An overview of the 2016 Amren conference

In my experience, this was the most positive, and inspiring, American Renaissance conference to date. It’s my sixth one, if you count the “shadow conference” in Charlotte a few years ago and the mini-conference in Virginia (2010) before that.

I’m pretty sure that this conference had more attendees (close to 300) than any previous one. But it’s not the number of attendees that impressed me, rather it was the quality. In the past, our conferences would, inevitably, attract a few crazies. This time, I didn’t see any.

American Renaissance welcomes all who wish to attend, regardless of race or ideology. If you’re interested in attending, you pay the fee and show up. Nobody asks about your ethnicity, religion or ideology. Past conferences have always had a few non-whites, and this one was no exception. I saw a few south Asians and there was one black woman. They were treated just like everybody else. If anybody had a problem with it, they kept it to themselves.

There were also more women than in past conferences; it’s always a plus to have our conferences amid beautiful scenery.

While it takes a certain amount of courage to attend an Amren conference, it takes even more to actually speak at one – much more so if you come from a country where white lives are considered cheap, or where it’s illegal to express your opinion.

The first to speak, after Jared Taylor, was James Edwards of the Political Cesspool. He spoke of how he became involved in the pro-white movement. He’s a true patriot, and an inspiring man. I got to spend some time with him after the conference, when a few of us had lunch together in Dickson, and I enjoyed his company.


Edwards has no love for the mainstream media, having been burned by them countless times. He made this abundantly known, even as reporters were among the audience. After his talk, Sam Dixon pointed out that reporters are human beings just like us, with jobs to keep and imperfections. I was glad that Dixon said these things. I don’t like the media either, but there’s nothing to be gained by perpetuating the cycle of venom.

I have a lot of respect for Edwards, because the South has been trampled upon for too long. It’s refreshing to see somebody like him, unapologetically standing up for his country.

Next was Peter Brimelow, editor of the famous anti-immigration site Brimelow is originally from U.K. I had some trouble understanding him, and I wasn’t the only one. He spoke of the “Trump Tsunami” and the future of America. He enunciated what most of us already know: That Trump cannot be trusted. There’s no way to know what he’d do as president, and there’s a high probability that we’ll be disappointed. However, we do know what the other candidates would do, and it’s not good. He described the eruption of the Alt-Right as a potential volcano (he used the analogy of Mount Hood, which he confused with Mount St. Helens).


The third speaker, who apologized for his poor English, was Fernando Cortes from Mexico. His English turned out to be very good, and his message well-received. He claimed that mass immigration, from third-world countries into the North, is intentionally perpetuated by the wealthy elite (the one-percenters, if you will). This mass migration hurts average Mexicans, and only started happening after NAFTA was pushed through (by the Clintons). He said that Mexican nationalists and American white nationalists have a lot in common, and should be on the same side. He spoke of the absurdity of Mexicans rejecting their own European heritage – even as they dress in Western clothing, speak a European language, follow a Western religion and possess European genes.

I’m not sure if he mentioned it, but my take on this last point is that it’s politically expedient for Mexicans to focus on their Native American heritage, because this gives them (in their eyes) the right to claim portions of the US as their own. Regarding La Raza’s goal to reconquer the southwest United States, Cortes said only a small fringe element of Mexicans ascribe to this idea. He said it’s like Cinco de Mayo, celebrated in the US, but largely ignored in Mexico itself.


Some of my photos are poor quality. This is because, in contrast to previous conferences, this time I had a nice cell-phone. But it turns out that the Samsung Galaxy S6 doesn’t do very well in low-light conditions unless you’re right next to the subject. If you attend a conference, and want decent photos, bring a real camera! Fortunately, I did also bring a real camera; I used both.

Next up was Filip Dewinter, who has spoken at previous conferences. He’s from Belgium, and a member of Vlaams Belang, the Flemish nationalist party. He spoke of the Islamization of Europe. Among other things, he spoke of “no-go zones.” I’ve seen leftists criticize the concept of “no-go zones” by showing themselves sitting at a cafe’ happily enjoying lunch. They say, “how can you call this a ‘no-go zone’ when I visit it whenever I want?” So I asked Dewinter to expound upon this. I was hoping that he would specify that it’s not that non-Muslims can’t visit these places, it’s just that you can’t depend on the police to protect you while you’re there. I don’t think he was very clear about this.

Both Dewinter, and his female colleage Anke Van dermeersch (who also spoke), are very courageous people. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Belgium who would kill them given the chance. Not only that, but the government of Belgium, and the EU, scrutinize everything they do, and every word they speak. For any perceived thought-crime, they could face arrest, yet they continue to fearlessly fight for their people.



Up next was Jared Taylor on “Why They Lie.” It was a very entertaining speech, abundant with illustrations of blatant lies by the Left. He recounted the lies told by scientists , lies told by the media and lies told by politicians – either by omission blatantly.  We were reminded of the lies told by the Black Lives Matter movement.

When Taylor quoted the verbiage used by the Left, (describing the truth as “incindiary” or “controversial” or in their attempts to justify their dishonesty, Taylor made it obvious that the powers that be fear the truth.

The most shocking part of Taylor’s speech was, and I’ll quote, when…

He said he began thinking about this after the police in Cologne, Germany, covered up the New Year’s Eve attacks by Middle-Easterners on German women for fear that they would reflect badly on Angela Merkel’s policy of welcoming illegal immigrants.

When the truth came out, Germans posted angry comments about Arabs on the Internet. The German interior minister then said that the comments were “at least as awful” as the attacks themselves. “I cannot imagine a non-white person saying anything so degenerate,” said Mr. Taylor, who likened the cover-ups to the unwillingness of the British police to prosecute Pakistani men who groom young white girls for sex. Police were afraid of accusations of “racism” when the predators all turned out to be immigrants, and did not want to reveal crimes that would encourage “racists” to oppose non-white immigration.

Toward the end, as he reflected on the sacrifices of our people, Taylor was on the verge of tears.

From South Africa, we had Dan Roodt. He spoke of the struggles of South Africa, and how it’s linked to the rest of the world. He described the remaining countries with large white populations as dominoes. Once one falls, the others fall in succession. This is why it’s so important to protect the interests of white South Africans, specifically the Afrikaners.


When I met Ruuben Kaalep, the previous night, I told him he can’t use the name “Ruuben” because it’s cultural appropriation (of course, I was kidding). He’s Estonian, and I guess that’s how they spell Reuben in Estonia – which is a “small white country.” And that was the name of his talk: “A Call to Action from a Small White Country.”

Mr. Kaalep didn’t show us statistics, studies or maps. His talk was a poetic message from the heart, about how his ancient people is intimately connected to its ancestral lands. He spoke of the atrocities and indignities inflicted upon Estonia by the Soviet Union and how his small people has persevered over the ages. He showed us slides illustrating how his movement had grown over the years, and how Estonian nationalists worked together with Polish nationalist (there had been historic friction between the two groups).

Mr. Kaalep is a member of the youth group of the Estonian nationalist party. The consensus was that his speech was a very moving one.


After that we had our banquet in the dining hall. The food was excellent. Better than previous conference banquets by far. I was sitting next to an expert on steaks, and he proclaimed it to be “good steak.” The Texan on my other side agreed.

The banquet speaker was RamZPaul, and it was a great speech even for him. He combined powerful messages with humor, and he incorporated two videos into his talk. The first one was a video of himself, made last year:


That video earned a loud round of applause. Here’s the video he showed us at the end:



We had two presentations on Sunday. The first was by Anke Van Dermeersch, the first woman ever to speak at an Amren conference. At 6’2″ or so, she’s imposing. At least one of the male attendees thought she was very attractive. Her talk was titled “Neither Whore nor Slave – Women Against Islam.”

She spoke of the special dangers facing women from Islam, and from Muslims. She spoke of the horrible things many Muslims do to women (even though they’re not actually part of Islam), such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), “honor-killings” and strict dress codes. Van Dermeersch is native Flemish, yet she cannot walk the streets of some Belgian cities safely without covering herself up like a Muslim. She has been fighting mightily for womens’ rights, against the onslaught of Islam, for years. She had a great set of slides to show us. I thought she went through them a bit too quickly.


As usual, Sam Dixon concluded the conference. This time, his talk was titled “A Benediction for Heretics.” He told us some of his own life-story, and asked who would be allowed to live in “white nation.” Though Dixon is a forgiving man, willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the likes of reporters, conservative Christians and libertarians (all of whom he has differences with), he said that Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel would not be allowed to live there. He said “Clinton has gone a bridge too far” and Merkel is the worst traitor since Ephialtes. He spoke of the price many of us, including himself, have had to pay for their patriotism. He said that though he won’t live to see a white homeland, he hoped that the younger generation in the audience would live to see the promised land.

I hope that Dixon is in good health, and that we can enjoy his presence for many years into the future.

After the conference, a few of us drove to Dickson (no connection to Sam Dixon) for lunch. As usual, we ate at the Front Porch restaurant, which serves traditional Southern cuisine. Being a Sunday, the place was busy with the church crowds, that had just finished their services. I got there a bit early, so I wandered about downtown Dickson.


Here’s Front Porch:


I shared a table with James Edwards, Richard Spencer and a man from Seattle. It was interesting listening to their conversations.

Incidentally, here’s Mr. Spencer getting interviewed by the media during one of our breaks:


Here’s Mr. Taylor getting interviewed:


You may be wondering about protesters. Apparently, they’ve been too busy with Trump rallies, for only three or four showed up. There was no drum-beating, horn-blowing or wild displays of insanity. Also missing were swastikas; apparently, they’d figured out we’re not neo-Nazis. Better late than never.


There were more reporters interviewing the protesters than there were protesters. One of the attendees claimed he saw a female protester try to stick Sanders stickers on some of the cars parked outside. When I heard that, I asked for security to watch the area, and they showed up quickly. I didn’t see any Sanders stickers on the cars.

This entry was posted in activism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to An overview of the 2016 Amren conference

  1. brierrabbit3030 says:

    You get the feeling some subtle, not quite imperceptible breeze of fresh ideas, and the fragrance of hope beginning to blow thru the dry, weedy, meadows of progressive ideology. I smell distant rains coming. Its going to be struggle, but I feel hopeful something better is coming.

  2. 0jr says:

    Deceived By Our Media With Devastating Consequences.. Series

    Currently all we do is exchange FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. We should not be required to pay interest on our own currency. This as one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Today we are still fighting the same family of bankers (Reference 4, Reference 1, P. 211, 212).

    The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn’t doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can’t vote the FED or its Chairman out of office.
    If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers. The news media and Congress will have no choice but to meet the demands of grass roots America. (Reference 1, P. 17, 22)

    By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED’s 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36). If each taxpayer paid $25, we could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers. Note: The people who enacted the FED started the IRS, within months of the FED’s inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED’s shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed (Reference 20 shows details, state-by-state why it was not legally passed). The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.
    Currently, fewer and fewer Americans are being convicted for refusal to pay income taxes. In IRS jury trials, the jury, by law, must decide if the law is just. If taxpayers do not believe the law is just, the jury may declare the accused innocent. Judges are legally bound to inform juries of their right to determine the fairness of a law. Judges often do not disclose this information so they can control the court outcome. Luckily, more and more citizens are becoming informed. If one juror feels the law is unfair, they can find the defendant innocent (Reference 19). In Utah, the IRS quit prosecuting taxpayers because jurors verdict is not guilty. Please tell your friends and sit in the next jury.
    If we eliminate the FED and uphold the Constitution, we could balance the budget and cut personal income tax to almost nothing. In Congressional hearings on September 30, 1941, FED Chairman Eccles admitted that the FED creates new money from thin air (printing press), and loans it back to us at interest (Reference 17, P. 93). On June 6, 1960, FED President Mr. Allen admitted essentially the same thing (Reference 22, P. 164). If you or I did this we would go to jail.

    It is time to abolish the FED! Tell your friends the truth and win America back. We don’t even need to buy back the FED. We only need to print money the way the Constitution requires, not the new proposed international money. We want to keep our sovereignty and print real U.S. money.

    George Soros is up to his ugly neck in money laundering In 2012 a money laundering case (Case No. 08-CV-7900) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against George Soros, Deutsche Bank, Vornado Realty Trust, Fortress Investment Group, Donald J. Trump & 12 other RICO conspirators for $4.2 Billion in damages. For more go here

  3. Tom says:

    Marvelous summary, Jewamongyou. I was there. You told me of your blog — to which I shall return.

  4. A. Alexander Minsky says:

    I enjoyed reading your summary, but ,given the name of your blog, I thought you might have devoted more attention to AmRen’s somewhat tortured relationship with Jews. Looking at this from the outside, it seems as if AmRen is becoming increasingly less philo-Semetic. The first AmRen Conference featured four Jewish speakers. The keynote was a Hasidic Rabbi ,Mayer Schiller, and kosher meals were served. By way of contrast, this year’s conference featured not a single Jewish speaker, and I tend to think it would have been difficult to locate a Kosher meal (I think it has been three years since AmRen has had a Jewish speaker).

    I’m sure your readers would be interested in knowing how you feel about these developments. It would also be interesting to hear about your experience at AmRen as a Jewish attendee. Did anyone at the conference feel uncomfortable having a Jew among them?

    • jewamongyou says:

      I wouldn’t characterize Amren’s relationship to Jews as “tortured.” It’s true that we used to have a lot of Jewish speakers, and recently we’ve had none, but I’m pretty sure this is not because Amren now objects to having Jewish speakers; it’s just that there aren’t that many prominent Jews who would/could speak at Amren. I heard that Prof. Michael Levin was invited back, but declined because he “had nothing new to say.” As for Rabbi Schiller, my understanding was that he was told, by other Jews, to stay away from the conference. So it’s not so much that Amren objects to having Jewish speakers, it’s that Jews are not willing to speak at Amren. I don’t think Amren needs an affirmative action program for Jewish speakers. But I’m sure that if a good speaker shows up, and he happens to be Jewish, there wouldn’t be a problem.

      This year was the first year that we had a female speaker. Does that mean that Amren was against females in the past?

      As for my own experiences, I definitely got the cold shoulder, from some people, in the earlier conferences. Back when Don Black and his crowd used to show up. But I feel more welcome in recent conferences. So my perception is that things have actually warmed up for Jews at the conferences.

      • A. Alexander Minsky says:

        Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. There may be something to your idea, that the absence of Jewish speakers has more to due with a lack of qualified race realist Jews, than a deliberate attempt on the part of AmRen to exclude folks from that group. I suppose you can only invite Paul Gottfried, Byron Roth and Robert Weissberg so many times.

        Nonetheless, I can see why someone like Michael Levin might be reluctant to speak at these gatherings. Take for example the invitation to Uncuck the Right. I’ve seen his videos ans they are often funny and always well produced. Nonetheless, some of them are viciously anti-Semitic.. One of his works is actually titled “Oy Vey”. Dr. Levin probably has better things to do than rub shoulders with such a fellow.

    • With respect, it sounds like you are keeping score, or, wanting some sort of quota. Do we, as Jews, need to go there? I say not.

  5. jewamongyou says:

    Re: A. Minsky,

    Anybody who’s involved with a pro-white movement is going to encounter activists who espouse anti-Jewish sentiments. In the past, I’ve written about this. In a nutshell, there are a lot of pro-whites who have hard feelings toward Jews in general, and they’re vocal about this – but they still judge each individual, Jewish or otherwise, as individuals. These people will mock Jews, and badmouth us, but they’ll have no problem befriending people like me (should they deem me worthy of their friendship because of my other traits).

    Similarly, we find a lot of animosity toward blacks in general, due to their pathologies. Yet this doesn’t stop us from treating individual blacks with respect. We find the same thing with leftists/liberals. They’ll badmouth white males ’till they’re blue in the face – but this doesn’t stop them from marrying white males, having white male friends and business partners or voting for white males.

    Then there are those who hate Jews so much that they won’t even interact with a Jew; they simply assume that all Jews are evil. These days, I don’t think there are that many of this type of anti-semite at Amren conferences. Some of them, like David Duke, are (to my understanding) banned from the conferences.

    • A. Alexander Minsky says:

      I don’t mean to harp on this subject, but I think this issue goes beyond “hard feelings” on the part of some White nationalists. For many in these circles, Jews are THE problem. Uncuck the Right’s videos make it clear that he feels this way. And if AmRen is to be considered philo-Semitic, they have to ,at the very least not invite folks like this as speakers (attendees is another matter).

      The analogy with Blacks doesn’t really hold up in this case. Amen will never invite four Black speakers to a conference, or serve traditional African fare at the banquet. AmRen wasn’t formed with a desire for Black participation. They were supposedly formed as an organization that would explicitly welcome the attendance and participation of Jews.

      As for the question of some of these folks being willing to befriend you: Look even David Duke has his favorite Jews. He dedicated a book to Israel Shahak, gushes over Gilad Atzmon, and has had Paul Eisen on his radio show. This doesn’t alter the fact that Duke sees defeating “Jewish Supremacism” as the most important task facing humanity.

      I apologize if I have gone on too long or beaten this issue to death. It looks as if you’ve got quite the interesting blog going here. I look forward to exploring your other writings and commenting when the urge strikes (hopefully not at such length).

      Best wishes and keep up the good work.

  6. Pingback: Outliers (#7)

  7. Well... says:

    Hi, this is my first time reading your blog though I think I’ve seen a few of your comments over at iSteve before. Apologies for this “late” comment, as I know this is a really old blog entry; I clicked on headlines of older entries I thought would be interesting and reveal a bit more about your ideas than just those pictures of old Jewish manuscripts (which were cool, by the way, but not what I came here for).

    I have a talk I think would be relevant and also very unique to AmRen, but the problem is I’m not yet well-established in my career and I don’t want to get blackballed. It pains me that my freedom of association is restricted by this kind of omnipresent latent threat from Leftist pointers-and-sputterers, but that’s the reality. Lots of other potential AmRen speakers–some of them Jewish–no doubt feel the same way.

    A related problem is, many conservative Jews likely have at least a few–and in many cases a lot of–close family members who happen to be very liberal. Plus, many Jews have intermarried, not infrequently to nonwhites. Attending, let alone speaking at, a conference that the mainstream media hardly distinguishes from a Klan rally would create unnecessary intra-family strife. Sitting down with your black wife and trying to explain the Alt Right or one of its conferences in friendly approachable terms can often be a frustrating experience that ends in misunderstanding and alienation. (Trust me.) No marriage needs that.

    So to summarize, the decision not to attend or speak at AmRen is for a lot of us the unhappy result of weighing costs against benefits, and has nothing to do with our own perceptions of the conference itself.

    If you attend next year, and someone asks “Where da Jews at?” please feel free to pass that on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *