Yet, it is clear from their statements that the founders did not think their Enlightenment project was compatible with a racially heterogeneous society, for they generally advocated either segregation or shipping the Black labourers back to Africa. They were enlightened in that they knew humans are different and are best in free societies that reflect their innate temperament and abilities because they are governed by people who are similar.

And it was not simply that the country’s founders thought genetically distant peoples could not be assimilated into a White European society, but also that their Enlightenment values were dangerous in the presence of Blacks, for, as some noted, Blacks did not internalise these values and only took advantage of the Whites who lived by them.

Thus, while White Identity does not directly address the question of why Whites lost their racial identity, it does glimpse an answer supplementary to those presented by Pat Buchanan in The Death of the West and Kevin MacDonald in the Culture of Critique. The latter author, particularly, stresses how enlightened rhetoric was hijacked by ethnic activists on the radical Left.

The problem lies not so much in ideological enemies or racial competition, for these are facts of life that will never go away. The problem lies with the Enlightenment values themselves, for their inbuilt universalist logic, irrespective of how they were interpreted in the past by Whites who had racial consciousness, in time inescapably leads to borderless, multiracial proposition societies. And this, in a world of instant mass communication, rapid motorised transport, globalised electronic commerce, exploding Third World populations, and ever more intense competition for resources, is a mechanism for self-destruction.

This is perhaps why White Identity cannot, rather than simply does not, show a way forward: it is ultimately predicated on Enlightenment values, while the way forward would necessitate abandoning those values, which in the United States would mean also abrogating the country’s constitution and rethinking it all from zero—inconceivable without secession or a total systemic meltdown.

What to do, then?

Some Americans have proposed secession and founding a White ethnostate. But this is only applicable in the United States and seems unlikely without Whites regaining their racial consciousness, followed by another civil war. And Whites will not regain any racial consciousness so long as it remains socially unacceptable for them.

Others, both in America and Europe, have pursued identity politics. This, however, is unlikely to prosper since politics makes possible only what is already widely accepted within the culture—it does not change the culture on its own.

In all cases, these proposals are flawed because they seek to change outward forms before changing inner substance.

Before White identity can be revived and political solutions can grow, it will be necessary to seed the culture with a different set of concepts, principles, and ideals, and to fertilise it with the right combination of emotional triggers: creative movements, intellectual currents, organising strategies, alternative self-reinforcing networks and status systems, and so on.

It is worth noting that if völkisch politics were successful (if flawed) in the past, it was only after dozens of artists, novelists, musicians, philosophers, sociologists, scientists, and mystics, not to mention a plethora of study groups, societies, clubs, and other organisations, along with publishers and publicists, had spent a century laying the groundwork. It was a slow, organic process that built an alternative society from the bottom up—an alternative society that was technologically advanced, but with long roots in ancient tradition.

Of course, we do not have the luxury of a hundred years, as they did, or as did the Left, who had no demographic sunset to contend with, but we do have the technological means to do the good work within a shorter timeframe. In a technologically advanced society, history is constantly accelerating. It will, nevertheless, take time to develop the synergies.

As the Enlightenment project, deformed as it is, continues to rush towards its logical extreme, the means will have to be found to retard its progress, for only when the cultural ground has been made viable for any kind of White identity will such an identity be viable enough to become a political force.

Racism is in bad odor among the virtuous. I wonder why. At least, I wonder why any discussion of race is thought to be racism. The United States faces grave racial problems—more accurately, has them but doesn’t face them. Refusal to acknowledge their existence is not productive: Few problems are solved by forbidding their mention. The question should not be whether views are racist, but whether they are wrong.

American Renaissance, run by Jared Taylor, is quite racist in the poorly thought out and sniffish sense prevalent today. AmRen (as it is generally known) has recently gotten much bad press because it holds all manner of views whose mention results in pack attack by our arbiters of What Can Be Discussed: For example, that blacks commit violent crime at far higher rates than do whites, that massive immigration from Latin America offers no advantages to the United States but a great many evils, that affirmative action lowers the competence of government, the universities, and schools in general—and so on.

These ideas are no doubt racist, yes. Unpleasant, yes. But—are they wrong?

I would prefer to think so. It gives me no pleasure and little hope to hear that black schools regularly produce functional illiterates, that the schools of Detroit and of the nation’s capital and for that matter of wherever blacks predominate are disasters, that savage beatings of whites by gangs of blacks are common and hidden by the media. That these things happen is of no advantage to me. I would be delighted to see blacks and Hispanics excelling academically. I would like to walk the streets of American cities without carefully noting pigmentation, which we all do and pretend we don’t. While I like Jared personally, I would like to tell him that his racial ideas were all wrong.

But are they?

On AmRen’s web site you find news stories, taken chiefly from the respectable publications, that in aggregate paint a grim picture of things racial in America. Can you show these to be in error, isolated instances, not representative of a larger reality? I hope so. But I can’t. Almost everything I read at AmRen well describes reality as I have seen it. And also as all cops have seen it, though telling what they know is a firing offense.

What we have is an ongoing catastrophe, documentable, indeed documented repeatedly but never openly examined. An apparent amicability is enforced by heavy federal pressure, by a press that censors itself, and by that poisonous fog that we call political correctness.

But consider. From the Detroit News, a story on the illiteracy of the president of the school board, as illustrated by his emails:

“If you saw Sunday’s Free Press that shown Robert Bobb the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools, move Mark Twain to Boynton which have three times the number seats then students and was one of the reason’s he gave for closing school to many empty seats.”

Or

“Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row’s, and who is the watch dog?”

The president of the school board? Confusing “our” for “are”? My daughters had better grammar at the age of three. A city that has such a man in such a position has no place in a civilized country.

Below the surface of the ominous calm lies massive anger. Hostility to affirmative action runs rampant, whether against female firemen who can’t handle hoses or black teachers who can’t spell. The number of people who would happily run illegal immigrants from the country at gun point is huge. When the races are not forced together, they separate like oil and water. The forcing is national policy. It has not proved a recipe for domestic happiness.

The tendency toward segregation equally among the smugly correct and the contents of Joe’s Bar. Many years back, the Washingtonian, the vaguely heterosexual coffee-table magazine of the District of Columbia, checked on how many of the Washington Post’s news room sent their shiny white children to the city’s black public schools. Zero. At the first evidence of fertility the town house on upper Connecticut goes on the block and another pair of liberal diversity-friendly Democrats bail for the albino warrens of Montgomery County. Yet the Post honks and blows most mightily against racial discrimination.

How does this mandated hypocrisy help find a solution to racial woes—if there is a solution? It doesn’t. I suspect that a prime reason for the current uneasy stasis is exactly that people have concluded that there can be no solution. The best thing is to hold the lid on and let future generations worry about it.

Suppose that you genuinely want the best for what are quietly called Permanently Disadvantaged Minorities, and you therefore suggest that officials, to include teachers, whose English is below the level of second grade be dismissed. God help you. You will be called a racist, elitist, cultural imperialist, and insensitive, and lose your job. Why bother? All you can do as a responsible parent is to move away from the crime, to put your children in the whitest schools you can find, on the principle that most whites can still read. This of course perpetuates the problem.

The same fetor of impossibility engulfs any effort at change. If you try to end the calculated recruitment of incompetence that is affirmative action, you eliminate a large part of the black middle class (such as the above-mentioned president of Detroit’s school board) and hell breaks loose. What do you do?

Nothing. Which is what we are doing. It is what we will continue to do.

The folk at the American Renaissance? They don’t offer much in the way of solutions, but I don’t fault them for this since I can’t offer a solution either. Anything that might work is politically impossible, and anything that is politically possible won’t work. It may be that nothing would work.

Are Jared Taylor and his fellows wrong in their description of the disease? Let’s hope. But I fear they aren’t. Whether, or that, they are racists doesn’t matter. Oncologists recognize cancer. They don’t necessarily like it.

AmRen would be easy to dismiss if it were a pack of bedraggled Nazis ranting about how Jews sacrifice Christian children. But it isn’t, which is why it is disturbing. Normally a story like the foregoing appear locally and are carefully, carefully not picked up nationally. The race of criminals is usually suppressed. The “achievement gap” in schools gets occasional mention, but the gravity of the situation does not. Thus AmRen, aggregating these news stories without apology, constitutes a form of intellectual blunt trauma.

But is it wrong?

As I have said repeatedly, the main reason people go to these conferences is for the networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action. I’m told some attendees have found mates there. The real conference takes place in the casual conversation that goes on in the breaks between speakers, at lunch, at the bar, at dinner, and after hours in the hotel rooms. The scheduled lineup of speakers is really just an excuse for geographically dispersed racialists to gather in a central location. It is a shame that Amren only puts on this show every two years.

We all know by now that public conferences have serious drawbacks. They attract anti-fascist scum who poison the environment and pressure hotels to cancel our reservations. Anyone can attend a public conference. This includes people who many of us would prefer to exclude. Antifa spies can attend, snap damaging photos, and use ritual shaming and guilt by association to damage the careers of high profile attendees. Lots of people don’t attend the public conferences for this reason. All of these factors combine to depress turnout.

A private conference has none of these disadvantages. The private model also retains the advantages that make a conference worth the expense of attending. If I were organizing a national conference, I wouldn’t even consider the public model. I would only invite people I know and trust and “known entities” who comrades can vouch for. The 2010 Amren conference was forced to adopt this model at the last minute. It is a superior model anyway, and I hope future conferences will be organized along these lines. Next time around this should be done well in advance.

The catch of the private model is getting new people involved in Amren and the broader White Advocacy movement. Lots of good people show up at the biannual public conferences who don’t have a record of previous involvement in the pro-White scene. They don’t know anyone. Quite often their racial views are still evolving. I have two friends who attended previous Amren conferences at this stage of their development. We need a new mechanism for getting newbies to the national conference while filtering out potential spies and saboteurs.

Local clubs are the solution to this problem. Ideally, we could create Amren clubs in every state of the union and the major metropolitan areas. These private clubs could host monthly events at local restaurants, state parks, or historical sites. There is an endless number of potential meeting places for this type of social networking. It is my understanding that the Chicago group has been doing this for years. New recruits could meet established racialists in their local area. These established racialists could then decide whether to recommend inviting them to the private national conference.

The networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action that go on at the biannual conference, which only lasts a few days a year, could potentially go on around the clock all year long. The only thing better than the biannual gathering is having racialist friends in your local area, on your college campus, or within driving distance. OD is taking its first steps in this direction with the Virginia Network. We already have a few local people who are interested in organizing a regional book club and touring the local historical sites. In particular, I can’t wait to get the time to hike the Blue Ridge Mountains and go kayaking in the spring.

I’m learning how to do online social networking with Pip Pockets. We’re gradually learning the basics of Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and YouTube. We plan to fully exploit all of these mediums to amplify our message and increase the size of the OD audience. We’re also going to take a hard look at podcasts. I’ve joked around several times now about adding a “Radio Free Virginia” section to OD after the site redesign. Jim Giles is correct when he says that radio and video are more powerful than the written word. Most Americans don’t have the patience to read more than a few lines of text. This limitation alone severely restricts the size of our potential audience.

Amren could profit by moving in this direction as well. They should have a daily updated WordPress blog and Facebook page. Twitter is still a mystery to me, but Stuff Black People Don’t Like is building a huge following there. I’m told that every journalist in America is on Twitter now. Young people love YouTube. There are all sorts of missed opportunities to exploit with video. All of these social networking mediums could be exploited to organize racialists into a web of real world state and regional groups. Personal interaction in the real world will drain a lot of the poisonous acrimony, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, fantasism, and backbiting that prevails in racialist circles on the internet.

Just some food for thought. If Jared Taylor plays his cards right, I think Amren could emerge from all this stronger and more influential than ever before.

Occidental Dissent, February 28, 2010

On the blogs and email lists I see essentially three strategies:

(a) Do not change, keep trying to hold the event in private facilities. Problem is, the current system is rigged against us. We are sitting ducks for these thugs.

(b) Buy up land somewhere and hold an event on private land. Fine for small invitation-only gatherings, but for events larger than a dozen it strikes me as pure fantasy. Even if it could be arranged, it sounds creepy and isolated. When people go to conferences they want to be close to restaurants and other amenities.

(c) Hold the event in a public venue. This is the best of the three, because it puts government into the picture as a mediator. However, it does not address how to deal with terrorism from groups like the One People’s Project. It is also vulnerable to government hostility towards the organizers.

I would like to offer another scenario. Before describing it I need to define the various components of an academic conference.

Speakers: Good speakers motivate people to pay a registration fee and travel.

Lecture facilities: Conferences provide a place for those attending to gather in one place and listen and ask questions in real time.

Comfortable lodging: People attending like to stay in an attractive, comfortable location, close to the lectures.

Face to face networking: It is often said that the real activity at conferences is between sessions. Conferences give people who share a profession, academic discipline, or interest an opportunity to meet and talk in person.

The standard approach to organizing a conference within our community is for one person or organization to reserve space for attendees to gather and listen to speakers in real-time (components 1 and 2), and also “book” a block of rooms (components 3 and 4 above) in the same hotel for attendees, perhaps at some discounted room rate. The terrorism (yes, terrorism) against the organizers of the 2010 AmRen Conference in D.C and the 2008 EURO Conference in Memphis demonstrate how pro-White events can be disrupted and even canceled through intimidation and threats of violence towards the management of the hosting facility. We can expect that the American Third Position will encounter the exact same problem when they try to stage a conference.

A New Model is Needed

A modernization of our approach to staging a conference through thoughtful application of commodity technology can preserve the essential nature of the conference experience yet make it impenetrable to the kind of tired, predictable harassment we have come to expect. The vulnerable point in the current model is booking the lecture venue. This is where our enemies attack. Our enemies focus on smearing the reputation of the person or people organizing the event, then forcing the hotel management into a “are you with or against the White Supremacists?” decision. Hotel management caves in to the pressure every time.

The way to make that vulnerability disappear completely is to remove the hotel management from the equation. Migrate the lecture component to commodity collaboration technology called a “Webinar” (or “webcast”). The model that I am proposing is actually a hybrid: traditional conference hotel gathering (face-to-face networking must be preserved), with an embedded Webinar. If we eliminate the need for a physical lecture space we can decentralize room reservations, too. In fact, in the model I propose, the conference organizers have no contact at all with the hotel management. The hotel management does not even know that a conference is taking place within its walls.

Webinars work as follows. Attendees register for the event. In exchange for registering they are sent a URL (and optionally a unique code) that they paste into their Web browser at a designated time of the event. A webinar presenter can broadcast to dozens all the way up to thousands depending on the software used (see note below on service options). Browser-based Webinars are now common in business as an alternative to travel.

Hypothetical Example

I will now illustrate through a hypothetical example how this could work. Let’s call this hybrid conference, EURO 2010.

David Duke announces that on Saturday, September 4 (Labor Day weekend), EURO 2010 will take place in Memphis. Speakers will include Duke; James Edwards of The Political Cesspool radio program; Greg Johnson, editor of The Occidental Quarterly; Bill Johnson, Chairman of the American Third Position; and others. The conference program starts at 9:00 am and ends at 5:00 pm. Registration is only $50 because the costs and risk of organizing an event have been radically lowered. Registrants receive a short list of Memphis area hotels, all clustered within a short distance of each other, where they are encouraged to stay during the conference. Why more than one hotel? It’s optional. More than one hotel makes it even harder to pinpoint an attack on us. Furthermore, if one hotel has no vacancies, it directs attendees to reserve a room at one of the other options. The total size of the conference is self-scaling. Registrants also receive a lapel pin that has printed on it a distinctive but non-controversial symbol.

Actually, the conference begins on September 3, at a local attraction. It could be Graceland. It could be someplace close to the hotels. EURO 2010 organizers choose a mid-morning walking tour of downtown Memphis, starting at Confederate Park. No event permit is necessary from the city because the quiet gathering is informal, just a starting place. (Alternatively, a formal permit could be requested if the organizers and attendees want to stage a public media event.)

There are several benefits to the gathering. The walking tour gives attendees an opportunity to meet up with old friends and perhaps make arrangements to watch tomorrow’s conference events in small groups. A nice secondary outcome of the gathering is to give people an opportunity to be out in the fresh air with like-minded folks, in a public place that has historical significance. If the location itself holds special meaning to European Americans, as Confederate Park in Memphis does for some of us, then the event itself adds to the lore of the place. (For a growing list of other places special to European Americans, review the entries on my blog, ourgazetteer.org.)

At 9:00 am Saturday morning attendees turn on their laptop computers and log into the conference Webinar. Folks without laptops join with others who do have a computer — sharing resources encourages collaboration and friendship building. Duke starts the conference off with a talk on the First Amendment. In addition to audio, Duke makes use of the Webinar application’s ability to broadcast a video feed from his computer’s built-in webcam. To facilitate two-way interaction, the Webinar software allows participants to send in questions via a chat window. Q&A is also possible via telephone. A moderator helps Duke to sort through the questions. It should be emphasized that Duke could be anywhere giving his talk. He could be in one of the three conference hotels or he could be across town at a friend’s house.

As it turns out, Duke and all but one of the speakers is broadcasting from the same hotel suite. Some people registered for the conference are not even in Memphis: Moscow, London, Los Angeles — all around the world. Attendees outside of Memphis miss out on the full experience, although this problem could offset that by getting together with friends and watching in a small regional group. During his talk, Duke suggests that conference attendees log into Twitter in a separate computer window or on their cell phones and use the hash tag #EURO2010 to post comments and links. This twitter feed serves as a public conference side channel. Notice the general shift towards decentralization. At the end of the talk Duke mentions that he will be eating lunch at the BBQ restaurant across the street if anybody wants to join him.

Following two more speakers, the conference pauses for a lunch break. A generous two hours offers attendees plenty of opportunity to talk over their meals. An incident breaks out at the BBQ restaurant. Jeffry Imm appears with a couple of cronies as Duke is about to walk inside. Imm starts to verbally assault Duke, but something interesting happens. Two large groups of conference attendees arrive and immediately stand between Imm and Duke. They repeatedly pepper Imm with insults: “loser,” “get a job,” “idiot” while inching him towards the curb until Imm backs down and slithers off humiliated. And every bit of it is recorded on video by a half dozen different people — attendees are strongly encouraged to carry some kind of video recording device. Within an hour the video is uploaded to YouTube, the link is posted to the conference Twitter feed and several blogs. Imm swallowed Duke’s bait, and the hook.

In the afternoon session, one speaker chooses to reduce the size of his video feed in order to make more room for a slide show that accompanies his talk, to emphasize and illustrate the talking points he is trying to convey. The other speakers stick to the talking head style, including Nick Griffin, who logs in from London. After the last speaker of the day, attendees disburse into the lobbies of the hotels and make arrangements to meet over dinner and drinks.

The continuum from implicit to explicit whiteness is represented in the hotel lobby. Some participants wear their conference lapel pins; others do not provide a single clue that they are registered for the conference. Texting between cell phones is used by many to facilitate real-time communication. Of course there are spies in attendance, but it hardly matters. They have no easy target to attack. What the spies see around them in the lobby are hotel guests. Conference attendees are energized by the cloak and dagger mischief.

Experiment

Keep our enemies off balance. I can envision variations of the Webinar model; for example, a Webinar could be used as a backup plan, in the event that a traditional lecture venue contract is cancelled. Or the morning session could be conducted through the Webinar, and right before lunch the location of a large afternoon meeting room is revealed.

I recommend running two or more half-day, invitation-only events. These experiments will help organizers work through the details of operating the Webinar software, try out Twitter, carefully consider how much information to release and when, etc. Through practice and attention, better microphones, cameras, and lights can be integrated to lend a more professional appearance to the Webinars.

With creativity and commodity technology it is impossible to stop a pro-White conference.

Webinar Options

DimDim (http://www.dimdim.com/): $79/month for meetings with up to 1000 attendees.

GoToWebinar (http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/webinar/gotowebinar_pricing): $499/month.

WebEx (http://WebEx.com): call for price.

Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/): call for price.

The Occidental Observer, February 26, 2010

Sheldon’s strategy of using Webinar technology would probably work — provide the benefits of a pro-White conference without drawing the attention of their Leftist opponents. It is an excellent prescription for a group that must remain underground in order not to expose its members to the usual costs of being associated with White advocacy (job loss, etc.).

The downside is that pro-White advocates would be implicitly accepting their status as an underground movement. Such meetings could essentially go on forever without effecting real change in the direction we all want.

It seems to me that we have to get above-ground visibility. We have to make noise and have a public presence if we are going to make real progress. We have to get in people’s faces and have the courage of our convictions. Hence perhaps Nick Griffin’s “frequently voiced despair over U.S. politics, given its lack of white nationalist parties” (in the WSJ article).

This is one thing that attracted me to American Third Position. The young men who are the backbone of the party go out onto the streets with signs and pamphlets advocating deporting illegals and other issues related to pro-White advocacy. They are not afraid of people spewing in-your-face hostility at them. (Guess what? You may be called a “racist” or a “Nazi.”) They do not hide away in secret conferences or restrict themsleves to discussing issues among themselves on private email lists.

Quite clearly, the left is well aware that public visibility would be the beginning of the end for their dominance of public discourse. That’s why the mainstream media has given almost no coverage to the cancellations of AmRen or Nick Griffin — the only exception I have come across is a brief mention in the Wall Street Journal. The article is noteworthy for not mentioning anything about the obvious implications for public discourse in America. The tone of the article is that some meetings of far right crazies got shut down — expressed in the same manner as a story on the cancellation of a meeting of the local school board because of a snow storm. Imagine the outrage if meetings of La Raza or the NAACP were shut down with similar tactics.

Meetings at privately owned facilities are problematic because businesses are likely to cave under the pressure of the left and I suppose that is their right as property owners.  Some people have suggested using government-owned facilities because denial by such a facility would raise First Amendment issues. I think this is a good idea. And we should be ready with attorneys willing to argue on our side if there are attempts at disruptions or if the government attempts to cancel the event for reasons like “public safety.” And we need security forces; and ways to identify the people who are doing the disrupting.

And it should all be out in the open.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 26, 2010

James Edwards

The Political Cesspool can be heard live each Saturday night from 6pm-9pm Central Time on AM 1380 WLRM in Memphis, Tennessee, and on the AM / FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network.

.

Jared Taylor

“2010 AR Conference Held Against All Odds”
Jared Taylor
American Renaissance, February 22, 2010

Despite unprecedented threats and intimidation, the 2010 American Renaissance conference took place in the Northern Virginia as originally planned. Four hotels successively broke their contracts to hold the event—the last one just two days before the conference was to begin—so we sent out notices to registrants telling them there was to be no conference.

However, our supporters refused to let us cancel! So many people told us they were coming anyway that we put together what turned out to be a very successful program. Now we are getting complaints from people who say they would have flown across the country if only they had known! There is a tremendous appetite for our people to meet, and hear straight talk about the crises our nation faces, and we were immensely heartened by the spirit of solidarity and commitment that galvanized this conference.

Three of the originally-scheduled speakers were on hand: Sam Dickson, Louis March, and I. The others had changed their plans, but we had first-rate stand-ins: Attorney Joe Sibley, Canadian activist Paul Fromm, and BNP candidate for Parliament Matthew Tait.

I opened the conference with an account of the unprecedented lengths “anti-racists” went to shut down our meeting. A partial account is available here, but this does not include the pressure put on the Capitol Skyline hotel, the fourth and last hotel to cancel. We had heard that the Capitol Skyline stands firm in the face of people who try to push them around, and we explained in every detail the bullying and the death threats that had led the other hotels to cancel. They said they were happy to get the business. We drew up a contact on Tuesday, February 16—just three days before the conference was to begin—and put out the word that the conference was back on.

Our opponents, mobilized after the pressure they had put on other hotels, struck quickly. They flooded the Capitol Skyline with hostile calls. Someone came onto the property and shoved lurid pamphlets under guest-room doors. A hotel official told us people were pressuring their suppliers to say they would take away their business if the hotel offered us a forum. He added that he had heard that a high-school class was going to come out to protest and leaflet the hotel. Zealots harassed the hotel’s owners, and threatened to march on the hotel during the conference. We have heard that there were death threats.

The Capitol Skyline held out for about 24 hours before it capitulated. It was 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday the 17th, and we again had no venue for a conference that was 47 hours away. So much for freedom of speech and assembly in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Our supporters refused to stay home despite our cancellation notice, so here we were despite it all.

I then went on to speak on my original conference subject, “What Is at Stake for Our People.” I recalled Sam Francis’s words from the first AR conference in 1994 that got him fired from the Washington Times: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people. . . .” I also recalled that I had said the same thing more prosaically: “We have the right to be us, and only we can be us.”

I noted that every one of us in that room had a deep love for that great flowing river which is the genetic and cultural heritage of Europe, and that we all believed that river should and would flow on forever. I pointed out that my generation, which grew up in the 1950s, had inherited a good country but that just in my lifetime, we had put in motion forces that are destroying it. I said that perhaps never in human history had a single generation done so much damage to a country that had not even suffered occupation by invaders or natural disasters such as famine or pestilence. Indeed, my generation has presided over the dismantling of a once-great country in a time of great scientific and economic advance.

I concluded, however, that our movement has made much progress in the 20 years I have been publishing American Renaissance. I spoke of my admiration for the large number of people who now openly support a thoughtful form of racial consciousness, and expressed my faith in the young men and women who will take up the struggle when my generation—the one with so much to answer for—has been put out to pasture.

The next speaker was former Army Ranger priand Harvard Law School graduate, Joe Sibley. He spoke of how he came to understand the racial forces at work in our country, and of the commitment he feels to our people and culture. He outlined provocative strategies for advancing our cause and spreading the message to yet more potential supporters.

The final speaker of the morning was Matthew Tait, who is a parliamentary candidate for the British National Party, running for the Windsor seat. He spoke of the recent very encouraging electoral successes of the party: Richard Barnbrook’s seat on the London Assembly and party leader Nick Griffin’s and Andrew Brons’s great victories in the election for the Euro-parliament.

Mr. Tait discussed in some detail the legal harassment the party has faced over its constitution, which has until now limited membership to “indigenous Caucasians.” There are many organizations in Britain exclusively for blacks or Asians, but whites are not allowed to associate only with themselves. The constitution has now been amended, but it is not yet certain whether the new language will withstand court scrutiny.

Mr. Tait also described the prospects and challenges that face the unprecedentedly large slate of BNP candidates—no fewer than 98—running for Parliament. Chairman Nick Griffin, who is campaigning in the promising constituency of Barking, has the best chances, but it will be an uphill battle. In any case, the elections will be another first-rate opportunity to tell more patriotic Britons that there is a party that still speaks for them.

After a delicious buffet lunch, the conference resumed with a talk by business consultant and former Capitol Hill aide, Louis March. He recounted the great accomplishments of our people and emphasized the tragedy that will befall us if we do not work to save our heritage. He decried the heedless liberalism that is reducing whites to a minority, and issued a resounding call for continued commitment and action.

Long-term Canadian activist Paul Fromm then spoke about the challenges to free speech in his country. He recounted the absurd legalisms used to persecute a host of dissidents, some of whom have been thrown in prison for expressing their views. Mr. Fromm described the astonishing travails and humiliations of several entirely ordinary Canadians who were caught up in legal processes that seem deliberately unfair. He painted a picture of a system of kangaroo commissions that would be unthinkable in the United States. He noted that some of the most egregious laws have been overturned—even if on very narrow grounds—but that obstacles to free speech remain formidable.

As he always does, Sam Dickson, the Atlanta lawyer, closed the conference. His theme this year was “knowing who you are.” He described the ludicrous, spiteful image our opponents have of us and laughed at their alleged ability to read our minds. People at the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, claim to know that we are “haters” and to understand our motives better than we do ourselves. He gave one hilarious example after another of the “links” by which our presumed wickednesses are proven. He affirmed the nobility and goodness of our cause, and urged us to love the comrades with whom we march in this great struggle.

Mr. Dickson also elaborated a theory of how schizophrenia on race contributes to the rise of white sociopaths to elite positions. He argued that unlike non-whites, who need not strike foolish poses about race—who are free to make healthy demands in the names of their people—prominent whites are so accustomed to lying about the most basic aspects of society that only the most practiced liars ever rise to positions of power. Mr. Dickson’s invariable combination of wit and inspiration was a fitting end to an embattled conference.

Something that the events surrounding this weekend have made clear is that our media elites are utterly untroubled when racial dissidents face the extraordinary levels of harassment that caused so many cancellations. On February 15, we issued a press release [see below] outlining the outrageous behavior of our opponents, and urged several hundred radio talk show hosts to invite me on their programs to discuss what our experience says about the rights to free speech an assembly. We were met with almost total silence. This may change, but for now we have uncovered a total lack of principle. Editors and reporters who would have shrieked with outrage had a liberal or non-white group been treated as we were treated, have shown their true colors: They believe in freedom of speech only for those with whom they agree.

This experience has left us with twice the resolve we had before, and AR will study its options for future conferences. Conferences are central to the mission of American Renaissance, and we will hold them against all odds. The 2010 conference has also brought home to us the passionate commitment of our supporters, who refused to let us cancel this conference and who insisted that we host them for a wonderful weekend of honesty, inspiration, and camaraderie. We look forward to seeing you all next time.

I don’t personally know all the details, and this was actually the first of about four or five conferences in a row that I would have missed (financial reasons, in part). So I’m casting about in the dark here, but here is what I would like to see.

1. A thorough investigation by federal law enforcement. Whether the FBI, the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (criminal or civil sections) or Homeland Security, this entire episode screams out for agents to look into what happened. Imagine if the NAACP had to cancel a conference because of similar threats. What would law enforcement’s reaction be? Swift, fierce and overwhelming. Law enforcement should set up a sting. It would be so easy — and bound to catch someone, as the anti-whites are increasingly convinced they’re untouchable. Yes, most white advocates laugh at the notion that the federal government would ever investigate crimes against us — but don’t be too sure. Not everyone in federal law enforcement is sitting around itching for the death of the white race, believe me.

2. Consideration by American Renaissance organizers of civil legal options. A lawsuit against the hotels, against Fairfax County or D.C. government, against law enforcement, against One People’s Project — whoever else could be named. Breach of contract, outrageous conduct, prima facie tort, tortious interference, interference with First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, interference with civil rights, emotional distress… you name it, there’s a cause of action, if not a hundred. Who is this Daryle Jenkins? Or Jeffrey Imm? What do these men know about what happened? Did they encourage illegal activity? Or civilly tortious activity? Who are their financial backers, and could those sources be reached? This option may go nowhere, but it’s worth thinking about. As a civil defense attorney, I saw the absolute fire-bombing a plaintiff’s attorney could accomplish with nothing but a well-pleaded complaint and discovery. If you can lay waste to a company because one employee claims sexual harassment — bringing the CEO on down to the cleaning lady in for day-long depositions — imagine what else you could do.

3. Coverage by the press. The press hates white advocacy, but they love a juicy story. “White supremacist conference cancelled” is a juicy story, and there are plenty of people to talk to and comment. A good reporter should do some digging around. He (or she) might come up with gold. If not the NYT, how about the Village Voice? If there’s no legal recourse here, this must at least be known to the general public, who can usually be expected to say “I don’t agree with those guys, but they should have the right to speak.” We as white advocates cannot let this incident go undocumented and forgotten, like a modern-day Katyn. Are you listening out there, journalists? Jared Taylor will speak to the press, and Lord knows the SPLC will, too. It’s all packaged up and ready to go… unless, of course, you actually have zero sympathy for white advocates being prevented from meeting, and actively seek to suppress that story because it would present them in too sympathetic a light. I will be watching, I can assure you. And I know damn well some of you know about this incident.

4. Strategizing by white advocates about how to stop this in the future. This has already been going on, and lots of good ideas have come out, like more-public (i.e., government-run) or private venues.

What’s so depressing about this episode is that it can’t really be called a “wake-up call” for white advocates. We already know exactly how marginalized we are. We know exactly what the stiff consequences are for standing up publicly on these issues. We’ve seen violence against our people. We’ve seen our people fired from their jobs. We can’t get paid ads run in publications. We know CPAC wouldn’t allow us a table. So, this really is a hard blow.

Could the speakers have their comments recorded and uploaded to the AmRen site for youtube-style viewing?

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 21, 2010

Dear AR conference registrant,

We regret to inform you that at 6:30 pm today, February 17, the Capitol Skyline hotel, which had promised to withstand any pressure, canceled the conference.

We informed the hotel of all circumstances surround the previous cancellations, including death threats, and the hotel still agreed to hold the conference. We had every reason to believe it would hold firm. We feel just as betrayed as you do.

We will be in touch later to discuss how to handle refunds of conference registrations and other matters.

Best regards,
Jared Taylor

Greg Johnson’s “The Persecution of American Renaissance“

Breaking news: At the last minute, the American Renaissance 2010 conference has found its fourth location—this time far from the Dulles Airport exurbs: the Skyline Hotel in diverse Southwest DC. [You can still register here]

Before I get to my analysis, first let me give a Readers’ Digest version of the facts.  Jared Taylor and his race realist American Renaissance have held eight biannual conferences since 1994, the last six taking place in the Dulles Corridor exurbs in Northern Virginia.  There has not been a single incident of any violence by the attendees at the conference. I don’t believe there’s even been a hotel staff worker claiming they were called by a bad name.

But the event regularly attracts several to a couple dozen loony left wing protestors who will hold signs like “Nazis [VDARE.COM deleted expletive] off and Die” and will make complaints to the hotels hosting the conference.

Slightly more sophisticated opponents manage to sneak into the conference and try to harm those who attend.  The most famous example: at the first AR conference, neoconservative Dinesh D’Souza’s smear got speaker Sam Francis fired from his job at the Washington Times.

In 2006, a prosecutor from Buffalo, NY was fired after he told a reporter covering the conference “You can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species” [Promoting 'Preservation' Of Whites in Suit and Tie, By Michael Laris, Washington Post, February 26, 2006]  and the Anti-Defamation League complained to his employer.

That year, protestors also began targeting the Dulles Hyatt, which had held the conference since 2000, harassing patrons who were not even attending the conference and stuffing leaflets under the guest room doors.

Because of this harassment, the Hyatt declined to lend its facilities to American Renaissance any more. So the 2008 conference was held at the Dulles Crowne Plaza.  Protestors took it up a notch, going as far as threatening the lives of the family of the General Manager of the hotel.  Additionally, one left-wing site copied the names and hometowns off the name tags of the attendees in an obvious attempt to cause professional harm and/or vandalism and physical attacks to the attendees.

As a result, the Crowne Plaza declined to host American Renaissance for this year, 2010. The conference was accordingly booked at the Dulles Marriot. This was made public.  Marriot dropped the conference, telling Taylor that no one had called them, but they had become aware of all the trouble that occurred at Crowne Plaza, and did not want to repeat it.

American Renaissance relocated to the Dulles Westin.  It assembled an impressive lineup ranging from Member of European Parliament Nick Griffin to American Indian conservative David Yeagley.

The Dulles Westin was fully aware of the controversial nature of American Renaissance and said it had no problem, even calling the American Renaissance website “scientific” (which is actually true).  As a precaution, American Renaissance did not report on the location on its website

But the Left began calling up all the hotels in the Dulles Corridor, asking them if the New Century Foundation had booked a conference, and eventually found out.  The Westin claimed it was getting 50-60 nasty phone calls a day and, in light of the experience at the Crowne Plaza, feared for the safety of its employees.  (Note that it was not concerned about violence by American Renaissance attendees—but by the protestors.)

Next, American Renaissance booked the conference into the Manassas Four Points Sheraton. Neither American Renaissance nor the Sheraton told anyone that the conference would take place there. American Renaissance told its registrants that they would be informed of the location a few days before the conference.

Leftists contacted the Manassas Four Points Sheraton—along with every single hotel anywhere close to Dulles—and asked if the New Century Foundation had booked the event. The Sheraton said no.  However, someone also contacted the national booking organization for every major hotel chain including Sheraton, and found out that way.

The Manassas Sheraton got death threats, including one stating “If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you”. It capitulated and cancelled on Monday, February 15, just four days before the conference was scheduled to begin.

American Renaissance initially announced that its conference would have to be cancelled. But it ended up giving it one more shot, and managed to book the Skyline Hotel in Southwest DC.

Who is behind these attacks on free speech?  They are mostly a rag-tag group of self-described radical “anti-fa” activists who organize on e-mail lists and websites like The One Peoples Project, Info-Shop, and Anti Racist Action.  They have Orwellian mottos like “Intolerance of Intolerance is the Only Intolerance Tolerated” . . . . Read the whole article here.

Dear AR conference registrant,

We have found a venue with backbone and the conference will take place! Hotel management is prepared for the worst and will not back down!

If you have already registered with us there is no need to register again, but please let us know by e-mail that you are coming. We need to have an accurate headcount for the banquet, etc.

Please make room reservations by calling the Capital Skyline Hotel, 10 I Street Southwest, Washington, DC 20024 at (202) 488-7500 or (800) 458-7500.

Here is the website for the Hotel:

http://www.capitolskyline.com/

The American Renaissance rate is $94 per night. This is a little high but it is the price we are paying for a hotel with backbone. Please book at this group rate rather than something cheaper you may find on the Internet.

If you are driving, there is a fee for parking. Please keep your receipts and we will reimburse.

If you are flying and can change your flight to come in and out of Reagan National Airport this will be more convenient than Dulles. The hotel is within walking distance of the Navy Yard Metro stop on the Green Line. Metro runs to Reagan National.

If you cannot change your flight and are flying into Dulles, the best option for getting to the hotel is to book a SuperShuttle at this site: http://www.supershuttle.com/

The fare is $29.00 from the airport to the Capital Skyline Hotel, and we will reimburse your travel costs. If you can book a group for the shuttle, all subsequent passengers are $10.00 each, and you will get to the hotel quicker because there will be fewer other stops. Each shuttle holds 7 passengers.

We may be able to help if you give us your flight number and arrival time.

This hotel takes a principled position on freedom of speech and promises it will not back down.

We are busy but call (703) 716-0900 if you really need more information.

Conference schedule is the same as before. We will see you on the 19th after all!

Best regards,

Jared Taylor

There are several conclusions we can draw from all this. One is the transformation of so called anti-fascists into de facto arms of officialdom. Far from being anarchists or even leftists, we see the spectacle of anarchists championing a government report that calls the mild-mannered Jared Taylor a terrorist and warning us that if we associate with him it will be difficult to get a security clearance. While I suppose we should thank our anti-system radical friends for looking out for our reputation with the Department of Homeland Security, it certainly shows the real nature of power in this society. College kids dressing up to play “antifa” risk nothing, and know it. Nor have they had any success in their self professed goals of socialism or economic justice, if they even really believe it. While they can certainly get in our way, their existence does not disturb the sleep of the political elites and financial barons they claim to oppose. In fact, they serve as an indispensable support. As One People’s Project recently featured Goldman Sachs frontman Barack Obama on their homepage, they to some extent know this.

All of those in our movement, who engage in any level, are taking tremendous risks. The strategy of anti-fascists is to increase the costs of involvement to the point that people fear not just to take action but to even think forbidden thoughts or associate with those who do. More importantly, as we saw with the attack on James O’Keefe, the target is not the person themselves but the political networks, institutions, and professional colleagues that provide activists with support. The objective was not to makes James O’Keefe stop doing what he’s doing but to make sure “respectable” conservatives run screaming from anything he touches. The actual facts of the allegation do not matter, but leftists simply throw enough mud and hope that it sticks. This is straight out of Rules for Radicals (p. 144 in fact). The point is that a person’s friends and colleagues will not want to be associated with him simply because of the trouble it brings, regardless of the truth or falsity of the assertions. As a result, the left can coolly disable and dismantle the right’s most effective activists, with hapless conservatives falling all over each other in their willingness to surrender, as long as they are left alone.

This kind of repression is also escalating at an official level, with the laughable inclusion of Jared Taylor as a terrorist by the state of Virginia and reports by the Department of Homeland Security warning of a dire threat by right wing extremists. For the first time, there is a real danger that British style police repression could be used against racial realists.

This occurs even as “implicit” white movements such as the Tea Parties are growing in strength and number, to the outrage and concern of the liberal establishment. Ignoring the actual content of the protests (mostly harmless fluff about fiscal conservatism), the leftist counterattack consists — predictably — of charges of racism, based on the grounds that the tea parties are made up overwhelmingly of white people. These days, that is sufficient grounds for suspicion. It can also be suspected that the Tea Partiers and conservatives will respond by allowing far left groups and antifa to set the terms of the debate for them. Certainly, there will be tremendous pressure from libertarians and others to keep the immigration issue out of any Tea Party rhetoric. This will allow the Left to keep white advocates isolated from their constituency and keeping the emerging populist movement toothless and wedded to a Republican Party establishment that will use their votes and discard them. As always, the Left understands the Right better than the Right understands itself.

White advocates are not just opponents of the system — we are the only opponents of the system. The real question is how we operate in such a challenging environment without falling into the dead ends of the past. The good news is that our objectives are actually quite clear. We must engage with the emerging opposition to the current political and financial order and resist any attempts to force us back into the familiar WN ghetto. We must build institutions that can engage all along the political spectrum and train our activists in effective political technology rather than in engaging in the amateurish efforts of the past. Every one of our activists must be doing something productive. Finally, we must support those institutions that already exist. I will return to this question of what is to be done in the days to come. For now, I stand with American Renaissance and will pledge what I can. I encourage you all to do the same.

Occidental Dissent, February 16, 2010

People from across the United States and a number of foreign countries were set to converge on Dulles Airport on February 19-21 to listen to a stellar lineup of speakers, including Nick Griffin of the British National Party, filmmaker Craig Bodeker, writer David Yeagley, Professor Raymond Wolters, white community organizer Sam Dickson, American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, and others. In addition to providing a feast for the intellect, every AmRen conference is also a valuable opportunity for fellowship and networking.

But the cancellation also provides lessons and opportunities.

Whenever some Third World dictator cancels elections, shreds a constitution, or persecutes his political opponents, we all know what is happening. Given the choice between preserving the legitimacy of the system or preserving personal advantage, he chooses personal advantage and discards the props of legitimacy as just that: meaningless props.

America’s ruling establishment now faces a similar choice.

The American Renaissance Conference was an entirely legal gathering. AmRen, its speakers, and its guests were exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The conference was canceled because the hotel management feared that the system could not protect its staff and guests from death threats. The hotel may be private organization, but freedom of speech means nothing if private organizations do not feel that they can safely host gatherings of controversial groups.

Thus the ruling establishment — the government, law-enforcement agencies, and the press — have to take a firm, public stand against terrorism and for freedom of speech and association. The hotels have to know that the full weight of the law will fall on those who seek to disrupt such gatherings.

Also, the hotels have to know that the establishment — as represented in the mainstream media — cares about freedom of speech and assembly as a matter of sacred principle.

The terrorists have to be publicly shamed. And so do the hotels for giving into them.

But shaming the hotels will not work unless they are reasonably sure that the moral stand is also the most practical one. And this means that the government must give plausible assurance that the terrorists will be punished.

I spoke to Jared Taylor today. He emphasized that the AmRen Conference was an entirely legal gathering, protected by the Constitution itself. He also went on to stress that anyone who thinks in terms of principles can see that “If AmRen can be shut down this way, then anyone can be shut down. The meatpackers meeting can be shut down by PETA.” This can be prevented only if the establishment takes a strong and decisive stand against terrorism and for freedom of speech and assembly.

Taylor fears, however, that the government and media will greet the cancellation of AmRen with silent gloating rather than howls of righteous indignation. After all, Jared Taylor and his readers are heretics, dissenters from our secular religion of racial egalitarianism and multiculturalism. By shutting down AmRen, the terrorists remove a challenge to the establishment’s power. The only problem is that by remaining silent, the current establishment preserves its power while undermining the system’s legitimacy.

We will be watching the response of politicians, law enforcement, and the media.

The terrorists, and potential terrorists, will be watching as well.

If AmRen is shut down with impunity, then left-wing terrorists will repeat their winning strategy.

But right-wing terrorists may also be encouraged.

Within the White Nationalist community, American Renaissance stands for gentlemanly debate and strict legality. The underlying assumption of this approach is that White Nationalists can work within the American system. America was a de facto White Nationalist society. America became a multiculturalist society within the system. And America can be reborn as an explicitly White Nationalist society within the system as well. The American system is not so broken that it cannot be fixed.

But there is another faction in the White Nationalist movement: those who feel that the American system cannot be reformed and must simply be replaced. And before it can be replaced, it must be destroyed. Some are banking on the system destroying itself. Others are hankering to lend a hand. Call this the revolutionary faction.

If American Renaissance can be shut down with impunity, the ranks and influence of the reformist faction will shrink as those of the revolutionary faction grow.

Furthermore, as with all revolutionary movements, left and right, White Nationalism’s revolutionary faction has a largely sociopathic fringe just itching for opportunities and excuses for violence. This fringe’s influence will grow as well.

I asked Jared Taylor if he thought that a soft response or non-response by the establishment to the shutdown of the AmRen Conference might encourage violence from White Nationalist fringe elements. Taylor said that he hoped not, but feared this it might happen: “That is a danger. If people think that the game is rigged, they might be tempted to just kick over the table. I hope that doesn’t happen.”

White Nationalists need to do more than just wait for the establishment’s response. We need to encourage it. There are three things we can all do:

1. Contact the media and demand coverage.

2. Contact political figures and law enforcement and demand justice.

3. Contact your friends and acquaintances and spread the word about this outrage.

Finally, I have a personal recommendation for Jared Taylor, and I am sure I speak for many others as well: fight.

Keep my registration fee. But I would feel better about it if you used it to actively fight. Don’t wait for the press to call you. Hire a press agent and get this publicized. Take out full-page advertisements in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Don’t wait for law enforcement to track down the perpetrators of this crime. Offer a reward for information that leads to the arrest of the terrorists. Hire a private investigator to conduct a perfectly legal search. And when you find the perpetrators, don’t wait for a criminal prosecution. Look into a civil suit too.

There is no better proof that multiculturalism is bringing on a new Dark Age of scientific obscurantism, moralistic fanaticism, and political repression than these low and frantic attempts to abort an American Renaissance.

We regret to inform you that today, February 15, the hotel at which we planned to hold the conference canceled its contract with us. Hostile callers phoned the hotel and threatened employees with death. One was specifically warned, “If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you.” Hotel management reported these threats to the police but felt it had no choice but to cancel.

We had backup possibilities, but all have fallen through, so we will not be holding the February 19-21 conference.

We are very sorry for the great inconvenience this no doubt causes you.

If you would like to make a tax-deductible contribution to American Renaissance in the amount of your registration that would be welcome. However, we stand ready to refund all registrations and banquet fees. Please let us know by return e-mail how you would like us to proceed.

We understand that many of you have bought non-refundable air tickets. Generally, the amount spent on such tickets can, for a period of a year, be used to buy a different ticket on the same airline. However, most airlines then deduct $150 from the amount that can be spent to buy the new ticket. If you bought a non-refundable ticket, please send us proof of purchase and we will send you a check for $150. We do not want anyone to suffer financial loss because of this cancellation.

Again, please accept our apologies for this very disappointing outcome. We value your continuing support and deeply regret that we will not be seeing you on February 19.

Best regards,
Jared Taylor

Jared Taylor

Jared Taylor, prolific author and editor of American Renaissance, will be James Edwards’ guest on The Political Cesspool Radio Program on Saturday, January 23, 2010.

The Political Cesspool can be heard live each Saturday night from 6pm-9pm Central Time on AM 1380 WLRM in Memphis, Tennessee, and on the AM / FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network.

Jared Taylor

From Taki’s Magazine, October 12, 2009

The media love disaster. One can hardly sit through a half hour of cable news without hearing dire prophecies of “climate change” and other ecotastrophes. And over the past year, television pundits have warned incessantly that without massive Wall Street bailouts and compulsory Swine Flu vaccinations, the sky just might fall. This all comes on the heels of years of talk of terrorist attacks and the potential for the African AIDs epidemic to infect the middle class.

Not all of this is hysteria, of course, and without question the United States faces real economic and security challenges. But the most obvious, perilous, and, most importantly, preventable catastrophe looming on America’s horizon is one that the media and political class refuse to talk about.

In his famous speech of April 20, 1968, the British statesman Enoch Powell said, “The discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.”

One great, avoidable evil we face is the declining quality of the American work force.

The Census Bureau tells us that if immigration continues at its current rate of nearly two million people a year, whites will become a minority of the under-18 child population in just 14 years—in 2023—and will become a minority of the working population just 16 years later. The greatest increase will be in Hispanics, who are now dropping out of high school at higher rates than blacks, doing little better than blacks when they manage to stay in school, and are the group least likely to go to college. Demographers are beginning to warn that as well-educated, white baby boomers retire and are replaced by poorly educated blacks and Hispanics, the productivity gains of the last several hundred years will be reversed, and the United States could go into a tailspin. . . . Read the whole article.

As I pointed out to Evan McLaren last night, the disabling of the comment section at Takimag was about more than simple irritation with Captainchaos and friends trolling multiple threads. Justin Raimondo, John Zmirak, Paul Gottfried and others who write for that website have long held racialists in contempt (Tom Fleming at Chronicles is another) and used the opportunity created by the discord to purge our discourse from their environs.

Check out this new emotional outburst from Justin Raimondo aimed at the mild-mannered Jared Taylor. Politics makes strange bedfellows. There is something odd about an atheist libertarian homosexual engaged in an interracial relationship invoking “his legacy” of Christianity and conservatism in Randroid spittle to damn racialists. Ayn Rand famously hated both of them. Lawrence Auster was correct when he pointed out the other day that libertarianism/Objectivism is the purest negation of traditional conservatism which is about the preservation of larger wholes. Libertarians and Objectivists strive to abolish/neuter/level all higher social orders (race, ethny, nation, culture, faith, family) with their prescription of anarchy and their ideological poison of radical atomistic individualism.

Sound familiar? It should. Raimondo is correct when he quotes Buchanan in saying we come from different traditions. The pink banner he holds aloft is precisely the same one that was carried by the hippie/beatnik counterculture in the 50’s and 60’s, the antiwar movement of the 60’s, and the gay rights movement of the 70’s and 80’s. His social movement was pioneered during the twentieth century by radical Jews such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, F. A. Hayek, and Abbie Hoffman. It is a spiritual cousin of communism and has the same wrecking ball, destabilizing, disorienting effect upon white gentile culture at all levels. Oddly enough, Raimondo manages to accuse racialists of soulless materialism when it is precisely his form of unfettered consumer capitalism and its pornographic expressivist ethos that has disfigured the American landscape from coast to coast and continues to inspire our nihilistic youth to carve out piercings and kitsch tattoos into their pale flesh on a daily basis.

In Raimondo’s mind, only the rootless, autonomous individual exists; the implication being that only individual accomplishment can be a source of pride. For him it makes no sense to take pride in one’s race, family, ethnic group, nation, faith, or culture or to be concerned with the maintenance of these collective entities. He doesn’t conceive of art or science as practices in which the individual contributes to, builds upon, orients himself toward, finds meaning in centuries old traditions. As a libertarian, Raimondo acknowledges no debt to the past. As a homosexual, he has no reason to care about the plight of future generations. All he cares about are the almost nonexistent restraints on his “liberty” in contemporary America.

The White Nationalist project is simple enough to understand. It can be boiled down to fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” What is objectionable about that? It is nothing more than a plea for the right to exist. It is not an injunction to lord over anyone. The whole Third World is flooding into the West. In contrast, what are libertarians demanding at this historical juncture? The quixotic abolition of the state, a state of anarchy or near lawlessness, all because the amount of freedom they now enjoy (which is near absolute) apparently isn’t enough for them to satisfy their most carnal appetites. What a pitiful, pathetic, contemptible worldview.

It should come as no surprise then that the denizens of libertarianism come from the most sordid corners of American life. Walter Block once wrote a book defending his laissez-faire constituency: the prostitute looking to ply her trade, the drug addict in search of his next fix, the homosexual who resents being labeled deviant, the habitual litterer who disrespects public property, the slumlord who exploits the poor, the libeler who maligns others, the Jewish usurer, the scab who breaks the picket line, the corporate shark who exports jobs overseas, the illegal alien who violates our national borders, and others amongst this case of “heroes” who stand to benefit from the end of the rule of law and final abolition of all restraint. In Raimondo’s bizarro world, the decent and indecent have switched places: the man who takes pride in his race, the man who puts the long term interest of future generations above satiating his every whim, is now to be the object of cultural opprobrium, not the libertine iconoclast who flaunts every custom, tradition, and authority in the name of his ineffable “rights.”

How on earth did a degenerate homosexual cosmopolitan like Justin Raimondo of all people come to be identified with hardcore cultural conservatives whose animating collectivist impulses are anathema to everything urbane libertines stand for? It all goes back to a “populist” political strategy first articulated by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell over a dozen years ago: libertarians would co-opt the electoral energy and funds of the isolationist paleocons and race-conscious rednecks on the far right as a leadership class and then redirect them towards “anti-statist” ends.  This electoral strategy finally bore fruit in the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution” last year which most racialists were fooled en masse into supporting.

Buchanan and the paleocons adopted a similar strategy in the 1990’s. In Buchanan’s own words, “The way to do battle with David Duke is not to go ballistic because Duke, as a teenager, paraded around in a Nazi costume to protest William Kunstler during Vietnam, or to shout to the heavens that Duke had the same number last year as the Ku Klux Klan. Everybody in Metairie knew that. The way to deal with Mr. Duke is the way the GOP dealt with the far more formidable challenge of George Wallace. Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.”

Raimondo has never been able to mask his hostility towards racially conscious whites. It is a common attitude among the paleos and libertarians found outside the mainstream right. They want the page views, subscriptions, money, and votes of racialists, which they correctly perceive as a burgeoning movement ideally harnessed for their own ends, but not their input. White Nationalists are supposed to stay in their seats at the back of the far right bus while their self-imagined social betters occupy the driver seat; a situation analogous to the relationship between the GOP and evangelicals. “The rantings of losers living in their parents’ basement”  are not welcome in polite company (this doesn’t include pimple faced, pudgy libertoon high school students), but by all means do send in your $100 contribution to Ron Paul’s campaign coffers and vote for him in the Republican primaries.

The White Nationalist message has never been more prescient or warranted than it is today. Its predictions are coming true. While Barack Obama appoints a professional Hispanic to the Supreme Court and distributes race-based patronage to his multitude of supporters from the White House, Raimondo counsels whites to cling to the ridiculous fantasy of colorblindness in a color conscious world; we need more “individualism,” more “liberty.” Meanwhile, the other side pushes ahead for more ”diversity,” more “multiculturalism” in every aspect of life. It’s like the Polish calvary fighting the Wehrmacht.  Anyone with half a brain can see where this is going, what the end result will inevitably be for whites, unless more responsible men act.

White Nationalists need to shove aside Justin Raimondo and the rest of the libertarian fringe. Their retarded fantasy of dismembering the state is nothing but a distracting panacea. Discrediting the “Alternative Right” will be the first step for racialists in the years ahead. Raimondo and his associates should be confronted at every opportunity and exposed as the cowards, liars, impostors, and opportunists that they are.

Update: Some negative reaction to Raimondo’s article here and here.

Jared Taylor

Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.

Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”

The national-origins immigration policy that lasted until 1965 embodied this basic understanding of race. As one of the supporters of that policy, Congressman William Vaile of Colorado explained in 1924, “[the United States] is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” I might add that even if this sentiment shocks Americans today, it is exactly the view of their own country held by virtually every Japanese, Israeli, or Mexican. . . . More

Justin Raimondo

“Nationalists without a Nation”
by Justin Raimondo
from Taki’s Magazine, May 28, 2009

Jared Taylor’s recent posting on Takimag has drawn a number of a responses, including from Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, both of which make some good points. I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism. His bid to become the white Al Sharpton is not only a massive contradiction, coming from someone who ostensibly opposes privileging individuals on account of their alleged race, it is downright pathetic.

To being with, he avers that “if you can’t beat them, join them”—that is, if you can’t beat the multiculti rules and regulations that increasing afflict our lives, then the best policy is one of . . .  surrender.  He cites a case where the city of New Haven threw out the results of a test taken by aspiring firemen in which blacks didn’t do as well as the city would have liked. New Haven bureaucrats threw out the test results for all races, not just blacks, and did the whole procedure over again: this, claims Taylor, is anti-white “discrimination.” . . . More