September 23, 1996

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

As I mentioned yesterday, in preparation of Ernst's newest battle with the Canadian Shadows who are trying to deport him in the worst way possible to get him to stop asking "Did Six Million Really Die?", I finished posting documents pertaining to the Heritage Front, a "white supremacist" organization composed of mostly disaffected youths. The Shadows, as you will remember, tried to link him to that group by mere proximity, although he never was a member. It is a complex story straight out of Kafka-Land.

In working with these documents, I have been sensitized to this particular, derogatory smear used with the broadest brush on all of us wherever there's a need to genuflect. Hence, I was glad to find the following, a sort of mission statement for a magazine addressing OUR needs and where we're coming from I recommend to you.

It is called "American Renaissance" (http://www.amren.com/) and comes out of Kentucky. Its content is superb.

Here is a sampling of the style:

"Ordinarily, there is no need to explain what a publication does not stand for. However, American Renaissance has been called "white" SUPREMACIST="so" MANY TIMES="it" MAY BE USEFUL TO POINT OUT HOW ABSURD SUCH ACCUSATIONS ARE" First of all, "white supremacist" is probably the most pejorative, emotion-laden racial term that can be used against a white person. It is not a description of a way of thinking--for it is almost never defined--but is instead a curse word. It is not used as part of an argument, but as an attempt to portray someone as morally inferior. Its purpose is to insult, intimidate, and discredit.

It is like the word "nigger"--a powerful, ill-defined racial pejorative. Calling someone a nigger is not an argument or a rebuttal. Calling someone a "white supremacist" is no different. Liberals who would never dream of calling someone a nigger are perfectly happy to use the same kind of lurid racial pejorative so long as their targets are white.

Taken literally, the term "white supremacy" is presumably the belief that the white race is supreme--that it should dominate, rule or exploit other races. There is nothing whatsoever in American Renaissance to promote this view. To call AR, its writers, or readers "white supremacist" in this sense is so obviously inaccurate it is simply stupid.

What if "white supremacy" is defined somewhat more mildly, as a belief in the "superiority" of whites compared to other races. AR's position has consistently been that the races are different in ways that are reflected in the societies they produce, and these differences are a legitimate and necessary subject of study. Some of these differences are impossible to compare. There is no scale on which they can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial "superiority" or "inferiority." AR therefore draws no such conclusions.

It is certainly true that in some important traits--intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease--whites can be considered "superior" to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be "superior" to whites. Is someone who believes that there are probably genetic reasons for this a "yellow supremacist"?

Why do critics persist in calling AR "white supremacist" despite the absurdity of the charge? Probably it is because AR expresses an unapologetic preference for the culture and way of life characteristic of whites. It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs to the creators of European civilization will carry that civilization forward in a meaningful way.

Few whites now take these positions publicly, but AR's preferences and beliefs are equivalent to those expressed by spokesmen for other races. Blacks take pride in their way of life and do not believe that people of other races can reproduce it authentically. Hispanics and Asians believe the same things about themselves. They are not called "supremacists" or denounced as moral inferiors.

A preference for one's own race and culture, along with the desire to see them survive and flourish, does not imply ill will towards others. Men love their race and culture for the same reason they love their own children: because they are their own, not because they are objectively superior to all others. Just as love for one's own children is a positive thing, which implies no hostility towards the children of others, love of race is positive.

Those who accuse AR of "white supremacy" are simply reflecting the anti-white bias of our age: What is permitted and even encouraged among non-whites is forbidden to whites. A healthy and natural preference for one's own people, which was taken for granted by virtually all whites until 50 or 60 years ago, is today denounced as "white supremacy," while all other races are encouraged to express the same natural preferences.

This double standard, if it remains unchanged, will have dire consequences. No group can survive unless its members are loyal to it and put its interests first. Those who denounce such loyalty--only when it is expressed by whites--as some form of wicked "supremacy" and try to stamp it out are working, consciously or not, for the ultimate destruction of the white race and its culture."

(Written" BY JARED TAYLOR="Editor" OF AMERICAN RENAISSANCE="The" ABOVE WAS POSTED WITH PERMISSION Thought for the Day: "I know exactly how I could make myself neurotic: If I said or believed something that is not myself." (Carl Jung)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Sept. 1996 ZGrams