Our topic today is “Is race an important topic or a fiction?” And so, I’d like to begin our discussion of the concept of race with a reminder that historically race referred to ethnicity as well as physical characteristics.
But before I do that I’d like to explain the difference between categories of the mind and categories of nature or reality by describing the biggest crisis to hit Indiana since the Civil War. I’m talking about the decision to put Indiana on daylight saving time:
On April 29, 2005, with heavy backing from Governor Mitch Daniels’ economic development plan, and after years of controversy, the Indiana General Assembly passed a law stating that, effective April 2, 2006, the entire state of Indiana would become the 48th state to observe daylight saving time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Indiana
What no one knew at the time is that Indiana had weathered a similar crisis in the 1970s by refusing to reset their clocks twice a year. The unsung heroine in the time change battle of the 1970s was a woman who called in to a talk show and opined that her lawn was already brown, and one more hour of sunlight would kill it completely. That argument carried the day in Indiana for almost 40 years, and it was in that woman’s honor that I wrote what is probably the only song in existence on Daylight Saving Time.
The more philosophically minded among you may have noticed that there is a flaw in her argument. She made a category mistake by confusing categories of nature or reality with categories of the mind. The day is divided into hours based on a category of the mind, which can be changed. The year is based on a certain number of days, which is fixed and cannot be changed.
What does all this have to do with race? Race, as we now understand the term, is a conflation of categories of reality and categories of the mind. I have been asked to defend the proposition that race is a fiction, as opposed to an “important reality.” Those of us who have studied philosophy will recognize that the topic of this debate is based on what philosophers would call a false dichotomy.
In order to demonstrate what I mean I would ask you to contemplate what I am now holding in my hand. It is a copy of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter. It is what you would call “a piece of fiction.” It is, in other words, real. Fiction, in other words, is not a fiction. If you think about characters like Hamlet or Shylock or Hester Prynne, the fact that we know their names after centuries and can write books about them, as I did when I wrote The Angel and the Machine, means that these fictions are in some sense more real than any Jew, prince, or Puritan lady you ever met in the real world even though they are categories of the mind and Shylock et al never existed as real people. Fiction in this instance means category of the mind, and that brings me to my thesis: race is a fiction, by which I mean that race category of the mind which gets imposed for political purposes. To be more specific, race, as we now understand the term, is a category of the mind which gets imposed on subject peoples as a form of marginalization and control.
According to the OED, race refers to “a group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock.”
In Europe in the Middle Ages, everyone belonged to one “limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor” or another, but “the white race” was a completely unknown concept. The earliest example of a European author referring to fellow Europeans as ‘white people’ didn’t occur until 1613 when an African King in Thomas Middleton’s play The Triumphs of Truth looks out on an English audience and declares, “I see amazement set upon the faces/Of these white people, wond’rings and strange gazes.”https://aeon.co/ideas/how-white-people-were-invented...n-1613
When I refer to myself as bi-racial, meaning that I come from Irish and German stock, I am simply making use of what was once the accepted meaning of the term according to the OED, which defines race as “A group of several tribes or peoples, forming a distinct ethnical stock.” In 1883 Green wrote in his Conquest of England that “Courage was a heritage of the whole German race.”
The term “race” was also used to describe “One of the great divisions of mankind.” Race, in this instance meant “having certain physical peculiarities in common.” In 1861 Blumenbach grouped those “physical peculiarities” into “five races: 1st. The Caucasian; 2nd The Mongolian; 3rd the Ethiopian; 4th the American; 5th the Malay.” But this was only one use of the term.
So what do we mean when we say that race is “real”? We mean that ethnicity has always been a category of reality. We also mean that physical characteristics are real and that they differ depending on what part of the planet you come from. The shape of your nose and the color of your skin are categories of reality. The virtues or vices associated with them, however, are categories of the mind, which get applied for political reasons.
So, to get back to our original example, does the fact that the 24-hour day is a category of the mind mean that there is no difference between night and day? No, of course not. The 24-hour day organizes night and day; it does not replace them. Similarly, categories like “the white race,” whether they are cited by Jared Taylor or Noel Ignatiev, mobilize biological characteristics for political purposes in a way that is independent of the characteristics themselves.
Had “the white race” been known in the Middle Ages, it would have been called a universal. A universal is something outside of nature which is brought to nature in order to organize nature and make it, as a result, comprehensible. Universals can also be used to weaponize nature for political purposes.
To give a recent example of the manipulation of universals for political purposes, there is a group of people, and I happen to be one of them, who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. This is a category of reality. These people have real identities; they have names and addresses, and presumably all of them are registered voters, and if they’re not they should be.
Hillary Clinton, who lost that election, described this group of people as “a basket of deplorables.” Now what type of term is that? I think everyone here would agree that it is a weaponized category of the mind. More specifically “deplorables” is a word which describes a category of Hillary Clinton’s mind which has no relation to anything else but Hillary Clinton’s mind. Are those people deplorable? Only in Hillary Clinton’s mind. Deplorable is a category of the mind based on a category of nature. It is similar to the term feminism, another term which is based on a category of nature, namely, woman, but which has been weaponized for political purposes. This becomes apparent when we move from “women” to “women’s rights” and from “women’s rights” to abortion. By commandeering the term “woman,” which is a category of nature, feminists hope to coerce agreement to propositions which are nothing but categories of the mind.
The term “deplorable” is also a form of identity theft of the sort which took place last summer in St. Louis, when Umar Lee, who started off life as a white boy, became a Negro when he went to high school, and ended up as a Muslim, described the people who wanted to prevent the removal of the statue of St. Louis as “white supremacists.” When they gathered around the statue, that group of people could be seen praying the Rosary, which indicates that they were Catholics. If Lee had identified them as Catholics, however, he would have lost that battle. In fact, when I identified them as Catholics in an article in Culture Wars, he did lose the battle because Catholics still have rights and white supremacists don’t. “White supremacist” was a category of the mind, but Catholic was a category of reality.
Critical Race Theory is based on sociology; white racism is based on biology, but both ideologies are forms of identity theft which manipulate categories of the mind for political purposes. The only difference between these two groups is the value judgments which they place on the categories of white and black. In both instances, what began as a description of physical characteristics based on a category of nature gets magically transformed into a category of the mind whose purpose is to justify economic injustice. This is true of 17th century Virginia, where the planter class decided to divide the working class according to skin color, thereby ensuring a docile workforce in which working class whites were considered superior to working class blacks. And it is equally true of Critical Race Theory in the 21st century, which simultaneously reversed and maintained the original good/bad dichotomy based on “race” and used it as a justification for Affirmative Action, which is also a form of economic injustice.
If I asked everyone watching this debate if they were white, most would agree they were. But if I asked them if they were a Mzungu, I would probably get a different response. If you ask me if I am a Mzungu, I would have to say yes, but only when I am in east Africa, because Mzungu is the Swahili word for white guy. You’re a Lithuanian if you speak Lithuanian and/or live in Lithuania, but you’re not a Mzungu until you arrive in East Africa.
This, mutatis mutandis, is precisely what happened to Europeans when they emigrated to America. Before their arrival, they had no understanding of themselves as white, because both black and white, as categories of the mind, are dependent on geography and culture even though the features that make up our understanding are categories of nature which are independent of context. Because there were no black people in Lithuania, Lithuanians did not consider themselves white. In Vilnius, they were known as Lithuanians, but when Martin Luther King showed up in the Lithuanian neighborhood in Chicago known as Marquette Park, they became white, largely because they dared to oppose King’s attempt to take over their neighborhood. “White” is a category of the mind, which even then in 1966 had been weaponized to dehumanize the people it got applied to in order to defeat them in an undeclared war.
Unlike race, which is based on characteristics which are undeniably real but insignificant, ethnicity is a universal which is based on man’s most important characteristic, the one which distinguishes him from every other animal on earth, namely, language, which is the commonest manifestation of logos and the essence of what we are as rational creatures.
Lithuanians come from a certain part of the world. They eat certain kinds of food, but, first and foremost, Lithuanians are a group because they speak a particular language, which few people outside Lithuania understand. The universal known as ethnicity is based primarily on language. The universal Lithuanian, to give just one example, is more like sex than “red-head,” which is real but insignificant or “deplorable,” which is totally a category of one person’s mind. Lithuanian refers to a language, which is a significant category of reality because it is the basis of ethnic identity and rational discourse among that particular people.
There are 76 different ethnic groups in Tanzania, and all of them are indistinguishable when it comes to “race,” as that term is currently understood. The universal known as Kikuyu has a content that is both objective and significant, because language plays a significant role in transmitting the values which determine behavior. The universals known as “black” or “white,” on the other hand, while based on the objective realities we have already discussed, have no significance or meaningful content because superficial racial differences have no effect on behavior or identity other than what gets projected on them as categories of the mind.
Categories of the mind can become universals which determine behavior. I once wrote an article on motorcycle culture in America after visiting the famous biker rally in Sturgis, South Dakota. At the high point of that festival, I was told, someone yelled, “Hey, asshole,” and everyone turned around. Is “asshole” a universal based on a category of nature or a category of the mind? Well, it’s both a part of the human body and a category of the mind, which gets used as an insult.
Why do I bring this up? I’m saying that if you identify as white, you are like the biker who turned around at the biker rally when someone yelled, “Hey, asshole” because like “asshole” white is a derogatory term that allows those in power to deprive those who identify as white of their rights. In the wake of what happened in Charlottesville, it is clear that “white” is not only a category of the mind, it is also a clearly derogatory term somewhere between “deplorable” and “asshole.” Anyone who adopts the term is internalizing the commands of his oppressors and asking for trouble.
Compare what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia with what happened in Richmond more recently in the same state. There the “universal” was gun owner, and because of that no one went to jail in spite of the fact that many of the same people showed up at both rallies. The difference lies in the universals which got applied to them. “Gun owner” is a universal which is based on a category of nature, which entails rights still guaranteed by the Constitution. “White” is a universal which has some insignificant connection with reality if we are talking about skin color, shape of nose, etc., but that universal has become a category of the mind or fiction, which now gets applied with a political purpose in mind. White people, unlike gun owners, have been deprived of their right to free speech and right to assemble. Charlottesville is proof of that. This leads me to my conclusion: race is a category of the mind which gets weaponized for political purposes.
Like feminists in general and Hillary Clinton in particular, race theorists in like Mr. Taylor base their arguments on a sleight of hand which switches in a deliberately deceptive manner from categories of reality to categories of the mind based on an equivocal use of the same word.
Jared Taylor demonstrated this intellectual sleight of hand at the Scandza Forum in Copenhagen in 2018 by marshaling facts like: “The illegitimacy rate among blacks in the United States is 77 percent. In some areas in the United States marriage has simply disappeared in Black communities. Whereas the illegitimacy rate among whites is 30 percent.” After citing “These. . . remarkable differences,” Taylor then asks disingenuously “How do we account for them?” and then mockingly answering his own question, he goes on to say that “The only explanation must be white racism.”
Race theorists believe in things like “science” and “IQ,” but they never cite studies that contradict the foregone conclusion that “race” is the fundamental social reality and the ultimate cause of social pathology. Studies not cited by Taylor indicate that family and faith are more important than race in determining intelligence.
Considering studies like this, Taylor’s facts raise more questions than they answer. Did the number of out of wedlock births in the black community always stand at 77 percent? The same could be asked of the white illegitimacy rate. Was it always 30 percent? Was the ratio of black to white illegitimacy always roughly two to one?
By bringing up the issue of Black illegitimacy, Taylor invokes, deliberately or not, the Moynihan Report, named after then Undersecretary of Transportation Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who reported in 1963 that Black illegitimacy had reached epidemic proportions because 21 percent of all black children were born out of wedlock.
If we look at the percentages over time, the differences become even more striking. According to a report from The Brookings Institute: “In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.”https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-ou...tates/ This means, of course, that white illegitimacy is now higher than black illegitimacy was then. What does this tell us about race? The answer is that it tells us nothing, but it does tell us a lot about cultural change.
Upon closer examination, the real question would seem to be, not so much why are Black illegitimacy rates three times what they were in 1965 but why did white illegitimacy rates increase ten-fold over the same period of time? In 1965 black illegitimacy was eight times higher than white rates. Now it’s only double white rates. If race is the main factor in predicting illegitimacy, why do we now have a situation in which whites now bear more illegitimate children than blacks did then? Taylor gives no indication that race has changed over this period of time, but something has changed. What then?
The answer to that question is that the culture has changed, and 1965 was a crucial year in this regard. In the spring of that year, the Supreme Court handed down its Griswold vs. Connecticut decision striking down Comstock-era laws banning the sale of contraceptives. At around the same time, Hollywood broke the Production Code which prohibited nudity, blasphemy and obscenity, by releasing its holocaust porn film The Pawnbroker.
Race played no role whatsoever in either of these important events, but ethnicity did, especially if we define ethnicity in America according to the Triple Melting Pot theory which specifies that after three generations, religion becomes the source of ethnic identity in America. America is made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions: Protestant, Catholic, and Jew. Estelle Griswold was the extremely white wife of a Yale Professor. Birth Control was a Protestant crusade, which got its initial funding from the equally white Rockefeller family.
Hollywood was a Jewish creation from its inception, as was pornography. The Catholics fought both groups on these issues. Race played no role in that conflict, and if race is superimposed on that conflict as its ultimate explicator, then what happened then remains forever mysterious. The cultural revolution of the ‘60s which led to skyrocketing illegitimacy rates among both black and white populations took place totally within the purview of the triple melting pot, which specified religion, not race, as the matrix of cultural conflict in America.
Race, in other words, does not explain the statistics Taylor himself cites. By using race as his criterion of social pathology, Taylor in fact provides cover for the real perpetrators of cultural decay. After talking about illegitimacy, Taylor then switches gears and complains about “fierce private limitations on what we can say” which have been imposed on internet platforms,” claiming that “Google, Facebook and Twitter are . . . censoring our ideas” when in fact the main actor in Internet censorship and, in fact, the inventor of the term “hate speech,” which gets used to justify censorship, is the Anti-Defamation League, which is a Jewish organization.
Which leads us to our first question: Are Jews white?
This question has already been answered for us by another Jewish organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which heaped praise on Taylor’s organization American Renaissance. I pointed this out in Culture Wars in 2007 in an article describing how both organizations manipulated race to cover up the real actors in America’s ongoing saga of cultural tribal warfare. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a Jewish defamation operation similar to the ADL, which demonized John Sharpe as a racist anti-Semite because he attended one of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance conferences.
Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about that organization. In fact, a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us that AR president Jared Taylor is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.” Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, “deletes most postings excoriating the Jews.”
This only confirms what we have learned from other sources. In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it for the benefit of Jewish interests. One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well-known that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100% clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.”https://culturewars.com/news/guilt-by-association
So, congratulations Jared for making Jews fit for polite company. This transformation, however, has serious consequences for anyone involved in fighting the culture wars. As soon as Jews become white, they become invisible, and as soon as the revolutionary Jew becomes invisible, we run into serious difficulties in providing a convincing explanation for any of the pathologies that have afflicted the West for over 50 years now—from unlimited weaponized immigration to pornography to abortion to wars in the Middle East.
In one of his You Tube videos, Taylor says “If we do nothing, we will be shoved aside by people who hate us for what we have built and despise us for letting them take it away from us.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFUUNQz3sYM Who are these people who “hate us for what we have built?” Who gave us pornography, gay marriage, endless wars in the Middle East, and weaponized migration in both America in the ‘60s and in Europe as we speak? Was it the nameless sharecroppers from Mississippi and South Carolina or was it “white people” like John J. McCloy of the Ford Foundation who used Black ministers like Leon Sullivan to engage in the ethnic cleansing of Catholic parishes in Philadelphia? Was it nameless boat people from Libya or was it “white” people like Barbara Lerner Specter, who defended the weaponized migration wave sweeping over countries like Germany and Sweden by saying that: “Europe must become multicultural in order to survive…. As the Jews will be at the forefront of that huge transformation, the Jews will be resented for their leading role”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw
Barbara Lerner Specter is not the only Jew expressing animus toward traditional European cultures. Johns Hopkins Professor Yascha Mounk has stated that Jews “are currently involved in carrying on a unique experiment, whereby we are transforming a monoethnic democracy into a multi-ethnic multi-cultural society.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hA5IZAVXnk „Wir führen ein historisch einzigartiges Experiment durch, indem wir eine monoethnische Demokratie in eine multiethnische und multikulturelle Gesellschaft verwandeln In an interview on Westdeutscher Rundfunk’s Presseclub, Mounk stated that “The state must punish anyone who ‘out of hate’ opposes the creation of a multiethnic society.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ansHGlc5pI
Im Presseclub des WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) sagte Yascha Mounk den schweigenden, ins Leere schauende Gesprächsteilnehmern: „Der Staat muß diejenigen bestrafen, welche `aus Hass´ sich gegen die Erschaffung der multiethnischen Gesellschaft stellen
On the eve of Ireland’s citizenship referendum in 2007, the Israeli academic Ronit Lentin proposed “an interrogation of how the Irish nation can become other than white (Christian and settled), by privileging the voices of the racialised, and subverting state immigration, but also integration, policies.”https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/08/30/bec...ivism/ Those who are unfamiliar with the situation in the United States can view Mr. Greenblatt, head of the ADL, explaining on You Tube why more internet censorship is necessary.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1578&...b_logo Is Mr. Greenblatt white? Is Barbara Lerner Specter white? If the answer is yes, the current situation becomes completely incomprehensible because the main promoters of weaponized immigration in Europe and censorship on the internet are suddenly on the same team as the people they are trying to censor and destroy. Which doesn’t make sense.
Clearly, something is wrong here, and the problem lies with Jared Taylor’s mendacious use of the word race. Race, as Taylor uses it, is a category of the mind very similar to Hilary Clinton’s use of “deplorable.” It weaponizes categories of nature for political effect. This become obvious in his use of the term “white,” which includes Jews but excludes people like Kevin MacDonald, who has never been invited to an American Renaissance conference because he criticizes Jews.
The same is true of David Duke, whose attempt to get elected governor of the State of Louisiana was derailed by Taylor’s “wife” Evelyn Rich. Taylor preaches racial solidarity, but he practices the exact opposite, acting as a commissar for Jewish interests in making sure that the term “white” conforms not to categories of nature but the category of Jared Taylor’s mind. Once the revolutionary-minded Jew becomes white, he becomes “one of us,” which means that he becomes invisible, and free to wage war on the cultures of the West by promoting culture destroying phenomena like abortion, gay marriage, usury, and pornography.
But that is only half the story. By making Jews white, Taylor simultaneously makes whites Jews, turning them into unwitting accomplices in the destruction of their own culture and their own lives, as happened at Charlottesville. Anyone who claims that Jews are white is the enemy of the “white” people he claims to lead. Like the Mahdi who inspired thousands of his followers to charge Kitchener’s Maxim Guns, waving scimitars astride their camels at the Battle of Omdurman, racial apologists like Jared Taylor inspired Richard Spencer to hand out spears to the white boys and point them in the direction of the legal machine gun nest in Charlottesville, where they all got mowed down by a self-described “chubby Lesbian kike” named Roberta Kaplan.
Is Roberta Kaplan white, Jared?
Is Jennifer Rubin white, Jared? If so, why did she just tweet that the coming minority status of “whites” is “fabulous news.” If Jews are white, why does Jennifer Rubin feel the need “to prevent minority White rule”?
I think I know the answer to that question. If Jews are white, then whites are Jews. Since Jews have power and whites do not, this means that the whites who follow Taylor’s understanding of race end up internalizing the commands of their oppressors and being controlled by the very people they need to oppose. Jared knows this, but do you? Do you turn around when someone yells, “Hey, asshole”? Are you willing to ruin your life for a category mistake?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hA5IZAVXnk „Wir führen ein historisch einzigartiges Experiment durch, indem wir eine monoethnische Demokratie in eine multiethnische und multikulturelle Gesellschaft verwandeln
Im Presseclub des WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) sagte Yascha Mounk den schweigenden, ins Leere schauende Gesprächsteilnehmern: „Der Staat muß diejenigen bestrafen, welche `aus Hass´ sich gegen die Erschaffung der multiethnischen Gesellschaft stellen