David Horowitz Critiques AR: A
The cover story of the August issue of AR was the
first comprehensive account of the Wichita Massacre to appear in any
publication. We thought the story was so important we released it in
on the day AR went into the mail. Several web sites posted it,
including David Horowitz's Front PageMag.com, which ran a version
that edited out some of the more explicitly racialist commentary.
Mr. Horowitz himself wrote a friendly and generous disclaimer
justifying his decision to post an article from a publication many
would call "racist." To this disclaimer, Mr. Taylor has replied. His
reply is reproduced below.
David Horowitz's Critique
Reply to David Horowitz
by Jared Taylor
have long admired Mr. Horowitz's efforts to expose the double
standards and ethnic shakedowns that go by the name of multiculturalism.
He is also among the very few commentators who understand the significance
of crimes such as the Wichita Massacre-and the media silence that greets
them-and I greatly appreciate his help in making this outrage better
Mr. Horowitz is quite correct in his description of how his
vision of America differs from mine, and also correct to say that I would
argue racial consciousness is a natural part of the human condition that
we should accept rather than attempt to change. It is his historical
perspective that is wrong. My view of America-as a self-consciously
European, majority-white nation-is not a recent reaction to the excesses
of multiculturalism; it is the original conception of this country, and
one that was almost universally accepted until the 1960s.
people appear to believe that the motto E Pluribus Unum means that the
United States was always meant to be a melting pot of the world's people.
In fact, "out of many, one," the motto chosen for the great seal in 1776,
refers to the 13 colonies united into one nation. It has nothing to do
Since the founding, and up until just a few
decades ago, virtually all Americans took it for granted that the United
States was, by nature and destiny, a white country. To be sure, there were
blacks and Indians, but most Americans saw their presence as a misfortune,
and certainly as no threat to the numerical and cultural dominance of
In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay
gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected
country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors,
speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the
same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs .
. . ." This is not a celebration of "diversity" or of the melting
Thomas Jefferson thought it had been a terrible mistake to
bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery
and then "removed from beyond the reach of mixture." He looked forward to
the day when whites would populate not just North but South America,
adding "nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on
The American Colonization Society was founded to
free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa. As Henry Clay put
it at the society's inaugural meeting in 1816, its purpose was to "rid our
country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the
population." The following prominent Americans were not just members but
served as officers of the society: Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen
Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two
Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney. As for
James Monroe, the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for
his help in sending blacks to Africa.
Abraham Lincoln also favored
colonization. He was the first President ever to invite a delegation of
blacks officially to visit the White House; he held the meeting to ask
them to persuade their people to leave. Even in the midst of a desperate
war with the Confederacy, Lincoln found time to study the problem of black
colonization, and to appoint Rev. James Mitchell as Commissioner of
His successor Andrew Johnson felt the same way: "This
is a country for white men," he wrote, "and by God, as long as I am
President, it shall be a government for white men . . . ." James Garfield
certainly agreed. Before he became President he wrote, "[I have] a strong
feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political
equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or
got rid of in any decent way . . . ."
What of 20th century
Presidents? Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were "a perfectly stupid
race," and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he
wrote: "I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible
problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . he is
here and can neither be killed nor driven away . . . ." As for Indians, he
once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are
the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't
inquire too closely into the health of the tenth."
was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented
blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and
was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued
that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work with "barbarous
black men." During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to
keep Asians out of the country: "I stand for the national policy of
exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who
do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give
us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our
Henry Cabot Lodge took the view that "there is a limit to
the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race,
and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or
lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are
running the most frightful risk that any people can run."
Truman is remembered for integrating the armed services by executive
order, but in his private correspondence was as much a separatist as
Jefferson: "I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa,
yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."
a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be
necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean
social equality "or that a Negro should court my daughter." It is only
with John Kennedy that we finally find a President whose public
pronouncements on race begin to be acceptable by today's standards
(although he made virtually no effort to end segregation).
quoted politicians because they are cautious people who recirculate the
bromides of their times. Mark Twain, who never sought anyone's vote, wrote
of the American Indian that he was "a good, fair, desirable subject for
extermination if ever there was one." Jack London explained that part of
the appeal of socialism was that it was "devised so as to give more
strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive
and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker
Samuel Gompers, probably the most famous labor leader in
American history, reflected prevailing views. In 1921 he wrote: "Those who
believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I
firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our
country to permit such an evil." He went on to add, "It must be clear to
every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason
for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong
reasons for their absolute exclusion."
The white, European
character of the United States was enshrined in law. The first
naturalization bill, passed in 1790, made citizenship available only to
"free white persons." A few localities recognized free blacks as citizens
of states, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that no black, slave or
free, could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks did gain U.S.
citizenship under the post-Civil War amendments, but other races did not.
State and federal laws excluded Asians, and in 1914 the Supreme Court
upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born
The ban on immigration and naturalization of Chinese,
established in 1882, continued until 1943. It was only when the United
States found itself allied with China in the Second World War that
Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws-but not by much. It set an
annual quota of 105 Chinese. Needless to say, it permitted no immigration
from Japan. Until 1965, the United States had a "national origins"
immigration policy designed explicitly to keep the country
The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of
the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Before the federal
government took control of voting rights in the 1960s, the states
determined who could and could not vote. Only in 1924 did Congress confer
citizenship on Indians, and every state that entered the union between
1819 and the Civil War kept blacks from voting. In 1855, Negroes could
vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode
Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the country's
blacks. The federal government did not allow free Negroes to vote in the
territories it controlled.
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution,
which prohibited withholding the franchise on racial grounds, was not an
expression of egalitarianism so much as an attempt to punish the
South-where most blacks lived-and a political calculation by Republicans
that they would win black support. In the West, there was great opposition
to the amendment for fear it would mean Asians could vote, and in Rhode
Island ratification nearly failed for fear it would mean the Irish "race"
would get the vote.
Strong opposition to mixed marriage was
enshrined in law. Sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the
books in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v.
Mr. Horowitz is simply wrong when he writes of "going
back to the good old American ideal" of multi-racialism. I am certain that
if all the prominent Americans I have quoted could rise from their graves,
they would endorse the American Renaissance view of race and nation, and
would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to
pretend race can be made not to matter. It is American Renaissance that is
faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it
most succinctly when he wrote, "[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it
not better so?" Yes, it is.
Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that "we
are all prisoners of identity politics," implying that race and ethnicity
are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does
the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions
to "David's Defense of Israel Campaign"? Why Israel rather than, say,
Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish.
His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of
particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious
whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls
it "surrendering to the multicultural miasma" when I work to return to a
self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity
for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one.
long before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin told U.S. News and World
Report that as Prime Minister of Israel he had worked to achieve many
things, but what he cared about most was that Israel remain at least 90
percent Jewish. He recognized that the character of Israel would change in
fundamental-and to him unacceptable-ways if the non-Jewish population
increased beyond a small minority. Equally obviously, the character of the
United States is changing as non-whites arrive in large
Throughout most of its history, white Americans took the
Rabin view: that their country had a distinctly racial and ethnic core
that was to be preserved at all costs. When Mr. Horowitz writes about the
"good old American ideal," that is what he should have in mind, not a
historically inaccurate view that drapes a radical new course with
trappings of false tradition.
By all means, let Israel remain
Jewish, but by the same token let the United States remain majority-white.
Mr. Horowitz has a distinguished record of fighting double standards, so
he should recognize one when he sees it. If he supports a Jewish Israel,
he should support a white