Amerika

As mentioned before, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance spoke at Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction, Colorado on March 27, 2025 despite massive counter-protests and media drama.

What follows is the best transcript I can work up from the recording of his speech. It is worth reading as well as hearing because he covers all the big points of the move to Nietzschean cultural relativism and the need for parallel societies in order to preserve our human biodiversity:

Thank you all for coming despite all the pressure you’ve been under not to come. And I must say I have watched with some amusement the reaction on this campus at the prospect of my being here. It has been quite a spectacle.

On March 7, it was CMU president John Marshall who got the ball rolling with an email message to the entire campus in which he warned that a person with “abhorent and vile views” was going to speak. But he said “free speech is sacred.” He said “our task is to empower you to pursue truth.” And he urged students to come to my talk because it was going to be “the opportunity of your life to carefully deconstruct dehumanizing ideals.”

That was silly of him to call my views abhorrent and vile without even hearing them. But the bottom line was very good. The idea was students would come, listen, grapple with unfamiliar ideas and, if they’re wrong, think about how to defeat them. I invited president Marshall to lead that exercise himself. I sent him an email message and asked him if he would take the podium after I was finished and explain why I am wrong. He didn’t even reply. But I got a message from the student body president saying that President Marshall can’t come. He has accepted an invitation to an event that is being put on at precisely the same time as this talk. And so he couldn’t be here tonight.

First of all, he says listening to me is the chance of a lifetime to expand your mind. And now he’s going to be the star of a counter-narrative put on to make sure that if you listen to him you cannot listen to me. It’s put on to draw students away and make sure that they never hear what I have to say. And this is particularly strange because only a week after he wrote that initial letter, he told the Denver NBC affiliate that my ideas are easy to defeat with just a little bit of discussion. If that’s the case, he should leap at the opportunity to be here and defeat my miserable weakling ideas.

The campus is saying I’m a fascist, I’m a neo-Nazi, I’m a White Supremacist, I’m a spewer of hate! Wouldn’t it be a great feather in his cap to be right here and crush me beneath the wheels of his chariot, as students and faculty cheer? Why isn’t he here? I understand that there are other people on campus that are asking the same question, that it’s his job to come and refute me. But he has turned tail.

Even more people — a lot more people — think that he should have simply banned me from the campus. Megan Riddle, who teaches English here at CMU, she says: I jeopardize the safety of racially vulnerable people. How on Earth do I do that? Are White people going to listen to my talk, and then go out and get up lynch mobs? What is this foolishness?

But she’s not the only one who is worried. On March 12th, your student body president sent out another campus-wide message. And he said that my presence makes many of us if not all of us feel unsafe, unheard, and unwelcome. That’s not just unsafe, it’s unheard! Did I strike her dumb?

And a student named Derrick Hammett has started a Change.org petition to pressure President Marshall to make sure I don’t step foot here. He says, “many of our students feel unsafe.” There’s this “unsafe” business again. I guess I’m a pretty terrifying guy. The petition says “we believe in acceptance and diversity.” Well, clearly not an acceptance of diverse ideas.

With no sense of irony, his petition goes on to say, “we want the campus to be a space where everyone feels secure and accepted.” Well, not me. Pshaw. And here’s some comments from the people who signed this petition added. Natalie says: “allowing this person to speak harmed everyone.” Rick says: “This university’s reputation has been permanently sullied; President John Marshall should be removed from his position immediately” for letting me speak. Spencer says: “Utterly disgusted by my university’s decision to allow a White Supremacist to spew his racist bile.” Another says I’ll be “spreading fascist lies.” Now you have been warned. Be on the lookout! For fascist lies, racist bile… which apparently I am about to “spew.”

So I’ve spoken at many universities. Never have I struck such terror in the hearts of students. Never has anyone been so determined to close his ears to what I have to say. And frankly, this is pathetic. Higher education is supposed to be about opening minds, and the very idea of putting on a counter-narrative at the very time I’m speaking, in an event meant to draw people away, what is its purpose? Its purpose is to keep students ignorant. It’s the very opposite of education.

No one even knows what I’m going to say. But apparently the very thought of my being here strikes terror. And you know what that says to me? It says to me that this campus has no confidence at all in the ideas and the values it claims to support. Those values must be awfully fragile if I singlehandedly can bring them tumbling down. Would a place that was confident be in a state of terror simply because I’m here?

Now, of course, let’s be realistic. No one is quaking in terror. This is made-up foolishness. It’s an excuse to feel righteous indignation. It’s a way of saying, “Ooo, this moral scum, Jared Taylor. I’m so, so, so much better than he is. Because, you see, intense feelings of righteous indignation stimulate the basal ganglia of the brain. That’s the same part of the brain that narcotic drugs stimulate. And you can become addicted to the feeling of righteous indignation.

Whenever you glory in the feeling that you are someone’s moral superior, your basal ganglia are getting together with the rest of your brain and pumping out dopamine just like a junkie with a needle in his arm. Well I appear to have been the best fix this campus of addicts ever had. And just yesterday — I was briefly on campus — somebody drove by on a bicycle. And he said, “Fuck you. You’re a piece of shit.”

Now I’m sure he got a wonderful dose of moral superiority, a wonderful hit of dopamine. I’m sure he felt just wonderful about himself. Well, back to Colorado Mesa University. Your president says over and over that this is a human-scale university. Now I don’t know what other kind there is; is there an elephant-scale university someplace? What’s more important, he says, “this is a model of the world we want to create.” So this is the ideal society, being constructed right here in Grand Junction.

If that’s the case, why is there at CMU a Black Student Alliance? It’s an alliance. It’s apparently prepared to defend against attack, a Black Student Alliance. A Polynesian Alliance. A Latino Student Alliance. And then there’s an Asian Student Association, a Native Student Association. Well, maybe, out in the big bad world off campus, where wicked people like me are allowed to prowl around loose, maybe out there they need a place where they can be in alliance and prepared to defend themselves. Why on this campus, which is supposed to be an ideal community in the making?

Is it perhaps official recognition of the fact that part of our nature is to be tribal, and that people like being around people like themselves? — People of the same race. Now of course a White Student Alliance would be unthinkable. I would think that there should be only humans on this human-scale campus, not alliances organized on the basis of race.

Something else about this university. Your president, John Marshall, he has aspirations for this to be a “Hispanic-serving institution.” Well, now, what is that? A Hispanic-serving institution is one in which at least 25% of the students are Hispanic, and meets certain other qualifiers. Why would one do that? Because it opens the door to millions of dollars of federal grants. The Marshall empire would expand by millions of dollars. Is this the ideal community that President Marshall is trying to build? You get extra money simply because there are Hispanics here? Does that make sense? It doesn’t sound human-scale to me; it sounds like racial preferences and the opposite of equality. And how do you get these Hispanics? You make it harder for Whites, or Blacks, or Asians to apply. Why not be a human-serving university? It all sounds pretty fishy to me.

But enough about CMU. I’m suppposed to be “spewing fascist lies” after all, so I’d better get to work, but first I will ask a fascist question: was Thomas Jefferson a fascist? Was Abraham Lincoln a fascist? They had very clear things to say about race; we know very well what they thought about race. And if you take the trouble to look into what they wrote, and what they said, you’ll find there’s very little difference between what they said and what I say.

Look up what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about American Indians and Blacks. Far harsher things than anything I would say. If I quoted him, it would curl your hair. Well, was he a fascist? Despite the fact that he died before the first fascist party was ever founded. Nine of the first eleven presidents of the United States owned slaves. I guess they were all “fascists” too.

My point is very simple. To dissent from racial orthodoxy in the United States is by no means to be a “fascist,” for Heaven’s sake. It really is a silly thing to call someone. The same for “White Supremacy.” White Supremacy is a historical term that did have a historical reality. Back in the days when European countries were colonizing non-White countries, it was done, among other reasons, in the belief that White people should rule over people of other races. That’s what White Supremacy is all about.

I don’t know if there’s a single White Supremist in the world today. I certainly don’t know one. I certainly don’t want to rule over people of other races. This is a meaningless term, when used in contemporary America. And it is of course the fiercest insult of the moral integrity of a White person. It is a slightly more sophisticated of saying, as your schoolmate said yesterday, “you are a piece of shit” when you call someone a White Supremacist. Now my conception of the United States is one that practically everyone took for granted until the middle of the twentieth century, right from colonial times up through the 1950s. So any objections you have to my views you should logically have for virtually every American who lived until about 1960.

What was the conception of America of the founding fathers? In 1788, the US Constitution was ratified. You have a brand-new Constitution, a brand-new country, and the very next year, 1789, the first Congress of the United States met. It had a lot of important things to decide. It set up the Department of State, it set up the Treasury, the post office, the Department of War. It had to decide where the national capital was going to be. And one other very important thing it had to decide: who is going to be a citizen of this brand new country? Very important.

And let us note that without objection, without any recorded objection, it was decided in the first naturalization law of the United States in 1790, that citizenship was going to be available only to free White persons of good character. And for the next 175 years, the United States had an immigration policy exclusively designed to keep the country majority White and European.

It changed by the immigration act of 1965, which I assure you was a con job. It was promoted by the people who were pushing it as merely a kind of superficial gesture. The people who were pushing this promised this will not change the racial makeup of the country. Now, I can assure you, if the Congressmen and the Senators who voted for it back in 1965, if someone had told them, “if you vote for this law which will open the United States to immigration from all around the world, you White people who are now a 90% majority, you’ll become a minority in just seventy years,” if you told them that, if they had thought that, they wouldn’t just say “no” to the law, they would have said “Hell no!”

There was never any talk about diversity. Americans were never asked, “do you want to set in motion forces that are going to reduce White people to a minority?” No. Never. Never in the history of the United States did anyone parrot this silly idea that diversity is our strength. That did not show up until the end of the twentieth century, more than two hundred years after the founding. For two hundred years, nobody thought diversity was a strength. We had tremendous growth; by 1871, the United States had the largest GDP in the world. The first world war made it clear that we were a world power. By 1945, we were a superpower. In the 1950s, that was our period of greatest political, military, and cultural dominance.

And throughout this period, no one even dreamed that diversity might be a strength. But now we know that not only is diversity a strength, it’s our greatest strength! And when people talk about diversity, what are they talking about? Let us imagine a university in which there are students from every European country, every White group in the entire world. They’ll be Estonians, they’ll be Poles, they’ll be Italians. They’ll be Spaniards. There might be White people from South Africa, White people from New Zealand, Australia. I think that would be a pretty interesting and diverse place. But it would not be diverse by the standards of America because when we talk about diversity, we almost always talk about race.

Such a university, which I think would be quite an interesting place to be, full of all sorts of interesting ideas, would not enjoy the strength of diversity. We’re supposed to think, apparently, that up until the 1950s, the United States was really some sort of dung heap, and White people were about to choke to death on their own homogeneity. Until lo and behold, all of these people from all around the world, they brought diversity and suddenly, we had our greatest strength. We had never had it before. We had never had this strength before. How did we ever get along without Guatemalans and Asians? How did we get along without Somalis, Indonesians, and Chinese? My gosh!

Now, let me point out to you, this idea that diversity is a strength is an idea reserved only to White countries. Imagine going to China, and you poke around, you look around, and you say to the Chinese, “You know, not a bad country here, but you know the worst thing, the worst thing wrong with this country? Too damn many Chinese! You need diversity! Ginger the place up! Millions, a couple of millions Pakistanis, Saudi Arabians would be good, Sub-Saharan Africans, you know, get Indians from Bolivia. That would ginger the place up. Then you’ll have a real country. Then you’ll enjoy the strength of diversity.” They would call to the men in white coats! They’d put you in a rubber room.

And it is the same for any non-White country. Japan is allowed to remain Japanese. The Turks, the Indonesians… no one would dare say to them, “Look, you need a whole lot more of everybody else.” No one would dare say that. There’s an interesting exception to this rule: Israel. Israel is a state that is explicitly Jewish. It’s part of its basic law, to be explicitly Jewish. In 1995, not long before Yitzhak Shamir was assassinated, he was looking back over his achievements as Prime Minister of Israel and he said, there are many things, but the thing that he cared about most was that he had ensured that Israel will remain at least 80% Jewish. Now why was that important? It was important because he understood that for Israel to be a Jewish state it had to have a certain number of Jews. As Jews drop below a certain threshold, its character would change.

The same is true of any nation. But can you imagine an American President, going before a joint session of Congress, and saying, “You know the thing I’m proudest of? I kept the United States 80% White.” Oh, that would be over. What’s the difference? I’d like to know: what’s the difference. Now Bibi Netanyahu can come to the United States, address Congress, and people get up on their hind legs and they whoop and holler and they cheer when he says, “I am defending the Jewish state.” But we better not defend a European state.

And, I’m serious: how is diversity a strength, in practical terms? Racial diversity — what’s the strength? Is it going to slow global warming? Does it prevent tooth decay? I mean, really, what is it that it does? The way we talk about diversity, if we took it seriously, we would do something like this: we would take the right number of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and if we really wanted super-diversity, we would throw in some Buddhists, nudists, fruit-juice drinkers, one-legged African lesbians — this super, super-diverse group — put ’em in a room, and pretty soon, they would cure cancer. They’d find the secret to world peace. Isn’t that so, if it’s the greatest strength?

No. Nobody believes that. Diversity, racial diversity, as well as linguistic diversity, religious diversity, all these are sources of conflict. Every race riot the United States has ever had is the fruit of diversity. In a multiracial country, everything becomes a problem. Is there enough diversity in the Oscars, enough Black people, enough Hispanics, enough Asians, getting Oscars? Do we have enough Hispanic television anchors? Are there enough Black students in the Ivy League? If there is a racially-charged trial, and racially-charged trials are also the fruit of diversity, are we going to have a racially appropriate jury? All of this is the kind of conflict and dissention that is caused by racial diversity.

And when we have a national election, we have to say, “OK, what are you going to do to get the Asian vote? The Black vote? The White vote?” That is a recognition that those groups have different interests. What Asians want might not be the same as what Hispanics want. Or Whites. Or Blacks. Is this a source of strength? No, it’s a source of dissention, conflict, people pulling in different directions all the time.

In Congress, we have the Black Congressional Caucus. What’s its purpose? Its purpose is to examine all potential legislation and ask themselves, “What’s in it for us? What’s in it for Black people?” We have a Hispanic caucus. We have an Asian caucus. They do exactly the same thing. Is that a strength, that you have these different pressure groups, looking at legislation not in terms of what’s good for the country, but what’s good for “us.”

In the country at large, we have an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Every year, it hears twenty-five thousand racial discrimination cases. The federal courts hear at least three thousand racial discrimination cases every year. And think of all the unpleasantness, think of all the racial conflict and the racial torment that never even makes it that far. Every state government, county government, university, corporations, all of these big ones, they all have mechanisms in place to handle what is supposed to be our greatest strength but is in fact a source of dissention and division, namely the problems of different races not getting along.

The same with all branches of the military. I’m sure you have heard that the American military is really a kind of racial haven. Everybody is a soldier, and we don’t have racial problems in the military. In 2017 there was a survey of active-duty military, and the question was, “In the last twelve months, have you been a victim of racial discrimination or racial harassment?” And thirty-one percent of Blacks said yes, they’d been victims; twenty-one percent of Hispanics, twenty-three percent of Asians, and nine percent of Whites, just in the last twelve months. The Department of Defense hid the results of this survey. They were embarrassed by this because they think that they have succeeded in creating this racial Never-Never Land. It took a freedom of information request from Reuters to find out that maybe diversity was not the greatest strength for the armed forces.

What do ordinary Americans think about this diversity? Back in 1963, there was a Gallup poll. They asked the following question: “Do you think that relations between Black and White people will always be a problem for the United States, or will a solution eventually be worked out?” Will it be always a problem, or can it be solved. At that time, 1963, Blacks were pretty optimistic. Only twenty-two percent said it will always be a problem. Whites were a little bit more pessimistic. They said fifty-five percent that it was always going to be a problem.

The most recent time Gallup asked that same question — “Is race relations always going to be a problem, or is there a solution?” — was in 2016. On that occasion, we got a different answer. This is fifty-three years later. To the same question, seventy percent of Blacks said it’s always going to be a problem. Blacks went from twenty-two percent to seventy percent; Whites went from fifty-five percent to fifty-eight percent. I cannot find a more recent poll on this. My suspicion is the pollsters are afraid of what Americans are going to tell them.

Mostly I have talked about Blacks, but it’s not as though Hispanics fit seamlessly and beautifully into this rainbow coalition. You don’t hear about riots in prison for the same reason you don’t hear about racial problems in the military. People are embarrassed about this; they want to keep it under wraps. But in 2024 in September in High Desert State Prison in California, there was a riot between Blacks and Hispanics; two hundred men were injured, twelve were hospitalized with stab wounds because of a race riot in prison. July 2024: an Idaho state correctional center riot was so bad they had to completely shut down one of the housing units and disperse people to other units. In 2018, in South Carolina’s Lee Correctional Institution, there was a riot that left seven people dead, twenty-two people hospitalized, I don’t know how many others wounded, because this time it was a three-way gang fight: White gangs, Hispanic gangs, and Black gangs. You’ve never heard about this. It was barely in the news.

Something else I am sure you have never heard: prisoners are invariably asking that they be segregated by race because that’s the only way they can be safe. And time and again, White federal judges say, “no.” White federal judges are allowed to feel good about themselves, saying we are being modern, we believe in integration, and who pays the price? It’s these poor prisoners who wish to be among people like themselves and find themselves in circumstances in which sometimes they fight to the death.

Now, I’m not talking only about prisoners. Let’s talk about ordinary people. Churches: churches are one of the few institutions that the US government has not tried to integrate. You are free to go to any church you like. And the last poll I could find, it’s from 2001, and according to it, eighty-seven percent of Christian churches are either overwhelmingly Black or overwhelmingly White. That’s because people are entirely free to go where they want to go. In addition, there are an estimated ten thousand Asian churches — Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese — because when they worship God they wish to be among people like themselves.

I can assure you there is tremendous hypocrisy about this business of diversity. Bill and Hillary Clinton were big promoters of diversity. Bill Clinton, President Clinton, he was one of the first people to really beat the drum: diversity is our greatest strength. Well, where did they decide to live, the Clintons, after they left the White House? A place called Chappaqua, New York. It’s one of the Whitest places this side of Iceland. It’s got a Black population of about… one person. There is, again, tremendous hypocrisy about this.

If you want to have a little fun, find your most committed liberal, and ask that person, “Can you name a single majority non-White neighborhood you’d like to live in? Can you name a single majority non-White school you’d like your children to attend?” You’ll find they’ll be confused. When people are left to their own devices, it’s like going to church. When people have backyard barbecues or dinner parties, they don’t flood their lives with this rainbow diversity that’s supposed to be our strength.

I’m going to switch gears a little bit. I’m sure all of you have been told that racism, is if not an exclusively White evil, it is overwhelmingly a White evil. I’m going to read to you some comments from prominent Black people who have said some things the like of which I have never said, and this did not hinder them professionally one bit. Ta-Nehisi Coates is one of the most famous recent Black authors in the country, he wrote a book called “Between the World and Me,” it was praised to the skies, his book was number seven on The Guardian‘s list of the one hundred best books of the twenty-first century. Number Seven. Of course, he was a MacArthur genius.

This is just one of many similar passages from Ta-Nehisi Coates:

I would like to tell you that the day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be White will renounce this demon religion of White Supremacy and will begin to think of themselves as “human.” But I see no real promise of such a day.

We will never think of ourselves as human apparently. Nick Cannon, entertainer, TV host on 20/20. He said during a broadcast that White people are closer to animals, and the only way they can act is mule. During an online conference in 2021, Brittany Cooper, she’s a professor at Rutgers University, she still is. The following comment didn’t harm her career at all: she explained that White people were such a terrible problem that, and I quote, “we need to take these motherfuckers out.”

Jemele Hill, a prominent sports journalist and writer for The Atlantic, that is top-tier journalism in the United States; they would never let me write for The Atlantic no matter how good my article was. Just last year she says she doesn’t trust White women, and White men “are the worst thing in America for decades.” Decades, don’t you mean centuries? Come on, Jemele.

Now Kayla A. Carter, she’s the current racial equity officer at College Park, Maryland. She says “Black people should not have to explain why they are angry, and why they are violent.” She says “remember, we are at war against colonialism” — that means White people — “and we are already planning for how we will eat, and live, and grow after we burn it all down.” I think if she had her way, there would be no White survivors after she burns it all down.

And here’s a lady named Ikani Uwon, a public theologian. She by the way was the host of the Zoom conference for evangelicals for Harris during the most recent presidential campaign. We had these various Zoom conferences for people for Harris. Well, it turns out she thinks Whiteness is wicked, “rooted in violence and theft.” She said that at a Christian racial reconciliation conference. I wonder what she thinks about us when she is not at a reconciliation conference.

And just one more. Here is Professor Chanequa Walker-Barnes, professor of theology at Columbia seminary. In 2021, she published a prayer in a book of prayers, and it starts like this:

Dear God,

Help me to hate White people. I want to stop caring about their misguided racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better.

Well, Chanequa, I’ve got news for you: we’re not going to get any better. You have to take us as we are. Or not at all. And I would suggest that she consider the second alternative seriously. I suggest, if that’s the way she feels about us, she should turn her back on White people and move as far away from us as possible. Because, unlike Chanequa, I believe that White people have poured more moral energy into being scrupulously fair, more than fair, to racial minorities, than any group of people in the entire history of the world.

And White people are getting tired of being told that they are hateful people with misguided souls and that we are responsible for everything that goes wrong for them. Now, that’s what I think. I think Whites, as I say have done everything humanly possible to be fair to racial minorities; she thinks we have misguided hopelessly racist souls. Maybe she’s right! Maybe I’m wrong. In either case, we have irreconcilable differences and in a marriage, irreconcilable differences are grounds for divorce.

You could say that for more than four hundred years, there’s been a kind of marriage between Black people and White people and American Indians. And then, to this strange menage we add other races, Hispanics, Asians, every nation under the sun. For more than four hundred years, we have been trying to build a society in which race can be made not to matter. And we have clearly failed.

Last poll, seventy percent of Blacks are convinced it’s going to be a problem forever. I believe we are failing because this attempt to build a nation in which race does not matter, or can be made not to matter, is a misreading of human nature. And this happens sometimes in idealistic human experiments. Communism was a similar misreading of human nature. The idea was to build a society in which people would live “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What an inspiring idea! The strong would voluntarily work for the benefit of the weak. Those with great talents would work voluntarily for the less well-endowed.

And for seventy or eighty years, people pursued that will-o-the-wisp. And what did Communism leave in its trail? Poverty, corruption, collapse, and millions of deaths. Fortunately, we seem to have gotten over that particular misreading of human nature. Selfishness cannot be eliminated. You can’t persuade people to work just as hard on a collective farm as they would on their own private farms. It was a misreading.

So we must not try to build society on the idea that we can make humans into what we want. We have to take them as they are. We are fallen creatures. The founders said, if men were angels, there would be no need for government. We are not angels, so there is a government. If men were angels, we wouldn’t have to lock our doors. We wouldn’t need police forces. But we are not angels, and we must take humans as they are.

I believe this effort to build this completely racially-mixed society is just not going to work because, as I said, we are tribal. We have been tribal because of evolution of millions of years; we are instinctively tribal. That’s why you have all this separation in churches and why you have these alliances even on this campus which is supposed to be an ideal society.

No. Now some people, some people will say, well, okay, yes, race is a terrible intractable problem and what’s the solution? Well, we’ll all just have to marry each other and in this mixed-race future where there is no racial distinctions, that’s the only solution. No, no: that plan means extinction. Certainly for my people. White people are, what, perhaps seven or eight percent of the world population? Having four, only three percent of the world’s babies?

This “mixing” undertaking means White people disappear. And of course not just White people. I don’t want the Hopi, or the Navajo, or the Bambara, or the Fulani to disappear. I don’t want the Bhutanese to disappear because I believe in diversity. I believe in the gorgeous and marvelous human diversity that this planet has produced. Japan is a marvelous and wonderful place. Japanese culture is a multi-layered extravaganza of gifts to the world, and that is because Japanese built those things. If Japan ceased to be Japanese, Japanese culture would die. If there were no more Japanese, maybe a few White people would still do flower arrangements, maybe a bit of tea ceremony, but Japanese culture requires Japanese.

I believe the same for all human groups. I want Black people to be the best possible Black people they can ever be. And I don’t believe that’s possible if they are living in a society in which they think we — White people — have misguided racist souls. That we are not even human, barely human. I think Black people can be happy only in a society in which they set the rules, where they let their own distinctive genius work its way up, and to be the people that they are destined to be when they hold their own destiny in their own hands, free from any conception of oppression or memories of slavery, when they are the people that govern themselves.

And of course I believe the same for my people, and I believe that this wonderful diversity of human beings can be preserved only when each group has its own territory, its own area, where it is the exclusive proprietor, a territory in which each group can be faithful to the traditions of its ancestors and pass them down to their descendants forever. Only in this way can diversity be preserved.

This is my dream for all races, for all nations, and for all people.

Thank you very much.

Tags: american renaissance, censorship, colorado mesa university, diversity, human biodiversity, Jared-Taylor