Jared Taylor on America and race at American Thinker
Jared Taylor has an article at American Thinker. And he is permitted to make his basic case: that the current liberal understanding of race is diametrically opposite the view held by Americans for almost all of our history, and is a destructive one.
I could continue with a virtually endless list of shockingly harsh quotations about non-whites from prominent Americans of the past, but I believe what I have already written is enough to suggest that whatever “American exceptionalism” may mean to Mr. Malik, neither the Founders nor the generations that followed them had the slightest desire to establish a haven for people of all races.
The comments are respectful, with those who disagree with the essay refraining from using words like “Nazi” or “genocide.” Perhaps change really is in the air.
What does this have to do with “white nationalism?” First, as Jerry Woodruff pointed out, there is no agreement on what that term means. Whites who do not accept the current—and, I might add, very recent—orthodoxy on race have been called many things, but the reason there is no agreed-upon name for them is that they are expressing views that were so taken for granted by earlier generations of Americans that there was no need for a name.
People care more for their own children than for the children of strangers, so we have no word to describe such people. We can imagine a nightmare government that ordered that all children be reared in common and that forbade favoritism. Only then would we need a word to describe dissidents who wanted to rear their own children. Americans who have a traditional view of race find themselves in the same situation: without a name for themselves because historically there was never a need for one.
On one point, therefore, Mr. Malik is correct. Those of us with a white identity have little affection for a government that practices an immigration policy that will reduce us to a minority, and shamelessly discriminates against us under the name of “affirmative action.” Just as French patriots could not support a wartime government that cooperated with German occupation, we cannot support a government that encourages occupation of the United States by strangers.
[End of quotes]
Taylor’s last paragraph is also worth quoting:
- end of initial entry -
Those whom Mr. Malik calls “white nationalists” harken back to traditional American convictions. Though we may regret some of our ancestors’ actions, we find much wisdom in their views, and we share their vision of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage. When Mr. Malik denounces us he is therefore rejecting America from colonial times until perhaps the middle of the 20th century. He is free to do so, of course, but he should refrain from claiming that his multi-culti, anything-goes America is somehow more authentic than ours.
And here’s further indication of how things have changed. Several years ago the editor of American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, said that I was using an anti-Semitic code word and ended corrrespondence with me when, in an article I had submitted to him, I stated the simple fact that the neoconservatives were the main supporters of President Bush’s spread-democracy policy. And now Lifson, who cut me off and expelled me simply for using the word neoconservative, publishes Jared Taylor.
Laura Wood writes:
This is an excellent piece by Jared Taylor and I applaud Thomas Lifson for having the courage to publish it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 03, 2011 04:23 PM | Send