The following was presented by Jared
Taylor, Editor of American
at the Right
Now ! Conference at Mark Masons' Hall,
St. James's Street, London,
on Saturday 28th May 2005 at 4.30pm.
I have been asked to speak on the subject, "Demography
The phrase is attributed to the 19th century French mathematician
and philosopher, August Comte (1798-1857), who is known
as the "father of sociology."
By it he meant that as a rise or fall in birth rates works
itself out over the decades, it affects everything in a
He would therefore have understood immediately the significance
of something now happening in many nations of the West:
The average number of children each woman has is closer
to 1, than to the 2.2 necessary to maintain the population.
When a society reaches a birth rate of 1 child per woman,
each generation is half the size of the previous, and that
society is headed for extinction.
It is, indeed, worrying that birth rates are so low in
the most advanced, Western countries, as well as in certain
successful Asian ones. No one has a definitive explanation
of why the world's richest women have the fewest children,
but the self-absorption that seems to accompany material
wealth seems to be a big part of it.
If Westerners really do think about their motives for refusing
to reproduce -- if the problem is not pure narcissism --
the thinking probably runs like this: "The world is
overpopulated anyway, so a shortfall in my country will
be made up for by people in Africa or Latin America."
In other words, millions more Guatemalans and Nigerians
will make up for fewer Italians or Germans.
The assumption, of course, is that all human populations
are essentially interchangeable.
We shall come back to this assumption later, for it is a
crucial part of how demography becomes destiny.
There is one aspect of the demography question August Comte
did not anticipate, and that is immigration.
Immigration of the kind we have today -- millions of aliens
moving into already-settled territory, taking up residence
or even citizenship -- is a recent thing.
It is not that people did not move about in the past. But
up until just a few decades ago, if your people wanted to
move into territory occupied by another people, they would
fight you. People did not willingly step aside and let large
numbers of aliens settle on their land! The spread of Arabs
across North Africa and into Europe, the peopling of whole
continents by Europeans, the Japanese penetration of Asia
-- this was not immigration. It was conquest. The unopposed
arrival of large numbers of unarmed aliens into already-occupied
territory is something unprecedented. There is a clear pattern
to this unprecedented movement of peoples. It is a mass
movement from the Third World to the developed world.
One is that Westerners have created the
most successful, agreeable societies in the history of mankind.
In material terms, for an African to move to Europe or
for a Honduran to move to the United States represents an
instant, astonishing advance. It is hardly surprising that
millions of people are desperate to leave their failed countries
for even the crumbs of the wealthiest societies ever known.
The second reason for this pattern
is that only Western -- white -- societies permit
There are countless Indonesians and Filipinos who would
love to live in Japan, and enjoy the wealth the Japanese
people have created, but they cannot. The Japanese forbid
it. The Japanese understand that demography is destiny,
and they have the quaint preference that their destiny
The same is true for the people of South Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore, and even Malaysia. They understand the importance
of demography, and they want to keep their destinies in
their own hands.
In the West it is obligatory to believe - indeed it is
immoral not to believe - that all populations are essentially
replaceable. If Caribbean blacks or Bangladeshi Muslims
come to Britain, they will turn into good little Welshmen,
or Englishmen or Scots. And to the extent they do not, whatever
differences remain will improve the poor, colourless local
This view -- that it is desirable to supplement or even
replace one's own people with aliens -- is the greatest
threat the West faces.
We have faced great threats before -- the Mongol invasions,
the Arab advance, Turks at the gates of Vienna -- but these
were physical, armed threats that we met with physical force.
Never before have we been psychologically unmanned. Never
before did we believe that welcoming the Arabs or opening
our borders to the Turks would lead to "enrichment"
or bring the benefits of "diversity."
(left) is the Editor of 16-page monthly
American Renaissance, published since 1991.
It develops politically the concepts of race, immigration
and the identity and interests of European-derived people,
Overseas subs are $40.00 to PO Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124,
Right Now! is a 28-page bimonthly
journal of traditional conservative thought. A 6-issue
subcription per annum is £15 to Right Now! at Box 361,
78 Marylebone High St, London, W1U 5AP.
Part of the idea that Europeans can be successfully and
happily replaced by non-whites is the trendy view that race
is not a biological category but a sociological or optical
Never mind that people of different races differ greatly
in appearance and behaviour; or that they can be distinguished
unerringly by DNA comparison at just 100 randomly-selected
sites; or that they may react differently to medical treatment.
Anyone who is incapable of detecting important differences
between, say, an Australian Aborigine and a Dane, or an
African Pygmy and a Korean must be well must be very intelligent!
Because only very intelligent people could possibly persuade
themselves of something so obviously wrong!
Craig Ventner of the Human Genome Project in America once
famously claimed that all humans are essentially "identical
Every institution in the West has fallen into line with
this view that racial or ethnic differences are so trivial
that only demons or morons could notice or care about them.
In fact, when different peoples mix, for whatever reason,
two things happen. The first -- without fail -- is conflict.
When the Arabs of Northern Sudan and the blacks of Southern
Sudan meet each other, they do not say to themselves, "Here
is my biological equivalent, my identical twin," and
then fall into each others' arms.
Instead, they say: "These people are different from
us, and I find these differences repulsive." They then
go on to kill each other with no compunction!
The same consciousness of differences is at the root of
every wholesale conflict anywhere in the world. Whether
it is Hutus hacking Tutsis to pieces in Rwanda, or Sinhalese
and Tamils blowing each other up in Sri Lanka, whether it
is ex-Yugoslavia or Palestine it is always the same.
Wherever people are most diligently killing each other
it is because people who differ in some significant way
are trying to share territory.
The very diversity that we in the United States and you
in Britain are constantly being exhorted to "celebrate"
is the cause of the most intensely murderous conflicts anywhere.
Today, it is not war of the conventional kind that creates
mountains of corpses; it is the frictions of "diversity."
The UN did a study of the period between 1989 and 1992,
and found there were 82 conflicts that created more than
a thousand deaths. Of this number, 79 -- no fewer than 79
out of 82 -- were the result of religious or ethnic hatred
within borders. These were fights inside countries, not
between them. This is how the world "celebrates diversity",
with guns and knives and anything else people can lay their
The United States has its share of conflict, too. So far,
we have not piled up corpses by the thousand, probably because
the majority white population has submitted supinely to
ridicule, demonization, and dispossession. However, the
United States now has plenty of violence that does not even
involve whites, and the seeds have been planted for much
worse to come.
Blacks and Hispanics each now make up about 13 percent
of the US population. Hispanics are increasing much more
rapidly than blacks, and are pushing them out of many poor
parts of the western United States. It is between these
two groups that friction is worst.
California high schools have become a juvenile version
of Sudan or Sri Lanka. Blacks and Hispanics somehow do not
think of each other as interchangeable groups of "identical
twins". The constant threat of violence hangs over
schools with large numbers of blacks and Hispanics, and
newspapers duly report lunch-time riots and after-school
brawls, in which a black and Hispanic begin to fight and
hundreds of students then square off on racial lines.
Just last May, a rumour ran through the schools of Los
Angeles that the Hispanics had chosen May 5th -- the Mexican
holiday of Cinco de Mayo -- to launch an all-out attack
on black students. This was such a believable rumour that
51,000 students stayed home from school that day. This was
about one in five middle and high school students or nearly
twice the usual rates of absence.
We find similar racial violence in prisons in the United
States. Many are in a constant state of lockdown, which
is to say that the men are cooped up in their cells and
not allowed to mix. If they mingle in the chow line or in
the exercise yards, blacks and Hispanics and sometimes whites
-- who are now the least aggressive prison group -- will
be at each others' throats. The conflict is so predictable,
and the consequences so disagreeable that the one constant
demand from prisoners is for segregated housing.
Segregation would make life easier for guards, too, since
levels of violence would drop sharply, and prison authorities
would be spared the embarrassment of the dead and wounded.
Segregation would make prisons safer and cheaper to run.
It would be an obvious improvement.
It is so obvious, in fact, that up until this year, California
practiced racial segregation for new arrivals. The system
kept them in segregated, two-man, evaluation cells while
guards decided whether to put them in minimum, medium, or
In February, the US Supreme Court told the lower court
to apply a stricter legal standard to this policy. Segregation
will probably have to be scrapped, and death and injury
rates will go up.
This is a perfect example of the contemptible hypocrisy
that goes into racial policy-making in the United States.
Supreme Court Justices insulate themselves almost completely
from the effects of "diversity." They do not live
integrated lives, nor do they make their children mix with
lower-class blacks or Hispanics.
They are part of one of America's dirty secrets: that the
purpose of a college education is to give people the right
attitude towards minorities and the means to live as far
away from them as possible!
The proper attitude is, of course, the one that will doom
us if we do not throw it off: that all groups are equivalent
The people who make the rules for the rest of us will never
have to live in the horrible intimacy of a United States
prison. Our rulers who bray the loudest about "diversity"
are least likely to practice it. I'm sure the same thing
is true in Britain: In their mating and migratory habits,
people who run the Labour Party are indistinguishable from
the ones who vote for the BNP.
Somehow, no matter what people pretend in public, they
do not live their lives as if populations really were interchangeable.
Given a chance, almost all people seek the company of people
Race is real; race is durable; it is the most prominent
fault line in any society.
And this brings us to the second thing that happens when
populations mix: differences remain.
Unless populations are racially similar and intermarry
at a high rate -- as European immigrants have done in the
United States -- they keep their differences generation
In Britain and Europe you are discovering how much Muslims
resist assimilation. People everywhere -- and whites are
the only ones who do not understand this -- are loyal to
the traditions of their ancestors.
Let us imagine the shoe on the other foot.
Let us imagine millions of Europeans were emigrating and
choosing to live under Third World governments. Can any
of you imagine moving to Cambodia or Pakistan and assimilating?
Even after several generations, would your descendents be
indistinguishable from natives? Would you want them to be?
And yet Cambodians, Pakistanis, Nigerians -- people from
everywhere -- are supposed to come to Britain or the United
States and assimilate without moving a muscle.
In the United States, it is not yet Muslims who expect
to conquer us, but Mexicans. Twenty million of them -- one
fifth of the population of Mexico -- already live among
us, and hundreds of thousands more pour across the border
Let us imagine what southern Texas would be like if Mexico
were able to conquer it militarily and occupy it. Mexicans
would drive out Americans. They would speak Spanish rather
than English. They would be loyal to Mexico and celebrate
Mexican holidays rather than American holidays. There would
be the usual Mexican mix of vote-buying, bribe-taking, bad
schools, crime, and government corruption.
Of course, what I am describing is exactly what we find
already in those parts of the United States that are thronging
with Mexicans. In other words, the United States is suffering
the consequences of defeat and occupation while doing almost
nothing to stop it.
In other words, the United States is suffering the consequences
of invasion. The consequences of a kind of aggression which
traditionally every people have been prepared to sacrifice
tens of thousands of young men to prevent.
Healthy societies send their sons into combat to avoid
dispossession. A healthy people will bleed itself white
before it submits to what the Mexicans are doing to us.
Mexicans understand that demography is destiny.
That is why they call the repossession of the American
southwest a reconquista, or reconquest. They aim openly
to retake by peaceful means the land they lost in the Mexican-American
War of 1846 to 1848. Assimilation? They laugh at the idea.
Their spokesmen do not hesitate to tell Americans that
our future is Spanish-speaking, that mixture, or mestizaje,
will leave us all brown-skinned and dark-haired.
It is only those who are being conquered who are deliberately
blind to the process.
Europe's conquerors may not proclaim their goals quite
so openly. They come in smaller bands, from different countries,
without quite so coherent a plan as the one Mexicans have
for us in the USA.
But they, too, know that demography is destiny, that with
numbers comes power, and that they will remake the white
man's homeland in their own image as soon as they have the
power to do so.
Most of the time, those of us in the West are not supposed
to notice that we are losing our countries.
If we actually do open our eyes to what is happening, we
are supposed either to be indifferent or even think displacement
is a good thing.
Here is Charles A. Price, Australia's senior demographer,
writing in 2000: "Some people think that a steady replacement
of Anglo-Celts by other ethnic groups is highly desirable·Personally,
replacement does not worry me so long as Australian values
remain: free speech; freedom of religious worship; equality
of the sexes; reasonably equality between social classes
(i.e. no aristocracy); and so on."
Let's think about this a moment. First of all, there is
no guarantee that if Australians are replaced by Asians
or someone else, the things Charles Price seems to approve
of will persist. What he is describing -- if you add representative
government and rule of law -- is the kind of society whites
generally build and take for granted. Except for when they
suffer the blight of Communism, whites get this sort of
thing right -- and non-whites get them wrong.
In the countries that are sending potential replacements
for Australian Anglo-Celts you do not find the things Mr.
Price wants to preserve.
It is therefore fantastically naïve for Mr. Price
to think Australian society will remain unchanged after
the people who established that society are pushed out.
Even if all he cares about is behaviour and not people --
even if he doesn't care whether it is his descendants or
Somali Bantus who are behaving like "Australians,"
if there is the slightest risk newcomers will behave differently,
that is reason enough to keep them out.
Once again we find this breath-taking willingness to believe
the preposterous: that because "all people are equivalent",
any population can be transformed into any other population.
In fact, if all Charles Price really cares about is preserving
certain forms of behaviour, why even insist on a population
of human beings? Why not have intelligent robots practicing
freedom of speech and worship? I will tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, that wouldn't satisfy me. If I were an Australian,
I would want Australians doing these things, not robots
and not Chinese or Indonesians.
We have yet another example of the suicidal belief that
all peoples are interchangeable. In 2000, the former French
Security Minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement said that
because of declining birth rates, Europeans should accept
millions of immigrants over the next 50 years, and that
governments should actively promote miscegenation as a way
to combat racial friction.
This is monstrous. Widespread miscegenation in Europe and
elsewhere would mean the end of whites -- but only of whites
-- as a distinct people. We are fewer than ten percent of
the world's population, and in a few generations we would
be gone. The other races, far more numerous than we, would
On aesthetic grounds alone we have reason to be outraged
by what Mr. Chevènement says. I like the way our
people look. I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents.
I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Foo Man Chu
or Whoopi Goldberg. I want them to look the way my people
have looked for thousands of years, and for that I have
Obviously, there is more to it than aesthetics.
A nation is not just a cultural continuity, it is a biological
The desire to see one's people survive and prosper is natural,
healthy, and moral. Nor need it imply the slightest hostility
towards other groups.
This is the parallel I would draw: I love my children more
than I love the children of strangers. I love them not because
they are more intelligent or better looking or more gifted
or more musical or more athletic than everyone else. I love
them because they are mine, and I make tremendous sacrifices
for them I would never make for anyone else. This does not
mean I am hostile to the children of others. I can be quite
fond of some of them. But my children come first.
We have larger loyalties that are analogous to our feelings
for our children. Whether it is our nation, our ethnicity,
or our race, there are broader groups for which we feel
a familial loyalty.
Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in
the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family
are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for our
We have these feelings because this group is biologically
and culturally part of us in a way no other group can be.
Who will sing our songs, pray our prayers, celebrate our
heroes, honour our traditions, venerate our ancestors, love
the things we love?
Only our family, our extended family. Only our extended
family will carry our civilization forward in a meaningful
way. Only the biological heirs to the people who created
a civilization have ever maintained, cherished, and advanced
It is for their extended family that men go to war.
In every war Britain ever fought, whatever the government
might say or think, the men who fought and died fought for
their nation, their extended family.
And just as we instinctively put our children before the
children of others, we should put our race and nation first.
In every other context we do this without the slightest
hesitation, because for any group to survive, its members
must put its interests first. General Motors cannot survive
if its employees think GM's interests are no more important
than those of Ford or Chrysler!
And the fundamental interest of any nation or race is survival
as a people. We have a right -- an absolute right -- to
be us, and only we can be us.
We have a right to be left alone in our homelands, to take
part in the unfolding of our national identities free of
the unwanted embrace of people unlike ourselves.
Every other race and nationality understands this.
We are the only dupes who pretend to believe that if our
country fills up with the children of others rather than
our own children, it will still be our country.
In closing, I note that it is fashionable, if only in white
countries, to argue that national or racial loyalty is not
just outmoded but wrong, that it is the abiding bigotry
of our age.
Here is the logical, lethal conclusion to which we're led
if we believe all peoples are equivalent.
If we're really no different from Algerians or Zulus, they,
too, are part of our extended family and have equal call
on the loyalties we feel for those of our own stock. If
we're compelled to believe this, the most obvious steps
we must take to survive as a people, the most elementary
distinctions we must make, all become immoral and indefensible.
It is, instead, this campaign against racial and national
loyalty that is the great bigotry of our age.
It is like telling parents that their children should be
no more precious to them than anyone else's children, that
it is immoral to play favourites.
It is just as monstrous to tell a man to turn his back
on the people who share his heritage, his culture, his ancestry,
and his destiny as it is to tell him to turn his back on
This twisted imperative is a recent invention of the West,
and has currency only in the West.
Let us hope it dies as quickly as it has grown, for unless
we are able to rekindle what our ancestors took for granted
-- a sense of the larger biological connectedness to nation
and culture -- then just as surely as demography is destiny,
our destiny will be oblivion.