1,385 words
On April 29th of this year, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance participated in a debate at Kentucky State University. The topic, of course, was about whether racial diversity was good or bad. His opponent was political science professor Wilfred Reilly, a portly and stylish young man with what appeared to be a furry animal living on his chin.
During the debate, Mr. Taylor did what Mr. Taylor does. It was a joy to hear him speak. But it was Dr. Reilly’s statements which were most astonishing. You can read the transcript of Mr. Taylor’s opening remarks as well as view the two-hour recording of the entire debate here.
With his characteristic stoic eloquence, Mr. Taylor reiterated his central thesis that people are racial by nature and prefer to be among others of their race. He backed this up with plenty of studies and data. He quoted polls. He provided numbers. He discussed racial strife in schools, in the workplace, and on the streets. All to point to his general position that racial diversity is unnatural and leads inevitably to conflict and strife. He also challenged his opponent to produce the concrete strengths of racial diversity, strengths that would be impossible in an all-white America. His speech was clear and direct, and his logic, in my opinion, impeccable.
And all this is great. I believe that fans of Counter-Currents will have no objection with what Mr. Taylor says, but may have problems with what he doesn’t say. As expected, Mr. Taylor, who does not consider himself a white nationalist, stopped short of calling for a white ethnostate. At least we cannot fault Mr. Taylor for being inconsistent.
Regardless, Mr. Taylor presents a formidable challenge for any interlocutor. Dr. Reilly does deserve credit for respecting the free speech rights of someone like Mr. Taylor. He also deserves credit for stepping up, but in so doing he revealed two very striking things about himself: his overall unseriousness and his hatred for white people.
It is the latter which I found so astonishing because I had never seen it so smug before.
Dr. Reilly’s arguments, if you can call them that, consisted mainly of
- reminding the crowd that he is professional scholar (which he did 7 times).
- promoting interracial dating and sex (which he did 6 times).
- promoting ethnic food (which he did 5 times).
- referring to a poll with his drinking buddies who concluded that racial diversity is “fun” because it creates great rap music, successful NFL football teams, and many Olympic gold medalists.
- disparaging sexual reproduction among whites as “incest” and “inbreeding.”
- referring to genetics whenever it was convenient. For example, diversity is good because when a strong black man reproduces with a smart white woman, there is an excellent chance the offspring will be strong and On the other hand, blacks cannot not possibly inherit stupidity or criminal natures from their parents because we all know that these are caused by environmental factors such as oppression and lack of opportunity.
Dr. Reilly did have a few substantive remarks. He countered Mr. Taylor’s anti-diversity arguments by citing how nations consisting of only one race can be as violent as multiracial ones. His examples, however, will not be terribly persuasive to Counter-Currents readers given that these nations exist mostly in Africa or the Middle East. Given the latest Color of Crime study found on Mr. Taylor’s website, the fact that blacks are violent towards other blacks should come as no surprise and is no argument against white people wanting to live among other whites. Likewise, we know how barbaric Arabs can be, so his listing Syria and Iraq as mono-racial nations with a lot of intra-racial violence is an equally ineffectual argument. He tried to indict homogenous European nations in the same manner (Bosnia and Serbia, for example) but neglected to mention that the intra-racial violence in these places pales in comparison to what goes on in Iraq or Syria or wherever black Africans form communities.
Dr. Reilly also pointed to below-average IQ scores of European immigrants from the early 20th century, and claimed a cause-and-effect between greater assimilation and increases in those scores over time. He then claimed the same could happen for black IQ scores as they become more assimilated. This is absurd for two reasons. He did not mention that the reason for those low IQ scores from over a century ago was because of language difficulties — many of the test takers were not entirely fluent in English. Also, he conveniently discounted the possibility of genetics playing a role in IQ scores without the expertise to do so (our current understanding of the human genome is so incomplete that no one has such expertise).
Dr. Reilly also resorted to a few outright lies, such as when he said that the murder rate for all ethnic groups in America has dropped since the 16th century. This is not true for blacks. According to Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom’s America in Black and White, the black crime rate skyrocketed in the mid-1960s after attaining political equality with whites. It has yet to return to its relatively low 1950s levels.
Dr. Reilly also asserted absurdly and without evidence that ancient African kingdoms such as Mali and Ghana were more advanced than the Vikings, and that presently “some of the highest IQs in the world are found in Nigeria, Ghana, the West African states.” He also claimed that the black crime rate was only twice the white crime rate. This, of course, is balderdash, and easily refuted in The Color of Crime (which Mr. Taylor pointed out during the debate).
Such silliness and buffoonery coming from a university professor should be shocking enough, but what struck me the most was when Dr. Reilly said the following: “I don’t think there will be white people in 200 years. And that’s a good thing.”
He actually doubled down on this prediction by repeating it. To Dr. Reilly, human development will be the merging of everyone into one, big multiracial race. That way, we will inherit all of our strengths. Of course, he dishonestly neglected to mention that racial weaknesses will also be promulgated in his vision of the future.
I am reminded of the central premise of Ward Kendall’s 2004 science fiction novel Hold Back This Day. In it, we have a single world government which is forcefully interbreeding all people of pure racial stock so that the entire human race becomes a single racial mishmash. It’s a terrifying premise, made even more terrifying by the blithe predictions of Dr. Reilly. He at one point described himself as an “upper middle class interracial urban person.” At another point, he revealed that he is part black and part Irish. He has the same powerful frame, polite attitude, and bronze skin of Kendall’s insidious villain Ahmad Yehudit. The similarity was unsettling to say the least.
The central effort of the world government in Hold Back This Day was to wipe out white people since whites are the most successful people on Earth. This improved the stock of many nonwhites but at the same time resulted in the cheapening of the white stock. I believe that Dr. Reilly has similar genocidal intentions towards whites. He doesn’t want to do it violently. He’d rather do it over centuries through miscegenation and racial diversity. This is exactly the claim that Greg Johnson and others on the Alt-Right have been making for years. And as terrifying as it is to hear in a public forum, it is nice to know that our enemies agree with us on this point. As such, our fears of ultimate white extinction become that much harder to dismiss.
Mr. Taylor got more animated than I have ever seen him in responding to such a ghastly prediction. And he did make one great point which Dr. Reilly could not deny. In fact, it is the race-realists who are the true supporters of racial diversity. We want to keep the Japanese Japanese in Japan, and the Indians Indian in India as much as we want to keep whites white in a white homeland. It is Dr. Reilly who wishes to destroy racial diversity through universal miscegenation.
What is almost as frightening as a world without white people is a world in which everyone is just like Wilfred Reilly.
13 Comments
I remember reading an article on the ”alt-right” or “Radix” website about interracial coupling and basically what it said is that most white women seek white men. And another point, most nonwhite populations are very ethno centric and interracial coupling is frowned. So I really don’t see Reilly’s hybrid mocha Joe and Jane population springing up anytime soon.
Looks like the audience for this was mostly black students.
http://www.state-journal.com/2016/04/21/diversity-divide-ksu-professor-debates-white-nationalist/
Kind of a quaint setup, having a mulatto and Japanese-born White nationalist debate racial diversity at a public university in Kentucky. We live in strange times.
Spencer Quinn describes Wilfred Reilly as “a portly and stylish young man with what appeared to have a furry animal living on his chin.” He could have added that Reilly has maggots in his mind.
It’s remarkable how egalitarians will combine the most supercilious snobbery with the crassest vulgarity, such as illustrated by Quinn’s summary of Reilly’s “arguments” against Jared Taylor. D. H. Lawrence’s phrase “the reign of the pseudo-humble” comes to mind here. Egalitarians have no truth, no taste, no culture, no wisdom, no science, no history. They should also have no future and no power.
It is interesting to read Reilly’s comments in the comments section under his youtube channels upload of the lecture: https://youtu.be/ KqoqN4kXk3s
Sounds like quite a debate. I hope I can find time soon to watch this.
I have appreciated those works of Jared Taylor I have read. They have inspired me to keep researching these issues of race, identity, forced racial and cultural blending, eugenics, ethnocentrism, eurocentrism and much else. Just now reading ‘The Revolt Against Civilization’ by Lothrap Stoddard having just finished ‘Man the Unknown’ by Alexis Carrel.
I noticed a few thing in this debate. One is that it doesn’t seem that fruitful to seek venues of this sort. The audience in attendance seemed to be composed entirely of these who share Reilly’s perspective, and though I appreciated all of what Taylor spoke about (they same which is documented in his books), it seems nearly impossible to defeat the arguments of the opposing side when they simply do not wish to be defeated. The Michael Brown example that came up in the debate seems a good one: When Blacks look at this they see what they desire to see and they interpret it as they desire. It is not a question of rational dissection. It does not matter what the ‘truth’ is. My sense therefor is that all of this is not a ‘rational issue’ it is one more akin to pure ‘will-to-power’. Right now, and in the public sphere generally, the arguments of people like Reilly have got their hold on people because they ‘seem right’. But at the very bottom this is an issue which has only to do with ‘straight power principles’ at the core level.
I can’t help but to have noticed the dullness of the people who asked questions at the end of the debate. They had trouble organizing their sentences and seemed only rudimentarily cogent. But the intellectual facade, again, only superficially covers what I think is a more raw issue of power: It does not matter what is ‘true or false’, it simply matters what one desires to believe.
In my view the argument that sways me is one that I encounter in Lotrap Stoddard’s work: civilization is essentially what concerns me, and civilization as I value it and understand it is uniquely a European project. If these college kids, or college kids generally, function at such a low intellectual level, the battle is essentially lost: Let them blend into each other and re-blend again. Let them develop their crude discourses. I do not have the sense they will rise to create much of anything that I would value.
It seems to me that you have already to have been converted to a viewpoint of understanding and defending white identity and white nationalism to be influenced by this particular debate. If there are whites like those who appeared on the opposing side who see it, they may be influenced emotionally and through group-dynamic, to see Taylor as an anachronism and not as a voice of new power.
I am inclined to agree with Jonathan Bowden and others: white identity has to be given and must claim an upper edge and must be seen as an advantage, as more robust and meaningful than merely holding to a classical segregationist argument (my impression of Taylor). A segregationsist’s mentality is crucial, no doubt, but the real power in white identity is our link with Europe’s intellectual and cultural projects and achievements. It is part of the tragedy we are facing that fewer and fewer can define value in this way.
Very well put, Gustav. Your argument about the uselessness of such debates would be stronger however without the internet. Such events, when recorded and propagated over the internet reach many more people than who was in the audience that night. Reasonable people will see that Jared Taylor had the best of the argument. Further, I would hesitate to jump to conclusions about the nation’s youths based on the dim-witted audience members. Most whites have a tendency to avoid blacks in large numbers, and there were blacks in large numbers attending that debate. So a lot of the brighter kids probably just opted out of going.
You’re right about adopting Jonathan Bowden’s Identitarian perspective over Taylor’s classic Segregationist perspective (These are nice categories, by the way. Did you coin them?) With the anti-social, anti-white attitudes and behavior of blacks these days, the segregationist model is quickly becoming outdated and impractical.
Hello there Spencer. Thanks for your comment. I am sure that I did not coin them. But ‘white identity’ seems terribly crucial and one philosophically underpinned. I attempt to define a ‘radical eurocentrism’ and one that describes a well-founded non-philo-judaic base. It is going to be a long slog of numerous years to become more clear.
I think you made a very good point about such videos becoming Internet property.
I would though beg to differ with you over ‘reasonable people’. Most ‘reasonable people’ would allow their reasoning to stay on Reilley’s side. So it is a question of one what one’s ‘reason’ is constructued. To be informed is to come into contact with new information which helps one to radically reorganize ones reasonings. I’d already read Taylor’s books so I already knew his arguments.
I would say that – and certainly in my own case – the 13 minute video of a condensation of Jonathan Bowden’s talk on ‘Western Civilization Bites Back’ has done much to help me approach a different reasoned conclusion. As Bowden pointed out: we come to these positions through something we deeply feel and then we construct our reasonings. I’ve posted it on numrous fora and wonder if it has had the same effect on others?
Very interesting, Gustav. Yes, I agree about Bowden’s work. I read the book before seeing the video you mention. The book is just as powerful.
I too downloaded and read an electronic version of ‘Western Civilization Bites Back’ but after listening to the audio speech. Great stuff.
I never would have thought I’d read David Duke but lo and behold I did, and I found him respectable and rational. I spent a good deal of time looking into American Civil War issues, inspired by Richard Weaver and The Southern Tradition at Bay. Weaver is one of the main ones who got me thinking ‘metaphysically’ about the South certainly, and about so much of our hyper-liberal culture. The destruction of the South is in many senses the destruction of Original America. C.f. ‘The Mind of the Master Class’ by Eugene Genovese.
The Red Pill is a philosophical medicine but it works rather slowly (or so it has been in my case). The whole viewstructure has to be revised.
(Weaver is one who died ‘too young’, like Bowden.)
reminding the crowd that he is professional scholar (which he did 7 times).
Anyone who works in a large institution of any kind, albeit a university or a hospital, has suffered under these types. The further removed they are from “the floor” the bigger the burden they become and the damage they inflict increases exponentially.
My! That does sound like sour grapes and so early in the morning! I’ll stop here. But a great article.
Thank you, Sandy. The moment I noticed the similarity between Reilly and the villain in Hold Back This Day, I knew I had to write it.
Regarding Reilly’s argument about NFL players I offer this. Most good quarterbacks are purebred white and most good running backs are dark skinned black. Good quarterbacks who aren’t white tend to have a significant amount of white blood like Cam Newton and Russell Wilson. Apart from the Great White Hope Peyton Hillis, the the whitest that any running back will get is a mulatto like Justin fargas or Ryan Matthews. Good NFL RBs come from the top part of the the black Bell curve for quickness and power and most good QBs the top part of the white Bell curve for quick reaction time.
Center is overwhelmingly the whitest position in the NFL because it involves quick reaction time and little movement. Good centers who aren’t white tend to be light skinned blacks.
The traits which enable whites to excel at quarterback and center and which enable blacks to excel at more movement oriented positions like running back were developed over probably a hundred thousand years of divergent evolution so I think that it’s very disingenuous for Reilly to call for miscegenation which will undo those potential intraracial genetic synergies that were created over thousands of years. Blacks make better running backs and whites make better quarterbacks but we have to view that as a cashing in on a hundred thousand years of separation which is undermined by mulattoes who have potentially slower reaction time and less quick-twitch muscle. An argument for racial specialization is what we’re seeing in the case of NFL teams–not an argument for racial mixing. Also I know for a fact that white players tend to be friends with other white players and black players tend to be friends with black players in the NFL. Just look at where they sit on the bench on the sideline: they usually sit with their Coracials. I would stress though that Major League Sports are a rare instance of where blacks tend to excel. Most modern day jobs require intelligence and do not require strong physical exertion, so blacks do not contribute much in most occupations. Sure you might be able to scrape off, say, the top 10% of the black bell curve which will be better than the bottom 50% of the white bell curve, but remember that it takes a larger black population to produce the same number of qualified individuals.