3,765 words

I was down in the dumps last weekend when I headed once more to the annual American Renaissance conference. This year was a significant milestone for the organization, founded by Jared Taylor in 1990: It was the twentieth such conference. I was hoping that spending some time with fellow haters would perk me up — and indeed it did. Let me tell you why.

This year Mr. Taylor assembled a very strong roster of speakers. The first was Ricardo Duchesne, formerly a Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick, and author of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. His talk was entitled “Liberalism is Responsible for Western Greatness and its Current Decline.” Duchesne argued that the most important political question that faces us is why the West has embraced “diversity.” The answer, for Duchesne, has to do with the modern political tradition of liberal pluralism. Its conception of society is one in which everyone is free to act on their own conception of the good life. In other words, liberalism champions the right of individuals to self-determination.

Liberalism assumes that all human beings are alike in desiring this self-determination. A liberal society is one in which no one is coerced into holding any particular set of values, or forced to conform to any particular set of norms. The only exception to this is liberal pluralism itself: It is permissible for individuals to be coerced into accepting (or, at least, refraining from criticizing) liberalism’s core tenets — because any member of a pluralist society who rejects pluralism is a potential threat to the liberal order. It is because of this that liberals feel they are justified in using censorship, ostracism, “cancellation,” and even prosecution in order to suppress Right-wing critics of pluralism.

Liberalism puts forward no conception of a common good; only the pluralist ideal of “many goods.” Indeed, it seeks to emancipate individuals from all collective constraints. Duchesne argued that liberalism has been on the march since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and he presented a detailed historical account of the evolution of liberal ideology down to the present. What we are witnessing today is liberalism in extremis: Its worship of autonomy has now reached the point that it seeks to emancipate individuals from nature itself. Hence, all natural differences between individuals, and all natural constraints on human behavior must be denied. Sex differences (now monickered “gender differences”), racial differences, and natural hierarchies are denied, and anyone who affirms them is anathematized. A society founded on such a denial of nature is unsustainable — a point which was echoed by a number of other speakers.

Despite the fact that the radicalization of liberalism has been effected by the Left, Duchesne argued, very perceptively, that liberal pluralism and capitalism are a perfect fit. Capitalism, just as liberalism, abstracts individuals from all collective identities, e.g., nationality. It even abstracts individuals from their “gender identity,” all the while presupposing a metaphysics that seems to endorse the belief in a kind of “generic subject” underlying all natural characteristics, and all attachment to any particular place and time. The outcome of both liberalism and capitalism is the assembly-line production of uniform, interchangeable, culture-free, gender-free, generic “persons” whose “self-actualization” shall consist, apparently, in nothing more than consumerism.

Duchesne also criticized those on the Right who blame our current woes on “cultural Marxism,” and who are preoccupied with critiquing the Frankfurt School, feminism, gender theory, or critical race theory. All of these, he argued, consist merely in liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. He poured particular scorn — quite justifiably — on conservatives who take “cultural Marxism” to task while essentially arguing for a “return” to liberal pluralism: “alt lite,” “civnat” types such as Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson. If what we desire for our people is a healthy society in which they may pursue natural ends, devoted to a conception of the common good, then liberalism must be rejected root and branch. We must affirm the good of what liberalism sees as the cardinal sin: “imposing our values on others.”

Next up was young Irish nationalist Keith Woods, whose presentation was titled “An Island for Everyone? Ireland at a Crossroads.” Woods sought to address the question of how Ireland, in a relatively short period of time, has become super-“woke.” He traced the origins of Ireland’s wokeness to the emphasis, beginning in the 1960s, on building an independent Irish economy. In order to generate economic growth, Ireland pursued the strategy of attracting foreign capital. In purely economic terms, this plan was a great success and by the 1990s Ireland had entered into what became known as its “Celtic Tiger” phase.

Inevitably, however, as Ireland sought to secure its position in the global economy, its leaders began to embrace the ideal of a cosmopolitan identity and became determined to “deconstruct Irishness.” One also supposes that those aforementioned “foreign investors” put considerable pressure on Ireland’s leaders to move in that direction. In terms that resonated with Woods’ American audience, he spoke of a Dublin elite that sees itself as very distinct from the rest of the country, and is embarrassed by Irish identity. Woods also quoted a damning series of statistics showing an astonishing increase in Irish suicides, alcoholism, and other markers of psychological alienation — all since Ireland decided to emulate Germany, France, Sweden, the United States, and many other Western nations in repudiating its heritage and cultural uniqueness. In doing so, the Irish elite ignores the will of fully 75% of the country, who, in recent polls, declare that they want no more immigration. They do this, of course, while at the same time mouthing platitudes about “democracy.”

And now for something completely different.

Our next speaker was Mr. Stephen McNallen, an outspoken advocate for Asatru, the worship of the tribal gods of the Germanic peoples. McNallen is the founder, in fact, of the Asatru Folk Assembly, which has attracted notoriety for its position that Asatru is an ethnic religion of Northern European peoples — and thus for whites only. Drawing on the work of Carl Jung, McNallen’s speech, titled “The Spear of Fury and Wisdom,” argued that we are in for a new awakening of the “Wotan archetype.” Jung saw the resurgence of that archetype in the National Socialist movement, in response to the decadence of the Weimar Republic. However, McNallen argued that the Nazis only drew upon one aspect of Wotan and his spear: fury; the power of brute force. Now we living through a new Weimar era (arguably much worse than the first), and a return of the Wotan archetype is being prepared by the mysterious forces underlying history. This time, however, we will draw on Wotan’s wisdom, rather than exclusively upon the power of brute force.

“Why not both?” I said to myself, though I doubt that McNallen would disagree. Just a few minutes into his talk I heard the sound of distant thunder. We were sitting in a large, air-conditioned banquet hall, however, and at first I could not be sure. “It’s not going to thunder, is it?” I thought to myself. “That would just be too perfect.” But thunder it did. Indeed, what became a violent thunderstorm lasted throughout McNallen’s talk — and ended right about when he ended. The significance of this was lost neither on McNallen nor on his audience. The heathens in the room took the storm as a sign of the god’s approval — his endorsement of McNallen and his speech. Not to be outdone, the Christians insisted that the thunder meant that Jesus was not happy with any of it. The atheists, for their part, insisted it was merely atmospheric electrical discharge. In the spirit of conviviality that has marked all 20 American Renaissance conferences, these groups agreed to disagree.

Due to a delightful lunch at the local Cracker Barrel which went on a little too long, I was quite late in arriving for the speech by Estonian patriot Ruuben Kaalep (who addressed last year’s conference via a pre-prepared video). His talk was titled “Towards a Twenty-First Century Ethnonationalism.” I do not know what Mr. Kaalep said about ethnonationalism, but I gather from talking to other attendees that he is for it. I also gather that those attendees found his talk eloquent and genuinely inspiring, and so I am very sad that I missed it. More details can be found in this competing conference report, which I have chosen not to plagiarize.

My lateness was partly due to the fact that, when I arrived back at the hotel, I was distracted for a few minutes by the sounds of protestors. This is the third American Renaissance conference I have attended at Montgomery Bell State Park, but it is the very first time I personally experienced any sensory evidence that protestors were on the scene. I did not see them, however. Instead, I heard a lone male voice that sounded like it was calling from the other side of the lake. I stood on the sidewalk outside of the hotel, listening intently, as if I were straining to hear the sounds of some rare, seldom-encountered bird. The voice sounded hysterical and consumed by impotent rage. I only caught bits and snatches. At one point I made out “. . . National Socialists! . . .” Then, astonishingly, I heard “You’re the ones molesting children!” I have no idea what this refers to, but methinks he doth protest too much.

Mr. Kaalep was followed by James Edwards of The Political Cesspool — always an entertaining speaker. Mr. Edwards called his speech “Reasons for Optimism,” which was no doubt an enticing title for many. I myself tend to be optimistic about our struggle, but I can always use more reasons for optimism, so I listened carefully. Edwards argued that there are definite signs of increased racial consciousness among Trump voters. People are now increasingly aware that liberals are not anti-fascists, but anti-white. One recent poll showed that 75% of Trump voters believe in the Great Replacement. In addition, 87% of Trump voters are worried about anti-white discrimination. Fully 92% of Trump voters think that the mainstream media = the Democratic Party. Large percentages of Trump voters also say they would be better off if their state seceded.

Further, there have been major changes on the political landscape. For example, the Bush-Cheney-Clinton dynasty is gone; not a single one of them now holds public office. Even the mighty Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is at bay. Edwards noted, to the satisfaction of his audience, that 20 state attorneys general had issued a joint statement to Attorney General Garland stating that the SPLC has been discredited as a source. Further, there is a general erosion of trust in institutions. While the Washington establishment and all the media continues to describe the war in Ukraine as a battle for “democracy” and as the most important thing going on in the world right now — perhaps the most important thing ever — Republican voters, at least, are not sold.

Edwards noted that our country is now more polarized than at any time since the War of Northern Aggression. Blue State America can keep arresting the President of Red State America, but it is not going to contain the rebellion. “I think we’re in for something next year that is going to change history,” he said. And Edwards added that it is his belief that reform of the system is now utterly out of the question. “Under the present arrangement our people has no future on this continent,” he stated, near the end of the talk. What will the future bring? Edwards did not engage in any specific prognostications. Indeed, no one knows. But one thing is certain: It’s going to be interesting.

Edwards is a tough act to follow, but Gregory Hood was up to the challenge. Titled “The Moral Necessity of White Nationalism,” Hood’s talk began with his claim that the problems in our society are not meant to be solved. The system is intended to alienate. The more miserable that people are, the better off our rulers are, because the system wants us broken. With respect to the transgender madness, a favorite topic of conversation for those on the Right, Hood noted that it is hard to think of anything more evil than telling people that they’ve been born “the wrong way.” And yet this is precisely what the system tells us. This is what it tells whites. Noting the rising suicide rate, especially among white males, he asked, “Why wouldn’t you kill yourself if you’ve been told that you are worthless?”

The system aims at creating a society of sniveling cowards while simultaneously it seems devoted to the destruction of everything that makes human flourishing possible. What we are fighting, Hood said, is a spirit of entropy and chaos. The spirit of equity is the spirit of nihilism. Rejecting this, he insisted, is a moral imperative. We need to unite as a common people, and form a state explicitly dedicated to our racial survival. Hood ended with the following challenge: “Of course I’m a White Nationalist, why aren’t you?” It was a genuinely inspiring and rhetorically brilliant speech. And its ending was marked by applause so thunderous it rivaled the storm arranged by Steve McNallen. Mr. Hood simply does not disappoint.

Our banquet speaker this year was Dries Van Langenhove. A Belgian activist of Flemish ethnicity, Mr. Van Langenhove served in the Belgian senate, founded the nationalist youth group Schild & Vrienden, and has started a number of boxing clubs for young men. My friends, not since Jonathan Bowden spoke to a private group in Atlanta way back in 2009 have I heard such an inspiring banquet speech. As did others, Van Langenhove called upon us to organize and fight for our people. But he also called for us to develop ourselves: to become disciplined; to resist the siren calls of pornography and consumerism; to start families; to become physically fit. Our age presents enormous challenges — but it also presents enormous opportunities for self-overcoming. This is why he titled his speech “The Greatest Time to be Alive.”

The audience sat spellbound by Mr. Van Langenhove, a genuine firebrand. By the end of this passionate speech, I was ready to follow him over the barricades — and I mean this. I also gather that he was quite a hit with the ladies present at the banquet — so much so, in fact, that men who had brought their wives or girlfriends were not too keen on having them chat with Van Langenhove at the party later that night. Sorry, ladies: Jared Taylor noted in his introduction that Dries recently tied the knot.

The final day of the conference began with an address by Jared Taylor himself, entitled “Reflections on 30 Years of Racial Activism.” Mr. Taylor began by admitting that when he started American Renaissance back in 1990, he was, as he put it, “very naïve.” In many ways, those early years were the heyday of AmRen. Taylor was frequently interviewed in the media — on some occasions by journalists who had actually familiarized themselves with his work and were halfway fair and decent. His book Paved with Good Intentions was widely reviewed. Recorded talks from American Renaissance were even shown on C-SPAN.

All this attention and relative fair-mindedness lulled Mr. Taylor, by his own admission, into the false hope that within a few short years race realism might triumph, and that there would be major changes in public policy. But it was not to be. All signs indicated that liberal idealism about black perfectibility had been completely discredited. Blacks had been given desegregation, Affirmative Action, and trillions of dollars in public assistance, and yet somehow they still did not transform into dark-skinned simulacra of white people. This presented liberals with a tough choice: either there must be something wrong with black people, or white racism is even more prevalent and insidious than they’d thought. Unwilling to question the dogma of human equality, liberals affirmed the second disjunct.

They then proceeded to find racism literally everywhere. Even where one could not point to actual racists, invisible racism still pervaded everything. Indeed, it was “systemic.” Any discussion of racial differences became verboten. The mildest affirmation of such differences could get you fired or declared an unperson. The Left even announced that race did not exist; that science had disproven it (a complete and total lie, in fact). Police reports ceased to mention the race of criminals — even when those criminals were on the lam and a threat to the public. Black crime could be discussed — but only in the sense that it was permissible to note that blacks were disproportionately accused, tried, and convicted of certain crimes. Liberals just knew from their armchairs that this was injustice, and that whites were committing many more crimes, but getting off scot-free due to “white privilege.” The solution? Eliminate the rules of civilized life. If, for example, a disproportionate number of blacks are being arrested for shoplifting, stop enforcing the laws against shoplifting.

As Mr. Taylor put it, liberals decided in effect that chaos is better than admitting that they were wrong about race. He quoted Voltaire, saying that if you can persuade people to believe absurdities, you can persuade them to commit atrocities. Since blacks cannot catch up to whites due to their inherent limitations, the result will be never-ending programs of injustice against whites. As he always does, however, Mr. Taylor offered us reason for hope. There is good news, in fact. The censors are failing. Our numbers grow all the time. And the system we are living under is completely absurd. “What pathetic worms our rulers are!” Mr. Taylor noted at one point, to great acclaim. Even though it appears to be powerful, the system is dying. Terrified despots always try to censor or to suppress the truth. It works for a time — but cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Mr. Taylor stated that he disagreed with Gregory Hood about one important matter: In contrast to Hood, Taylor does not believe that liberals want chaos. Mr. Taylor has often stated his belief that liberals are not, for the most part, spiteful mutants aiming to destroy civilization. Instead, he holds the optimistic view that it is possible to reach many liberals and to rationally persuade them of the truth. Surely this is in part due to the fact that Mr. Taylor himself was once a liberal. This is a point of perennial debate at American Renaissance — whether liberals can be converted — and I fear that Taylor is in the minority.

My own position is closer to Mr. Hood’s, as is the position of the conference’s final speaker, Mr. Sam Dickson. Mr. Dickson has closed all 20 American Renaissance conferences with his “Benediction for Heretics.” In his introduction, Taylor quoted the SPLC describing Dickson “weaned on hate.” Since, using Google, Taylor could find only one other person in the world who had been described this way, he concluded that Sam Dickson was “uniquely evil.” I have long thought this, and it is a label I am sure Dickson will wear with pride.

Before making his remarks, Dickson paid tribute to Jared Taylor and called upon us to rise and sing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” — much, I am afraid, to the modest Mr. Taylor’s embarrassment. Still, it was a fine gesture, and well deserved. Dickson opened his remarks by stating an obvious truth: We believe in reality, whereas our enemies reject it. Taking the diametrically opposite position from Taylor, Dickson told us that just as Christ was said to have emptied himself of everything but love, those of us on the Right must empty ourselves of compassion for Leftists. He quoted a Francoist who stated that he knew civil war was coming to Spain when he realized that he no longer saw the Leftists in his midst as Spaniards. Mr. Dickson said that he has now reached this point.

Leftism has now morphed into a religion, and Leftists are not willing to debate their fundamental premises. What we are witnessing currently is the Left in the midst of a religious frenzy, in which facts mean nothing. Dickson noted that there are absolutely no studies showing that the racial idealism of the 1960s has done any good. Black home ownership is lower than it was in the ‘60s. The rate of black illegitimacy is around three times what it was in the ‘50s. There is no study showing that integration of the schools has improved blacks. He reminded us of some words seen on protest posters in the Soviet Union around the time of its collapse: “70 years on the road to nowhere.”

Dickson concluded his talk with a personal anecdote. Many years ago he made the acquaintance of Count and Countess Andrássy, Hungarian nobles who had escaped Communism and were living in Florida in poverty. Dickson asked Countess Andrássy, “How have you coped with losing everything?” She said that she could answer him, but that she was afraid that her words might offend. When Dickson assured her that he could not be offended, she proceeded to answer his question. “We have not lost anything,” she said, “except our money. We have our religion, our culture, our language. You Americans have lost everything — except your money. When the day comes that the American economy collapses, you will be the most bankrupt of all nations.” We are indeed heading for the iceberg, Mr. Dickson noted. But we have truth and reality on our side, and that means that our triumph is inevitable.

The common thread that runs through all of these speeches is optimism. In the midst of censorship, cancel culture, and the weaponizing of our justice system against dissent, we are nonetheless optimistic. Just as Mr. Taylor and others noted, the establishment’s actions betray their fear. And I must state my agreement with Sam Dickson. Any system that sets itself against nature — against truth and reality — is doomed. Years ago, when I first became involved in this movement, I did not believe that I would live to see the downfall of the present system. But, as you must have noticed, events are moving very rapidly. The collapse of the American regime may come sooner than any of us think.

By the end of this conference, I no longer felt down in the dumps. I felt enthused and ready to return to my life, with a renewed sense of dedication to our cause. Who knew that American Renaissance was a cure for depression? If Jared Taylor could bottle these conferences, Switzerland would be plunged into recession. Sadly, insurance will not pay for you to attend American Renaissance. When we are in power, we will change this.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.


• Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments. 


• Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

• your payment


• the recipient’s name


• the recipient’s email address


• your name


• your email address

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.