Free Life 23, August 1995, American Renaissance, Reviewed by Sean Gabb

From Free Life, Issue 23, August 1995
ISSN: 0260 5112

American Renaissance
Published monthly by the New Century Foundation, Kentucky

American Renaissance is the monthly journal of the New Century Foundation, which is a white nationalist group. I choose to review it because the past 29 issues have just come into my possession, and very interesting reading they make; and because I have lost Martin Ball’s review of Treason at Maastricht, and must somehow fill this space.

The journal contains little that I expected. It is not anti-semitic: some of the best articles are by Jews. It avoids conspiracy theories: I found not a mention of black helicopters or Illuminati. It pushes neither social credit nor protectionism: generally, it is “sound” on economics. It ignores all the mystical and Germanic stuff that I normally associate with racism. Instead, it clearly and insistently states four propositions:

First, crime in the United States is largely the work of blacks and hispanics. Areas still predominantly white are safe and orderly places. Areas that are not are increasingly violent, and increasingly like the nastier parts of the third world.

Second, so far from helping, policies of welfare and affirmative action have only made things worse. Welfare finances the growth of the non-white population. Affirmative action displaces whites from positions to which merit entitles them, and encourages collective loyalties that would be denounced as racism if expressed by whites, but that are praised when expressed by others – and are praised all the more in proportion to how indifferent or even hostile they are to the American way of life.

Third, these differences of behaviour reflect differences of genetic potential. It is an effect not of environment, for example, that the average black IQ score is 15 points below the white average, but of a natural inferiority. Nor is it environment alone that makes so many blacks violent and dishonest. According to Michael Levin [AR, April 1995], the behaviour typical to any group is as much the product of natural selection, and is passed on in the same way, as the prompting that certain birds feel to fly south in winter. The races are different, he believes, because “selection for morality need not have been uniform”. He contrasts the behaviour appropriate in “the colder, harsher, Eurasian environment in which whites and Asians evolved” and in sub-Saharan Africa, where “honesty, sexual self-restraint, and cooperativeness… did not have the same evolutionary value”. In conclusion:

Black behavior that is unacceptable by white standards…. is how traits that were once adaptive in Africa express themselves in Western urban society. [Ibid.]

Blacks cannot be held responsible for the drive by shootings or any of the other horrors described in the regular “O Tempora, O Mores!” section of American Renaissance. It is their nature. We might as well blame a fox for carrying off chickens.

Fourth, salvation begins with the fostering of a “white racial consciousness”. White children are to be taught white culture and white moral values, and to feel pride in the achievements of the white race. What comes next is still disputed. Rabbi Mayer Schiller and Richard McCulloch [AR, February 1995] call for separation. The United States is to be divided into white, black, hispanic and mixed states, each independent of the other. Samuel Francis [AR, March 1995] calls for a reassertion of white supremacy. In his utopia, there will be equality before the law – but this

does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the `right’ to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted. [Ibid.]

But the need for radical action now is agreed. Other things being equal, whites will become a minority of the American population before the middle of the next century. It will then be just a matter of time before they are entirely submerged by the “rising tide of color” – or are swept away by it.

Now, I confess that I want American Renaissance to be wrong. If it is right, then I am not. If the future of civilisation depends on a choice between ethnic cleansing and apartheid, I am wasting my time in the Libertarian Alliance. I am not saying this to curry favour with the Guardian-reading classes – though their disapproval could do me endless harm – but to alert my readers to a bias in what follows that I can fight but may not overcome. This being said, I do believe that American Renaissance is wrong in all that it considers most important.

I will not deny the first two propositions. I know and respect many black people. But, as Rabbi Schiller most sensibly remarks:

Obviously, large numbers of blacks and Hispanics are not violent, of low IQ, or disinclined to work. The question is not whether all members of a racial group behave in a certain way, but whether enough do so to make the societies they create undesirable for whites. [AR, February 1995]

The second two, however, I will deny. Though given much support by claims about identical twins separated at birth, and the like [eg, AR, August 1993], the notion that genetic inheritance determines the intricacies of behaviour is at least unnecessary.

This Book is Free
Get a Copy

Take any group of people. Conquer them. Enslave them. Even after emancipation, treat them like dangerous wild animals, and erect all manner of formal and informal barriers to keep them in the lowest class of poverty. Then, after another hundred years, turn about and start worshipping them. Subsidise some of them to produce hordes of illegitimate children, where resident fathers are scarce, and resident fathers with jobs almost unknown. Give others privileged access to jobs and courses and public contracts; and call it “hate” if anyone complains about this. Encourage them to like only each other. Teach them that everyone else is actively conspiring against them, and has been ever since, in some shadowy past, all the art and philosophy and science that they first developed were somehow “stolen” from them. Then, after most of these people have been thoroughly demoralised, tighten existing laws against possession that make drug trafficking into a lucrative, if dangerous, profession. Do all this, and there will be enough stories for “O Tempora, O Mores!” to curdle anyone’s blood.

This is a better explanation not because – as the writers of American Renaissance might reply – it lets me carry on believing in human equality. It is better because environment explains many other facts that genetics cannot explain without refinements that look like the rescue hypotheses of Marxism or the Ptolemaic system. I have read much in American Renaissance about Detroit and Haiti and Rwanda. I have read nothing about what is happening in the former Yugoslavia, where the savages at least look white. Nor have I read anything about the condition of Ireland and Scotland in the 17th century, where the communal violence – and occasional cannibalism – shocked observers who had known the 30 Years War.

The obvious rescue is to say that not all whites are equally “white”. But this at best destabilises the main argument. William Robertson Boggs [AR, December 1992] shows how “East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports”. Well, if blacks differ physically, they might differ in other ways – so that some black races might be more intelligent and orderly than some white. Certainly, the Zulus seem a more sensible people than the Bosnian Serbs.

As for “intelligence”, the writers of American Renaissance are obsessed with IQ scores. For myself, I doubt if these measure more than the ability to pass IQ tests. I have yet to read The Bell Curve, which I am told answers every doubt. But there are few people in Mensa whom I do not regard as conceited half-wits, and would not cross most roads to avoid meeting.

No – the second two propositions are neither necessary nor fully considered. And so, until it may be needed, let us forget all this apocalyptic stuff, and try a few policy changes. Let us abolish welfare and the drug laws and the whole apparatus of equal opportunities and Western guilt. I will not repeat what Nicholas Dykes and Brian Micklethwait have said already in this issue; but a new set of signals, I am sure, will produce a new set of responses.

Though I disagree with much in American Renaissance, it is, undeniably, an interesting read. At the very least, it was worth reading for the graphics – some of which I have plagiarised for Free Life.

Sean Gabb

American Renaissance is available from the New Century Foundation, PO Box 1674, Kentucky 40201, United States of America. Overseas surface subscriptions cost US$30 per year. Cheques (US$ only) should be made payable to American Renaissance. Otherwise, the equivalent in convertible foreign currency should be sent.

© 1995 – 2017, seangabb.

Thanks for reading this. If you liked it, please consider doing one or some or all of the following:

1. Share it on social media – see buttons below;
2. Like my Facebook page;
3. Subscribe to my YouTube channel;
4. Sign up for my newsletter;
5. Click on a few of the discreet and tastefully-chosen advertisements that adorn this article;
6. Check out my books – they are hard to avoid.

Best regards,

Oh, and for those who may feel inclined to leave some small token of regard, here is the usual begging button:

Additional Related

One thought on “Free Life 23, August 1995, American Renaissance, Reviewed by Sean Gabb

  1. seangabb Post author


    In his review of my publication (Free Life No. 23, August 1995), Sean Gabb concludes that American Renaissance "is wrong in all that it considers most important." What, in fact, do we consider most important? Mainly, that race is a crucial element in culture or national identity. Therefore, displacement of one race by another, or significant dilution in numbers of a racial majority works irreversible change on a nation's character, culture, folkways, and texture of life.

    Actually, everyone knows this. Those parts of London that are largely black or Asian are different in countless ways from those parts of the city that are white. These differences may be pleasing to the current inhabitants, but they are not pleasing to the whites who once lived there and who have moved away.

    The conventional view is that culture, not race, accounts for differences in human societies, and that over time any number of any race of people can assimilate to any culture. In fact, there is not one historical example of one race adopting, intact, the culture of another. It is true that some members of racial minorities thoroughly adopt the majority culture (be it British or American), but this is most likely only when the number of minorities is small. Once their numbers reach a critical mass, their loyalties often become openly racial and openly critical of the majority.

    This is natural. Why should Caribbean blacks prefer Elgar to reggae? Why should Indians forsake Hinduism for Christianity? People are stubbornly loyal to the ways of their ancestors, and properly so. The great question for Europe and for the United States is whether the whites who created those nations are justified in resisting "multiculturalism" and rates of nonwhite immigration that will eventually reduce whites, at least in the United States, to racial minorities.

    To the writers for American Renaissance, the answer is obvious. Of course whites have the right, even the duty, to resist "inclusion," "diversity," "cultural enrichment," and every other process that is nothing more than a euphemism for dispossession. Western civilization will be carried forward in a meaningful way only by the biological heirs to the people who created it.

    Whites are uniquely vulnerable to displacement by other races because they create successful societies in which others wish to take part. There is massive Third World immigration into white nations only because nonwhites seek levels of prosperity and orderliness they cannot find at home. This is why the agonizing battles over "exclusion" and "discrimination" are always fought out on white territory and cast whites as the villains. Nowhere are whites trying to push their way into societies created by others.

    All of these issues are particularly acute for whites because they are only ten percent of the world's population and are having only five percent of the world's babies. The Asian majority on the Indian subcontinent is not threatened by non-Asians, nor is the black majority in sub-Saharan Africa. Those peoples and traditions will survive, whatever happens elsewhere. But if whites are marginalized in Europe and the United States, my people and my culture will be gone – forever.

    Once again, everyone knows this to be so. France or Britain or the United States would be dramatically transformed in every important way if whites were reduced to minorities. I suspect that very few Frenchman or Britons can honestly say they would welcome such transformations.

    What does this have to do with IQ, a subject on which Mr Gabb dwells disapprovingly? Theoretically, nothing. It makes no difference why blacks or Hispanics create societies different from that of whites. They are different, the differences do not suit us, and we have every right to follow our ways and not theirs.

    In fact, the mountains of data that point to genetic reasons for the 15 point difference in tested IQ between blacks and whites likewise point to a higher average IQ among Japanese and perhaps Chinese than among whites. Bravo, the Japanese! They, too, have created a successful society, which is now attracting immigrants. But once again, their society is different from ours and we have every right to prefer our own.

    As a practical matter, differences in average intelligence that are largely impervious to environment are the only parsimonious explanation for phenomena that otherwise require elaborate, unconvincing explanations: meagre achievement by blacks everywhere on the planet, high achievement by Jews everywhere on the planet, high crime rates among blacks everywhere from London to Jamaica to Nairobi to Detroit – the list is endless.

    The ultimate issue, however, is preservation of peoples and ways of life. It is the most natural, normal, and healthy thing possible for a people to walk in the ways of its ancestors and to post its claim, biologically and culturally, to the territory it inhabits. Whites once took this for granted. They will do so again – or they will perish.

    Jared Taylor, Editor
    American Renaissance
    Box 1674, Louisville
    Kentucky 40201
    United States of America