June 08, 2004
Jared Taylor’s Racial Heresies And The “New White
Nationalism”
[Peter
Brimelow writes:
VDARE.COM was awarded the proud title of Hate Group by
the
Southern Poverty Law Center,
the notorious Treason Group, partly because of our
publishing
articles by Jared
Taylor, Editor of the
American Renaissance newsletter. We don’t want to
disappoint SPLC, so here’s more on Taylor, by one of the
authors of California’s anti-affirmative action
Proposition 209. For our take on Taylor, click
here.]
By
Glynn Custred
[Also
by Glynn Custred:
Alien Crossings
and
White Plight: Sam Francis On Ethnopolitics]
Demographer
William Frey has said that the last census is like
“a snapshot” showing the “old America and the
new America at the same time.” The old America is
white, middle-class and graying. The growing minority
population represents “a new kind of globalized
America.” [Whites'
years as US majority numbered, March 19, 2004
Sydney Morning Herald, (Australia)]
The two Americas together, he says,
are creating a “racial generation gap." By 2050
old America will no longer be the majority but will
become instead a diminishing minority in the country it
once dominated—if this trend continues.
Which is to say: if current
immigration policy continues.
The rapidity of this demographic
shift is astonishing and its social and cultural
implications profound.
The Left welcomes
massive immigration as a means of
diluting a nation towards which it has felt
animosity for so long. The equally dogmatic libertarian
right also celebrates it because the emerging
“universal nation” emerging will gloriously
transcend the parochial nation-state of our history.
Corporate managers welcome what they think is the
triumph of global markets.
Only a few so far have showed
concern. Some, like Harvard economist
George Borjas are concerned about the
economic impact of the mass importation of low
skilled workers, especially on the
lowest wage earners. Others, such as Harvard’s
Samuel P. Huntington warn of the threat to the
American national identity. Still others, such as
the recent
Sierra Club insurgents, are worried about America’s
population growth and its effect on the environment.
A much smaller group of observers,
contributors to
Jared Taylor’s monthly newsletter
American Renaissance, are concerned about the
impact of mass migration—along with
multiculturalism and
racial and ethnic preferences—on whites as a group.
This concern, needless to say, is taboo in polite
society. But Taylor and his circle are not in the least
bothered. In fact, they view themselves as heretics,
thus the subtitle of their recent collection of AR
articles:
A Race against Time: Racial Heresies for the
Twenty-First Century. [Table
of Contents,
PDF]
Even though it is heretical, A
Race against Time is worth reading. Its analysis of
multiculturalism and racial and ethnic quotas is
accurate and revealing. And another, more dramatic
reason to read the book is this: As the elites of this
country reduce whites to a dwindling minority in a
balkanized America, the kind of data and arguments
presented in this collection may well provide the
intellectual foundation for the rise of a new identity
politics in the United States—to which one academic
observer,
Carol Swain, has already given a name:
“the new white
nationalism.”
In the first chapter,
“A Racial Revolution,” [AR, May 1999]
Taylor tells us that over the last fifty years
the way Americans have thought about race since
Colonial times has been completely rejected. Not
only have those earlier ideas on race become outmoded,
but today they are considered immoral. As Taylor puts
it: “Only revolutions bring such sweeping,
back-to-front moral changes.”
Today whites are made to pretend
that there are no meaningful racial differences; that
whites have no legitimate group aspirations; that
slavery is a sin for which today’s whites must pay
eternal retribution; that the only acceptable statements
whites can make about race are apologies; and that
“diversity” is good for whites since it liberates
them from the pathology of racism, etc. etc.
This is not Taylor’s caricature of
multiculturalism, but a sober summary. The fact is that
this contemporary ideology is shallow and
self-contradictory. Race must be held meaningless only
by whites, while non-whites are incessantly told that
their race is the pivotal point in their lives, the key
to their individual and
group identity and to their success. But if whites
were to assert such a claim for themselves, they would
be (and are)
loudly condemned as “racists.” For example,
only whites must integrate their
private clubs and other associations, while blacks
and others are not required to do so. A Race against
Time does a good job of exposing the fraud of
“multiculturalism” and revealing its intellectual
flaws.
The enforcement arm of
multiculturalism is political correctness. This term
originated in Stalinist Russia in the 1930s as a
description of the way the Communist state enforced
Marxist doctrine, as
Frank Ellis, a professor of Russian history, reminds
us in his contribution. [Multiculturalism
and Marxism, November 1999]
In another article, [White
Might, Black Fright , AR, February 1994]
Thomas Jackson shows how political correctness damages
blacks by
inciting paranoia.
Wild rumors assert that white racist groups are
colluding with the government to eradicate blacks by
spreading disease and drug addiction among them. Jackson
notes that “if today’s blacks think their government
is trying to kill them or that the KKK can tell the FDA
what to put in a report, they will believe anything.”
Again the double standard stands
out sharply. For if whites were to respond to a social
problem by blaming blacks as a racial group, all hell
would break loose.
Drug addiction is indeed higher in
the black population than among whites. So are rates of
disease and
incarceration, as well as the percentage of children
born out of wedlock. At the same time, academic
success remains persistently lower among blacks than
among whites. Several articles in Race against Time,
using readily available data, carefully document those
differences. The real heresy of A Race against Time
is that its contributors explain those differences
not in terms of social factors, but rather in terms of
inherited
genetic differences between the races.
This, the authors claim, accounts
not only for the persistent gap in academic success
between the races, but for the differential in their
moral behavior as well. Thus Richard Lynn argues that
lower intelligence, based on genetic differences, lies
at the heart of the
social pathology we see in black communities. [Race
and Psychopathic Personality, July 2002]
And philosopher Michael Levin makes
a scientific and philosophical argument for
genetically-based superiority of whites. [Is
There a Superior Race?
AR, February, 1999]
The data used to draw such
heretical conclusions are not fantasy; they are drawn
from a body of
sound scientific resource. But fear of the withering
attacks on
Arthur Jensen and
Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray has made race and cognitive abilities
a
no-research zone in academe. Only a small obscure
group of
cognitive psychologists and specialists in
psychometrics (the measurement of achievement and
abilities) are now quietly working along these lines.
One exception is one of the
pioneers of molecular anthropology, Vince Sarich,
professor emeritus from the
University of California, Berkeley, and Frank Miele,
an editor from the
Skeptic Magazine,
who have together recently published
Race: The Reality of Human Differences,
discussing the
biological reality of race.
It will be interesting to see how
this book is received—and what happens to the
authors’ reputations.
Personally, I accept the
possibility that there is a genetic component to some
aspects of group behavior. But I strongly suspect that
the claims made by the contributors to A Race Against
Time are overstated and ideological. My own training
in
cultural and social anthropology has also made me
acutely aware of the importance of the many shifting
variables, rising and falling in degrees of intensity
over time, that affect the behavior of people in the
aggregate; from the physical environment, through
economic and social configurations, to the patterns of
belief and custom that shape our response to the world
we live in.
I feel unable to evaluate
psychometric data and thus the claims made in Race
Against Time. But even if there is a genetic factor
in the equation, I would suspect that it is less potent
than the authors claim.
However, I don’t know this. And the
reluctance of investigators in the scientific community
to examine
race and behavior leave me only guessing as to what
the answer may be. I am thus able to assert nothing more
than my preference for social and cultural explanations,
rather than address in a more effective manner the
claims made by principled racialists such as those at
American Renaissance.
I also wonder if it is
just political correctness that discourages serious
research in this field. Perhaps there is also fear of
discovering
unwelcome truths—in the form of biological
constraints to the
pursuit of equality and social improvement by
government.
Whatever the reason, there is a
very real danger in this stubborn refusal to engage
race-realist arguments, and the suggestive data on which
their claims are based.
When young whites have become a
minority in a society where an assertion of ethnic and
racial differences has a pay-off, more and more of them
will catch on to how the game is played. Eventually
someone will come along to exploit that awareness,
preaching a combination of racial superiority and
victimization that could become a force in the
balkanized politics of the future.
Of course, we do not know what the
future will bring. Maybe we will all learn to
get along in the diverse mosaic of different peoples
happily pursuing their distinctive ethnic identities at
public expense that the elites are preparing for us.
But, given what we know about the
nature of ethnic identity and its mobilizing potential
in times of stress, I for one wouldn’t bet on it.
Race against Time should be
read with that scenario in mind.
Glynn Custred
[email
him] is professor of
anthropology at California State University, Hayward,
and co-author of California’s Proposition 209. Among his
specialties in his field of anthropology are
sociolinguistics, borderland studies and ethnicity and
nationalism.