I have omitted Brett Stevens’ introductory remarks since they were directed at readers of his website and are not necessary for our readers. You can read his full text here: http://www.amerika.org/politics/interview-with-jared-taylor-of-american-renaissance/
White Nationalism seems to be an outgrowth of the conservative belief in nationalism, except that White Nationalism swaps racial loyalty for loyalty to a specific national group (German, Dutch, Nigerian). Why do you think mainstream conservatives do not embrace this idea, or do they?
I don’t like the term “white nationalism.” It makes people think of Basque nationalism or Kurdish nationalism, with their menace of potential violence. There is no good word to describe my views on race because they were so taken for granted until 50 years ago that no word was needed for them.
I will draw you a parallel: Imagine that we lived in a society that had decided to promote communal rearing of children and had declared that it was a vicious form of prejudice for parents to care more for their own children than for other children in the community. Let us imagine that traditional parents were derided as “familists,” which had become a harshly derogatory term. There would be no good word for “familists” because their views were so traditional, so taken for granted, that the language never needed a word for them.
Those with traditional views on race are in the same predicament as “familists.”
The traditional view of race was this: Americans believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races differed in temperament, ability, and the kind of societies they built. They wanted America to be peopled by Europeans, and thought only people of European stock could maintain the civilization they valued. They therefore considered immigration of non-whites a threat to whites and to their civilization.
Practically all Americans shared these views, which I believe are entirely sound. I would have seen eye to eye on race with Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower.
To answer your question, however, mainstream conservatives have been browbeaten on race just as much as liberals and have been well trained to think that race is not a legitimate criterion for policy-making or any kind of personal decision.
I would think that any conservative would be interested in conserving the numbers and influence of his racial group — especially when other racial groups are aggressively expending their numbers and influence — but conservatives are just as terrified of race as anyone else.
Your group recently had its biannual conference canceled after leftist groups and a local governor acted to convince the hotel chain to disallow the meeting on its property. A few days later, the same hotel chain allowed a Minneapolis group to meet to discuss “ending white privilege.” Why do you think this double standard exists, and why did your cancellation get less national press than a similar cancellation for, say, the Nation of Islam?
It is because we are white and believe whites have legitimate group interests. For reasons I cannot fathom, every other race is allowed to have legitimate group interests, but when whites think in these terms it is “hate.” This is ultimately a suicidal state of mind, because if whites continue to act only as unaffiliated individuals they will be pushed aside by others who have no compunction about acting together to advance group interests.
Which do you think is more popular, conservatism or liberalism? Is popularity important, or is there some other metric we should use for picking our political direction?
Liberalism is more popular and it is easy to see why. Liberals think they are compassionate and morally superior to conservatives. They think human beings can be perfected by government, and this is, for them, a comforting thought. It is a strange form of compassion, however, to force citizens, though taxes, to support those whom taxpayers might not, themselves, wish to support.
At the same time, the entire sweep of American history is “liberal:” government intervention into increasing areas of our lives, expansion of the franchise, the rise of homosexual rights and women’s liberation, promiscuity rather than monogamy, rehab for criminals rather than punishment, urban rather than rural life, individual indulgence over responsibility to the community, etc. Liberals therefore think of themselves as the standard bearers of history, and in many respects they are. The attempt to pretend race does not matter is part of this great liberal refashioning of the modern world.
However, “popularity” is the worst reason for choosing a political affiliation. Our politics should reflect what is both moral and in conformity with human nature. Much of liberal politics is based on agreeable fantasy, and most people prefer agreeable fantasy to disagreeable fact.
Do you think whites concerned with having more political representation should form a separate pro-white movement, or work within mainstream conservatism? How do they overcome the unpopularity of their views, and the popularity of the apathetic worldview many voters seem to hold?
I think racially conscious whites should make their views known in every manner. They should have their own groups but also work within other groups. They should run for office. They should start small, running for city council, school board, etc. Eventually they could be elected to state house and Congress. The best way to make an unpopular (but true) opinion more popular is to repeat it as often and to as many audiences as possible.
Does the cancellation of your conference suggest to you that leftist views are gaining in power, or waning and this is one of their last attempts to assert the old order of political correctness and the politics of pity?
Leftist views are waning. Just look at the comments to the electronic editions of daily newspapers. They often sound as though they were written by readers of my publication, American Renaissance. The liberal view is a misreading of human nature, and you can push society in unnatural directions only so far. As the Horace noted in the Epistles, you can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will always return.
Have you read Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order? If so, what did you think of its thesis as an interpretation of what American Renaissance is doing?
I am sorry to admit I have not. I should. In general, however, clashes of civilizations are proxies for clashes of races. For the most part, only the biological heirs of the people who established a civilization will carry it forward in a meaningful way. Can you imagine moving to Cambodia, assimilating perfectly, and contributing to the unfolding of Cambodian civilization? And yet people from Cambodia, Sudan, Haiti or Iraq are expected to come to the West and assimilate perfectly.