by Daniel Barge
In his latest article at Amren, Jared Taylor has reproduced the speech he delivered at the National Policy Institute conference in Washington DC on 27th February, 2015. Called White Survival: Beyond Left and Right, it presents one of the main ideas now being used to promote White Nationalism – the idea of "protecting biodiversity." In his article, Taylor, somewhat tongue-in-cheek equates the White man with the Cuban crocodile and the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle:
The arguments deployed in Taylor's speech are increasingly heard in White nationalist circles. I have heard similar tropes like, “We don’t just want nationalism for Whites, we want it for everybody” and “Each people should be free to pursue their own destiny.” Is this really how we want to talk about White survival, as something tagged onto the tail of Liberalism's diversity juggernaut?
These arguments are essentially just clever bits of sophistry to confound and confuse liberals and leftists. They are not ideas worthy to sit at the centre of any coherent ideology or set beliefs held by White nationalists. Like "freedom for freedom's sake," the diversity-über-alles idea is meaningless at its core.
In the same way that we can question freedom as freedom for what? we can also ask diversity for what? This is because both are essentially transitional values, rather than ultimate ones.
Taylor accompanies his article with pictures of ethnic diversity: New Guinean tribesmen standing around with painted faces, Oriental ladies dancing in flowing silk robes, and a Red Indian woman holding a papoose. Taylor's style and image choices almost suggest counter-contamination by the White liberals he is arguing against:
But trolling is one thing, heartfelt beliefs another; and at some point White nationalists will have to unashamedly speak the truth for why White nationalism exists and why it should exist. Are we really supposed to believe that the best justification for preserving our race – the most important race to have ever lived on the earth – is because we’re just another bit of the wonderful smorgasbord of diversity, like those cave mold beetles or Amazonian tribes?
The reason any creature or community exists is because it deserves to exist, because it has in some way fought and won the right to exist. The number of extinct species and vanished peoples and civilizations is infinitely larger than the number of those that are now with us. So, rather than appealing to the pity, flawed logic, and non-existent mercies of our opponents, we should be making a more assertive and inspiring case.
The problem for Taylor and the handful of White nationalists who manage to promote our cause beyond the echo chamber of pro-White sites is that White survival is in fact an inherently supremacist idea.
In the 19th-century we Europeans were everywhere in the ascendant. Our technology and power controlled the Earth, and there was a widespread belief that the "lesser races," including the Africans – and maybe even the Asians – would eventually go the way of the Australian Aborigine and the Red Man, namely dwindling to insignificant minorities amid a sea of Whiteness.
It may have seemed a little sad, but that was "progress," after all, and liberals and leftists especially were happy to embrace it. Here is Friedrich Engels writing about the less developed races of the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
But these comments, made long before the Left realized that Whites had little interest in being their revolutionary cannon fodder, also reveal the supremacist nature of Whites. We are incapable of just existing. We must also dominate – by our very nature – whether in the form of a benign colonial system or a universalist totalitarian monstrosity like Communism or Western liberalism.
We are in our essence an all or nothing people – and right now, with the pendulum swinging towards "nothing" in terms of future demographics, many White nationalists see "all" as an impossibility, and instead seek a third-positionist compromise, namely niche survival on the same terms as the cave mold bug or some untouched Amazonian tribe. But they are rather forgetting who would have to guarntee that Pax Diversia.
But the justification of White survival is not that we have a few quaint ways of putting bones through our noses or have an arcane language that requires the memorization of thousands of inefficient ideograms before we can call ourselves semi-literate. Such oddities of human diversity, which have little point beyond the cultural cabinet of curiosities, may justify preserving other groups, but it does not justify preserving us.
Our justification, as Taylor hints in his article, is that we are the race that has "immensely enriched the world." Whites have created most of the store of science, art, and culture that exists, and in the great drama of history we have acted most of the main parts. In short our dominance is our justification.
Given our track record and even that of our modern, self-loathing manifestations, the idea that Whites can perpetually co-exist in egalitarian harmony with the societies and civilizations of other races is an obvious absurdity. Simply talking about White survival includes an inherent assertion of White exceptionalism and supremacy.
Taylor, of course, knows this. He has faced this problem countless times in his tireless efforts to promote our interests. He knows that the hegemonic ideology of liberalism – something else that we created, as Dr. Frankenstein created his own monster – will not accept such arguments, so, taking the hint from his own name, he "tailors" his arguments to something more acceptable to the unconverted. But this is mere passive adaptation, like that of the cave mold beetle to its dank environment.
Whites should not be seeking a shelf in the "Liberal Diversity Supermarket" – alongside the other threatened races, cultures, and sub-tribes. But this is exactly what they are doing with the "diversity for all" creed that growing numbers of Whites nationalists cleave to in order to justify themselves before the Liberal hegemony. While tactically astute it is strategically dumb. To deny the supremacism inherent in White survival is to deny it its vital essence, and instead to beg for mere respect for its hollowed shell.
This is not a good way to inspire nationalists. Nor is it even an effective way to protect diversity and appeal to those who believe in diversity for its own sake. A better argument to make to them would be that only in a White-dominated world will people be willing and capable of preserving the various odd tribes, quaint customs, and biological diversity that leftists and liberals seem to love so much more than their own people.
Quite simply, a world dominated by non-Whites would be one in which ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity would be hunted down, raped, and sold into slavery, as recently happened to the Yazidis of Iraq. It would also be one in which biological diversity would be ruthlessly exterminated in the search for Chinese aphrodisiacs.
"And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups, just like the Cuban crocodile. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist."If this had been a speech given to a conference of liberal ecologists, then we could score it highly on tactical brilliance. But it was not. It was given to an NPI conference, a gathering that typically attracts a hard-core audience of White nationalists and identitarians seeking inspiring insights to fuel their continuing struggle.
The arguments deployed in Taylor's speech are increasingly heard in White nationalist circles. I have heard similar tropes like, “We don’t just want nationalism for Whites, we want it for everybody” and “Each people should be free to pursue their own destiny.” Is this really how we want to talk about White survival, as something tagged onto the tail of Liberalism's diversity juggernaut?
These arguments are essentially just clever bits of sophistry to confound and confuse liberals and leftists. They are not ideas worthy to sit at the centre of any coherent ideology or set beliefs held by White nationalists. Like "freedom for freedom's sake," the diversity-über-alles idea is meaningless at its core.
In the same way that we can question freedom as freedom for what? we can also ask diversity for what? This is because both are essentially transitional values, rather than ultimate ones.
Taylor accompanies his article with pictures of ethnic diversity: New Guinean tribesmen standing around with painted faces, Oriental ladies dancing in flowing silk robes, and a Red Indian woman holding a papoose. Taylor's style and image choices almost suggest counter-contamination by the White liberals he is arguing against:
"We are sad when the last speaker of an obscure language dies out or when a distinctive way of life comes to an end. That’s why Brazil now has an official policy of leaving untouched tribes alone if that’s at all possible. People living in the stone age should have the choice of staying there if that’s what they want. Conserving these things literally does go 'beyond political conservatism.'
However, there are things you are not allowed to want to conserve. Hardly anyone will oppose you if you say that the primitive tribes of New Guinea have the right to maintain their customs and their way of life, undisturbed by outsiders. But you better not say the same thing about the French or the Swedes."Are we really sad when the speaker of some jungle dialect dies out? I know I'm not. But the correct way to view this is as great prep for trolling liberals in discussions when they unthinkingly bring up the subject of "diversity," a word they tend to use totemically and fetishistically without understanding that what they actually mean is totalitarian liberalism ＋ ethnic costumes and generic anti-Whiteness.
 |
| White man trying hard not to be "supremacist." |
The reason any creature or community exists is because it deserves to exist, because it has in some way fought and won the right to exist. The number of extinct species and vanished peoples and civilizations is infinitely larger than the number of those that are now with us. So, rather than appealing to the pity, flawed logic, and non-existent mercies of our opponents, we should be making a more assertive and inspiring case.
The problem for Taylor and the handful of White nationalists who manage to promote our cause beyond the echo chamber of pro-White sites is that White survival is in fact an inherently supremacist idea.
In the 19th-century we Europeans were everywhere in the ascendant. Our technology and power controlled the Earth, and there was a widespread belief that the "lesser races," including the Africans – and maybe even the Asians – would eventually go the way of the Australian Aborigine and the Red Man, namely dwindling to insignificant minorities amid a sea of Whiteness.
It may have seemed a little sad, but that was "progress," after all, and liberals and leftists especially were happy to embrace it. Here is Friedrich Engels writing about the less developed races of the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life – the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these Völkerabfälle (literally racial trash)"His close associate Karl Marx naturally shared similar views:
Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way."If this is what they thought of Croats, Jews, Gypsies, and Highlanders, one can only imagine what they would make of the Aborigines and Hottentots!
Karl Marx, "Forced Emigration", New York Tribune 1853
 |
| White man trying hard not to be "supremacist." |
We are in our essence an all or nothing people – and right now, with the pendulum swinging towards "nothing" in terms of future demographics, many White nationalists see "all" as an impossibility, and instead seek a third-positionist compromise, namely niche survival on the same terms as the cave mold bug or some untouched Amazonian tribe. But they are rather forgetting who would have to guarntee that Pax Diversia.
But the justification of White survival is not that we have a few quaint ways of putting bones through our noses or have an arcane language that requires the memorization of thousands of inefficient ideograms before we can call ourselves semi-literate. Such oddities of human diversity, which have little point beyond the cultural cabinet of curiosities, may justify preserving other groups, but it does not justify preserving us.
Given our track record and even that of our modern, self-loathing manifestations, the idea that Whites can perpetually co-exist in egalitarian harmony with the societies and civilizations of other races is an obvious absurdity. Simply talking about White survival includes an inherent assertion of White exceptionalism and supremacy.
Whites should not be seeking a shelf in the "Liberal Diversity Supermarket" – alongside the other threatened races, cultures, and sub-tribes. But this is exactly what they are doing with the "diversity for all" creed that growing numbers of Whites nationalists cleave to in order to justify themselves before the Liberal hegemony. While tactically astute it is strategically dumb. To deny the supremacism inherent in White survival is to deny it its vital essence, and instead to beg for mere respect for its hollowed shell.
This is not a good way to inspire nationalists. Nor is it even an effective way to protect diversity and appeal to those who believe in diversity for its own sake. A better argument to make to them would be that only in a White-dominated world will people be willing and capable of preserving the various odd tribes, quaint customs, and biological diversity that leftists and liberals seem to love so much more than their own people.
Quite simply, a world dominated by non-Whites would be one in which ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity would be hunted down, raped, and sold into slavery, as recently happened to the Yazidis of Iraq. It would also be one in which biological diversity would be ruthlessly exterminated in the search for Chinese aphrodisiacs.
 |
| Save the rhinos. |
