All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2017 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:09:51
Are Whites Waking Up?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to another edition of Radio Renaissance.
It's my pleasure to have as my guest Michael Walker.
He may be familiar to some of you as the editor of The Scorpion.
The last issue of The Scorpion was issue number 24.
It was called The Presumptions of Democracy.
And I was one of many who was very sorry to see The Scorpion ceased to be published.
Mike Walker is a writer and a journalist and probably the only English-speaking person who is considered a member of the European New Right.
And this is something we'll speak about later in our broadcast here.
But he is also proud to be a playwright.
Michael Walker lives in France and is a very well-informed observer of the nationalist scene in Europe, as well as in the United States.
And it's a real pleasure to welcome you on the program.
Thanks very much for joining me.
Thank you, Jared. Let us start with a large question.
Like me, you think that the European people have a right to exist as a distinct people, with a distinct culture, and that we are in a rather beleaguered state now through immigration and the various suicidal ideas that seem to be circulating among our societies.
How do you assess our chances for survival in any meaningful way, at least on the European continent?
I think anybody, whatever they want, should be very careful about making definite projections, prognoses.
Because, especially recently, events have sometimes taken a direction politically which everybody or nearly everybody was surprised to see.
In other words, events have become more capricious in the past, more difficult to forecast.
So I'm very, very hesitant about making a definite prognosis one way or the other.
I do feel that there are grounds for cautious optimism compared to ten years ago, which we can talk about perhaps.
Largely owing to technical changes which have enabled people to express themselves directly, whereas in the past all expression had to be filtered through controlled media.
Which had fallen almost completely into the hands of those who did not wish to see the white race prosper.
And the cards have been dealt again through, I think, the development of this new technology.
That is one of the major reasons why there are grounds, I would say, for cautious, very cautious optimism compared to, say, 10 years ago.
Yes, that's my feeling as well.
compared to 10 or particularly compared to 20 years ago, at a time when I was certainly publishing,
and I believe you were active at that time as well, it seemed so difficult to get any kind
of dissenting voice heard.
And as you point out, the changes, the changes in the possibilities to be heard,
even if one is considered a marginal voice, have changed radically.
At the same time, I'm inclined to see some of the surprises that you described, or I assume we're thinking
of some of the same surprises, as also grounds for optimism.
The Brexit vote, the election of Donald Trump, for example.
Certainly. And both of those events seem to me to be an inchoate cry for attention of the ordinary white people who see their nation slipping through their fingers.
Would you agree that they are an expression or at least partially an expression of that sentiment?
Absolutely. I would agree.
I would only add the qualifier that it's not necessarily an expression from white people as white people.
It is an expression of people who in the past had their voices, if their voices were reflected at all, it was by experts.
And I think we're witnessing in all kinds of areas of human activity, politics, but also in the area of medicine, very obviously, in the area of the arts, A rejection, for better and for worse, is not always, in my opinion, a good thing, although I think on the whole I would say it's a good thing, but not always.
A rejection of the expert, a rejection of the idea that there's someone up there in a higher position who is given a right or is permitted through better education or qualification or whatever it is, To have an opinion that is of more value than the opinion of the common man.
So I don't think it's just the white race. It's expressed itself there certainly, but I think it's also the expression that one shouldn't ignore, not a racial expression in countries like England and France, of a groundswell of populist support for left-wingers, who are certainly internationalists.
But in some ways it is comparable to, say, the phenomenon in America, which you rightly described as a sort of inchoate.
It's an expression of white frustration.
So I think it's a populous movement, and perhaps not just in Europe, but all over the world, are on the marsh.
And who knows where they will go?
But white feeling can take and should take and is taking advantage of that.
Yes, you're certainly right that the idea that all things are more or less dictated by people in authority, people who know better than us, this conviction does seem to be crumbling.
And as you say, in medicine, for example, many people...
Have all of these pet theories about nutrition, how they should treat themselves, and you can find just a bewildering variety of authoritative-sounding opinions on the internet.
It doesn't take any difficulty at all to find oneself in a complete maze on subjects like this.
Yeah, absolutely. In fact, if you mention medicine, you may have heard of a person called Dr.
Mercola. Who's had an enormous following, made a very good business.
I may not either be positive or negative about him, but just objectively say that he has definitely been carried on with his success on this wave of rejection or suspicion towards what only 20, 30 years ago was regarded with awe and reverence, which was the medical authority, the hospital, the A professional practitioner.
And his comments or his beliefs are a very extreme rejection of that, of a lot of conspiracy theory there.
Again, I don't want to enter into that.
We could spend all day talking about that.
But as a sign, an indication, taking it slightly a bit away from normal party politics there, Of this rejection of the expert in favour of common sense, the common man, my gut instincts.
This is very much, I think, the way all over the world societies are changing, perhaps not yet anyway in some countries like China, but in many, many countries in the world, I think.
Yes. And much as I welcome this diversity of views in those areas in which I am not myself generally a dissident, I find the diversity sometimes confusing.
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
Yes. It can be described as a kind of, one could interpret it as a kind of Example of capitalism in full bloom, where you have all possible choices as a consumer.
And I would add to that, I think what we've moved from is the notion of the producer as king and the consumer has to follow to the consumer and the customer as king and the producer has to follow so that the There's been a shift even in business, this enormous stress that's now put on customer satisfaction.
I would almost say the fear of the customer, the ability of the customer to make a damaging judgment on the internet.
That case, which you may have heard about, I think it was with American Airlines, was it with a youth who was obliged to pay $150 for taking his guitar onto the plane?
And that was a big mistake by the airline because then on YouTube he composed a song, not a very good song, making fun of this airline.
And someone conservatively estimated their loss of revenue because this airline was so ridiculed on YouTube at around a million dollars at least.
For the $150 that they insisted he pay for taking his guitar on the plane.
And this is an example of the new power, if you like, of the consumer in the broader sense of the word.
And let us hope that the political consumer can express himself just as effectively and get satisfaction as well.
Because one of the great failings of Democracy, whether one cares for this system or not, the idea that our rulers are supposed to reflect something of the feeling of the people they are ruling, one of its great failings in that respect has been the inability of Western countries to control immigration.
Certainly third world immigration.
This is something that their people have been opposing for as long as there have been polls.
And in Britain in particular.
Well, in Germany as well.
Also the French. It seems as though people of every political stripe, when they're in power, they promise, yes, yes, yes, next year we will cut things down to net zero immigration.
Or we will encourage some of the people who shut up to go home.
And they never do. They never do.
It's one continuing failure after another.
And it's not surprising that the voters are expressing their frustration in such things as Brexit or by voting for Donald Trump.
But since you're in France, perhaps we can touch just briefly on what I found to be a very disappointing performance by the National Front in the legislative elections.
What was your assessment of her performance and that of her party?
Yes, I think the performance was disappointing.
A few points to make is perhaps that it can be, I think many, many years ago, I made a speech, was it, to American Renaissance, I mentioned this point, the dangers of pessimism and optimism, and in this case of optimism, I think, in the National Front, which is understandable, but also from sympathetic commentators, not in the National Front, which I think is less understandable, There was excessive optimism.
There was a sort of self-promotion that went to the extent that people actually believed the National Front.
Marine Le Pen could actually win the election, which I think was never on the cards at all.
One shouldn't forget that any party like that has a built-in disadvantage by the sheer number of immigrants who were already there who were never going to vote for the party.
So you're already starting at a huge disadvantage.
But I also think that ironically, part of the disappointing results were due to the fact that, in a sense, she or her party still belongs to an old structure.
The establishment saw that the party political system very, very rapidly in France is breaking down.
Really more rapidly, I think, than almost any other country.
The Socialist Party just slumped from being one of the standard parties of the country, almost like the Democrats in the United States, to just a minor party, I think.
I can't remember. They got something like 8% of the vote.
And she was associated, ironically, because of course with the big issue of immigration she was the non-establishment politician, but yet ironically was associated with those old parties and the establishment parachuted in a young, presentable, consumer-friendly individual who looked good, sounded good, full of energy and significantly didn't really have a political party but had a movement.
That was just enough money, which was very important, just stamped out of the ground, as it were, and was hugely successful.
I would add one other point.
I think one can be in the danger when one personally thinks that an issue, I do agree with you largely, perhaps you feel more strongly even than I do about it, but I think we broadly agree, That non-white immigration has reached absolutely unacceptable percentages in Europe, and that it is a very major issue, should be a very major issue in politics.
One can, if one thinks that, fall into the danger, which I think perhaps happened with the National Front campaign, that that is what everybody else has as the top of their list of priorities.
And I think the majority of French people have become quite Consumer oriented, very quickly, quite inward looking in their priorities, that sort of big things are employment, security, and also a rejection of bureaucracy was a Private belief of mine, there was no reach out from Le Pen to those people who feel oppressed by taxes, who feel oppressed by the enormous bureaucracy in France, having things done.
This contrast you can make there with Trump, who, with the same frustration in America, he honed in on that, while not losing his industrial base, was able to say to people, superb electoral tree, every new law or every new regulation, I will scrap too.
That was absolutely...
I think that was a great vote winner.
I think it was in the United States.
And there should have been something like that in France.
And there was nothing. There was a complete, total silence.
She wasn't, if you like, interested in that sizable part of the population.
And Macron undoubtedly was.
His deregulation appeals to a lot of people.
So all that played its role.
And also, I have to honestly say that I felt that rhetorically, She could have done better.
I feel she had more in her.
She spoke well enough, but it wasn't as impressive to my way of thinking as it should have been.
And there was too much sort of self-congratulation, too much speaking to my own people.
Of course, it's harder for the Front National because they're attacked by the left when they appear in public and so on.
But I would have liked to have seen more addressing the people.
Compare that to Jean-Louis Mélenchon.
He's enormously successful.
There were mass rallies where he was able to appeal to anybody who was willing to come to his huge rallies in Paris and elsewhere.
But there we are. Let us not forget all the same.
To be fair, the Front National has come a long way from what it was.
It wasn't so very long ago that they were a very small, marginal party.
Yes, I hesitate to disagree with you insofar as you are closer to the scene and a very acute observer.
I'm not convinced that the fact that the National Front is a traditional party in a structural sense necessarily was a disadvantage to it.
And it seems to me that Marine Le Pen's message...
was blurred by her insistence on the evil impact of the Euro, this insistence that they have to get out of the European Union.
It seemed to me that she rather soft-pedaled what had been traditionally the National Front appeal, namely nationalism.
And the idea of keeping France French, she seemed to be very much appealing to the Melenchon voter by moving to the left, a kind of a leftist approach.
And her number one advisor, this Florian Philippot fellow, he's essentially a man of the left, it seems to me.
And that, it seems to me, contributed to a kind of incoherence in her approach.
On the one hand, I know that the identitarians in France think that she's a bit of a backslider and a bit of a limp-wristed nationalist these days.
So it's impossible to know.
As you say, there are many different sectors of electorate.
They have many different interests.
And it is very easy for people like myself to assume that because I am consumed by a particular aspect of the demographic future of the United States or the world or of Europe, that other people are too.
But I think that she might have done better had she stuck to her last, had she really beaten the traditional drums that her father had about nationalism.
But perhaps I'm wrong. No, I don't think you're entirely wrong.
I partly agree with you there.
I think that were there a better awareness among so many people, and take in this case Front National, of the necessity of an alliance of which Brexit is the shining example because Brexit Was that vote, that referendum, which so appalled and appalled the establishment, almost, I think, more than the election of Donald Trump.
Very controversial view, but I believe that.
That was only possible through an alliance of the most diverse elements of people who actually, frankly, hated each other in some cases.
Perhaps there's no sense in giving names, but I'd certain knowledge of people who campaigned for Britain to leave the United Kingdom, for Britain to leave Europe, Well, the European Union were, in some cases, people who were most intensely antipathetic to each other and disliked each other.
And it would have made sense for Marine Le Pen to have left this strong, pun intended, to have left this strong stress on social issues to France Insoumise, to Mélenchon's movement, Because he had that left-wing, slightly nationalist electorate anyway behind him, and there should have been much more sense of cooperation and not treading on one another's toes, which of course we didn't see.
And so in that sense I agree with you.
I think that she put too much stress on left-wing views, which also came over, which I think electorates, one shouldn't underestimate this, something electorates really hate, is when they think that politicians are picking up an issue just to get votes.
When they've got a feeling that that's happening, I mean, politicians probably have to do this a lot, but when it comes over too obviously, then they're likely to be rejected by the electorate or by a certain part of the electorate.
And I think I agree with you that Marine Le Pen gave the impression of, oh, now I'll do this, now I'll do this, maybe I can pick up some votes there.
That came over too much like that.
And you're possibly right about...
The Euro, I think she was perhaps inspired by Brexit, a little bit dazzled, wanted, maybe there was a little bit of feeling of envy there, and it's only human nature that Farage and the European Parliament everywhere really sort of taken centre stage, and maybe she wanted to show, you know, she could do that as well.
I don't know. Could be that.
Whereas, it is true that a lot of French people are quite strongly pro-European, even when they're anti-immigration, which...
It doesn't happen, for example, in Germany or Britain very much.
People say, oh, I'm very pro-European, but I'm anti-immigration.
It doesn't happen in Britain really at all.
Not very much in Germany, but it's quite strong in France.
And I think, in that sense, you're right.
I think, in general, I would agree with you.
The only point where I would disagree is that she did put a pretty strong stress on On the nationhood, French values, as indeed part of her rejection of the EU. So that did come over pretty strongly in her campaigns, actually.
But otherwise, I broadly would agree with you.
I would have to say that I was very disappointed in her debate with Emmanuel Macron.
I watched the thing start to finish, and he seemed...
I didn't watch it actually, so you went up on me there.
Well, he was smooth, he was in control, he was unruffled, and he seemed to have the facts at his fingertips.
She floundered about and Did nothing really but attack him personally, it seemed, in a way that was unseemly.
I thought that the debate between them was even more gutter-oriented than the kinds of conversation that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had in their debates.
Oh wow, I was pretty extreme if it was even more than that.
Yes. So I think that certainly damaged her.
She came across as something of a harridan, really, And I think for a woman politician, that's one of the worst possible mistakes to make.
And now we see the results in the legislative elections here, in which the National Front only got 13% in the first round and just 9% in the second round.
And they haven't even gotten the 15 deputies that they would need to make it a parliamentary group.
How many have they got? Eight or nine?
I believe they have eight seats.
They have only eight seats, really.
And this after, at the time of the last elections for the European Parliament, they were bragging about how they were the number one party in the country.
This is a very, very considerable come down.
And of course it is a tribute to this Melenchon guy who's never held political office, who has started this brand new, more of what you would call a movement than a party, and I think you're probably correct there.
He has just swept from one astonishing success to another.
Now he and his allies have an absolute majority in the French National Assembly.
It's an extraordinary success.
Yes. An interesting comment you made there about the personal attack.
That was the case in the Austrian presidential elections when, good heavens, I've even forgotten the name of the Freiheit Partlicher candidates.
It doesn't actually particularly matter.
But anyway, he was up against a very professional, cool, green politician.
For president of the Republic of Austria, and they had the televised debate, which I did follow.
And he fell into the trap, which was clearly late for him, I think, of becoming very personal and gave a very bad impression.
And I think a lot of people were surprised.
That he lost the presidential election, and that probably turned the table, this inability to rise above the personal, which is very difficult, but it's something I think one has to learn, and tackle the issue, especially in a televised debate.
We tackle the issue in a way that gives people the impression that you have the facts and information at your fingertips.
Television is anyway merciless, but more merciless now because everything is recorded, everything is seen on YouTube, is played and played again.
And every, although I have said, it may sound perhaps a little bit like a contradiction, it is a paradox, that although, as I said, I think in a sense the expert is regarded much less than in the past, at the same time, in terms of your knowledge of facts and figures of information, I think to be successful politically, you have to be even slicker, even quicker Then in the past, it's in the past people could muff things and say it would be forgotten, but now it's recorded forever.
If you take the example of Theresa May's really dreadful election campaign, 40 years ago it might have been halfway forgotten after a few years.
The way she, her body language as they call it these days, really terrible.
Her inability to speak properly, maybe that could have been ironed out.
But now, of course, it's recorded forever, and this is something that people have to learn.
And if the debate is, as you said, about Marie Le Pen became more personal, I can hardly imagine if that's possible, than the Trump-Clinton debate, then that sounds very bad, because there are very clear objective facts, and Macron really should be put to answer exactly how many more immigrants should come into the country.
Exactly how much money France should bail out in a united Europe for countries that are unable to run their own economies within the euro, like Greece.
There are very specific questions, and yes, it's interesting you said that because I've noticed that with her in the past.
I had a sort of feeling she could be sharper.
She could be, in a sense, more aggressive, but not personal.
Really homing in on some, you know, let's have some facts about this.
How many Islamic terrorists have been, in your opinion, I wasn't aware of the debate of the candidates for the Austrian presidency.
I was, of course, very much hoping that the Freedom Party man would win.
And I'm a little bit surprised.
Well, I didn't follow it at all.
So I wasn't aware of the fact that he seemed to get personal and was outmaneuvered by the more establishment candidate.
I think in the case of Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, Macron's performance is all the more impressive because he is such an unseasoned politician.
Marine Le Pen has been under the Klieg lights for year after year after year.
And you'd think that she would have developed a kind of persona, a kind of self-possession, an ability to really concentrate on what matters.
But it seemed to me she rather fell apart.
And she did not concentrate on the points that you raised, which I agree 100% she should have concentrated on.
It was all about the economy for the most part.
She said very little about immigration.
And when it comes to the economy, Macron was just head and shoulders better prepared than she was.
And he was self-possessed.
It was a very impressive performance for a guy who's not even 40 years old.
But anyway, it just goes to show you that...
Little things, or what seem to be little things, a debate, a concentration on a particular subject, who knows?
These things can throw elections in one direction or another, but I certainly agree with you that there was never, ever any chance of Marine Le Pen becoming president of France, but it would have been far more encouraging if she'd done better than, what was it, the 38% she got or something like that?
Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.
But this question, you raised a very interesting point about how in France, one can be opposed to massive immigration, but be very fond of the European Union, where this is an unusual state of mind in Britain or Germany, for example. Given that case, do you think, well, that must have participated enormously in the vote for Brexit?
Let me just preface my question here by saying that it seemed to me that if the vote for Brexit was an expression of not just our desire to reclaim British sovereignty, but also to control one's borders better— That it was a bit of an indirect effort, an ill-directed effort, insofar as there are members of the European Union, the Visigard countries, the Eastern European countries, have been able to avoid pretty much any kind of non-European immigration just by saying,
we won't have any of it. And Britain surely could have exercised that kind of, should have shown that kind of backbone against Merkel if Britain had wished to.
Yes, I think part of the answer to that is that when one says Britain, does one mean the voters of Britain or does one mean the government?
It's like that old history question, France decided.
Was it Napoleon who decided or whoever?
And governments all the time have been in favour in Britain, really, of large-scale immigration and European integration.
And I really can't think of any government in my lifetime that wasn't broadly in favour of massive immigration and wasn't broadly in favour of European integration.
The half exception to that, or really half exception, was Margaret Thatcher, who seemed towards the end of her premiership to have suddenly realised that the common market was about the abolition of the nation state It seems that that was something she hadn't realised before, where I have to say that I find that remarkable, because anybody who had so much experience in politics surely should have understood that.
Be that as it may, politicians have followed that course in Britain, successive governments, Labour and Conservative.
And for various reasons, Prime Minister Cameron decided, partly flushed with the success of the referendum in Scotland, Partly because he was under pressure and perhaps over afraid of UKIP and for other reasons people in his own party were favourable, at least for a referendum, if not in fact for exiting the European Union, to hold that referendum and then this result which completely amazed and appalled the entire political business elite of Europe with very very few exceptions but those exceptions were perhaps important because those free market That free market,
anti-common market element did play its role as well.
So I think it wasn't exactly Britain.
I think it was the British people that wanted out.
I don't think that Britain, as under the British governments, were going to play any positive role with regards to the Visegrad countries or anything else.
I think they're a separate issue.
It's perhaps, though, true to say that there's a certain Ignorance among a lot of British people about what goes on in Hungary or Poland.
Possibly there's a lack of awareness might play a role there as well.
But as I said, to cut a long story short, I would say that the British people had a very different, have a very, in their majority, view of the European Union to their leaders.
No, I think you're absolutely correct to underline that fact.
As you suggested, it's incorrect to say Britain did this or Britain did that because, as you point out, there are many, many examples in which the people who are running the country have very, very different views compared to the people who make up the country.
But didn't David Cameron from time to time say, well, next year we're going to keep net immigration down to 30,000?
Didn't he make a number of promises about how he's going to control this sort of thing and then just failed?
It seemed to me he at least made noises in the proper direction.
Oh yes, politicians make noises.
Long since...
In fact, I never took those noises very seriously, certainly.
It means nothing.
Unfortunately, it does make an impression probably in constituency parties and the selection of candidates.
I don't know. But yes, I'm sure he did make those noises.
I didn't follow them. The truth of the matter is that Massive immigration was continuing, will continue, has been reduced as a response to voting patterns, the clear wish of the people.
But the project is for open borders as far as the great majority of politicians are concerned.
Brexit, of course, is very, very interesting because it showed to me, quite apart from What it represented, meaning the possible leaving.
I say possible because I really think everything's still up for play.
But the possible or probable leaving of the European Union, quite apart from that being interesting in itself, Brexit was also interesting, as I think I mentioned, an example of the power of alliance.
And for me, personally, The best example of somebody who understood that, who in many ways I think is a very unlikable person.
A lot of people intensely dislike him, which I can fully understand, who's a multiracialist.
I think he's married to a Muslim, has five children.
I'm speaking of, probably you've guessed, of George Galloway.
Whose speech to Faraj's meeting showed that he at least had understood this.
And I think his words should be ingrained on the minds of all of us.
And it went something like this.
There he was, invited by Faraj.
Farage's group, which was Grassroots Go or Go Grassroots.
I can't remember exactly what it was called, this campaign.
Supposed to be multi-party.
I think Kate Hoy was there representing the Labour Party.
But people looked at it as a sort of UKIP. Stroke Tory front, really.
Perhaps they would deny it, but it looked like that to the media, and maybe the media were not entirely wrong about that.
However, he invited George Galloway, produced George Galloway's surprise speaker, this man from the definitely could only be described and would describe himself as the far left.
And how did George Galloway tackle it?
First of all, he, of course, got people on his side by saying comrades and friends.
That's a very clever way of introducing himself.
And then said, realizing this was the case, what was going on in people's minds, people in this room have a very different idea.
We all have very different ideas about what Britain should be or could be.
But none of us in this room or in the country Has the opportunity to put our ideas for what Britain could or should be into practice because we have given that power away to a fantastically financed pseudo-parliament in Brussels.
I almost know that verbatim of the words, something like that.
You can see it easily on YouTube.
And I think he understood that point so well.
In fact, what he was politely saying was that, you know, a lot of you politically were a million miles apart.
In fact he also said I'd like to thank Nigel Farage very warmly for inviting me all the more because Nigel Farage agree about hardly anything at all.
But he said there's one thing that we do agree upon and that is the right of Britain to be a self-governing, independent, democratic nation and that means leaving the European Union.
And that is beyond a European Union.
He understood the necessity for people if they have an aim or wish sometimes to hold their noses and ally themselves with people that they don't like Not tricking these people, because that's not going to get anywhere, but actually because both groups of people realise that without the other they're not going to succeed.
On a smaller scale, I think you saw the same in the United States, with people who in the past would have voted Democrat, did vote Democrat.
Wisconsin, I think, was the Perhaps the key state there.
Michigan. Ohio is the other one, but certainly Wisconsin.
And also Michigan and the mining state there.
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
Where people who normally vote Democratic normally wouldn't follow somebody who is implicitly really not very friendly towards the unions.
We wouldn't identify as the working man who comes from the New York elite of real estate investors, but were prepared.
To vote for him because they had a common aim, which was to restore patriotism, the idea of patriotism in the United States, to make America great again.
Finally, there was a politician who said, I am actually going to impose import tariffs on cheap goods from China.
Nobody had dared to say.
And this was an alliance.
This was an alliance. People have to be aware of it.
They can't go by themselves.
You can't go on hoping in the Democratic Party that somebody's going to get up and be like Mélenchon and take over the Democratic Party and do everything you want.
At the same time, if you're a kind of independently-minded, wealthy property investor who's always supported the Republican Party and hates immigration, you can't do without that vote from the working class.
So there's a kind of alliance there that Trump very Very ably and adroitly brought together through his instincts, which were extraordinarily good, and managed to bring these people together.
And that was also, not as clearly perhaps, but I think also an example of that kind of an alliance.
And I think this kind of alliance has increased in significance because the rigid structures of parties, political parties, I think, is increasingly going to be a thing of the past.
Yes, I think it's unquestionably the case that the old left-right split is obsolete, that Trump's appeal really was across the political spectrum.
Some of his appeals are considered right-wing, some of his appeals are considered left-wing.
But on the subject of essential alliances based around the one important thing held in common by disparate people, I've always had what has turned out to be an extremely naive view, namely that politics need not have anything to do with an appreciation of the necessity to keep our people, keep the founding stock of the United States or the original inhabitants of Europe in a position of dominance in their homeland.
It doesn't seem to me that that is either a question of right or a question of left.
We're all interested in saving the planet, for heaven's sake.
I don't think you could find much of a left-right divide in terms of wanting to save zebras or hippopotamuses.
But all of a sudden, when it comes to wanting to preserve a particular people, a European people, or the European diaspora all around the world, all of a Is associated very much with a kind of rigidly right view of things.
That's always been a reason for bafflement for me.
Why is it so difficult to conclude that Europeans are just as worthy of preservation as the spotted owl or the Kreshmar cave mold beetle and all these other All these other really rather insignificant species that we're supposed to be worrying about.
That seems to be an essential thing.
Once we decide that yes, okay, that we as Europeans have a right to survive and right to flourish, then let us discuss all of these other left-right questions.
The size of government, whether or not there should be free trade, And yet, as I admitted at the outset, this turned out to be a completely naive view on my part, and the idea of preserving Europeans as a people and as a culture seems to be, at the very least, right to the right, and at the worst, an anathema opinion.
It doesn't seem to be a point around which there can be any alliance.
I think your use of the word there of naive is one that I wouldn't necessarily say.
When you say it's naive, there's an irony there that you're saying, oh, why can't people see that?
I think it's an incomplete view.
Now, you mentioned how it always comes.
I think the first person to make a dismissive reply about a spotted owl, which has now become sort of I think one of the tragedies of our time, in my opinion, is in fact the fact that People who are truly aware of the decline in diversity in our planet in terms of fauna and flora tend to be blind about human diversity and specifically about race.
Yes. And in large part, I believe that people who are very concerned about race, although there are exceptions, Garrett Hardin, the obvious one, are very unaware of the importance of the preservation of the planet.
And I think this is an absolute disaster.
And in fact, if the planet does end up as certain gentlemen many years ago prophesied that it would do, which is just to be a dead ball of mud and stone rushing through an empty universe...
It will be because those two elements of understanding have been unable to form any kind of alliance or understanding.
I would say very definitely those two things are extremely important.
It sounds silly if you name one particular unusual species of owl or something, yet the fact is that the environment is being impoverished in much the same way as culture is being impoverished.
The fact is that if you go to a country like any country really now in Europe, I'm sure it's the same everywhere, the one common factor that every country has is that the land is being turned over to death.
Now what I mean by that slightly extreme statement is that quite literally, and it's the one thing that North Korea, the United States, Brazil, England, any country you want to name, One thing they all have in common is that they are building on the land, that they're putting concrete on the land, so there is no green, there is no life.
At a much infinitely higher rate than anything is being re-greened.
In fact, re-greening is very unusual.
And when I have arguments about people, they look around and they come up with the example of East Germany, which is a tiny blob on the globe anyway, and it's not entirely true.
And in some very small parts of East Germany, it is true that such a depopulation, the countryside is returning.
Central parts of the United States did or has happened to a certain extent as well.
But the general trend of the world, if you look at South America, if you look at Asia, if you look at Africa, is the destruction of the environment, largely due, and this is where, of course, the green movements are silent, because they're blind in one eye, because they can't accept the racial implications of this, the population explosion of non-whites that has put the environment under such pressure that The diversity of fauna and flora of the world is disappearing.
We can see that all around us.
But the fact that it's slowly declining is actually comparable to the slow decline of the white race.
It's the famous frog in the water that doesn't notice that the water is slowly reaching boiling point and the frog dies.
Whereas if the frog noticed it was horrible water, he would have tried to get out.
It's a slow decline and I think the two things are comparable and I think there are parallels between them.
And the fact that people can't see that the environment is dying.
If I talk to Greek people about this, I say yes, they can't understand that people can't see this, they do things against it, but they can't accept any element of population, the role population plays, the enormous population explosion, specifically in Africa, and the necessity of feeding these people, and the unnecessary sometimes demands of a consumer society.
On the other side, people who do understand that tend to We overlook or belittle the dangers to the environment of overpopulation as a whole, or to the fact that there is a question independently of race that has to be asked.
How much more land are we supposed to give away to building, to housing projects, to roads, to burgeoning cities?
One of the very few politicians who's touched on it is, in fact, Nigel Farage, who said that part of his Brexit campaign was that there's a city the size of Birmingham, Being built every day in England.
Or is it Newcastle or Birmingham?
I think it's Birmingham. That was also picked up by Paul Nuttall, who was his successor for a short time in the UK. So there's only a long answer to that.
I think there are different factors that are equally important to different people, but the two factors I think that are really, really important, certainly are to me, and I think they are to the planet, is one is the race.
And that I want to see people who look like me prosper and continue.
And the other is the planet as a whole and the challenge to the entire ecosystem, largely from ever-increasing population and the ever-increasing demands of that population to a standard of living that the planet is hard put to support.
Yes, I entirely agree.
And it seems odd that leftists who are so concerned about the planet and about various species, and in some cases, for example, they might worry about the fact that the Cuban alligator Is mixing with the Florida alligator and the unique beauty of the Cuban alligator is going to be swamped by having mixed genetically with the Florida alligator.
They can see that kind of thing and they can be very, very concerned about the planet and our species and diversity and all of these wonderful things.
But then, as you point out, they suddenly go blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to the question of human beings.
It is an extraordinary thing.
I'm sure you're aware. Of the fact that the Sierra Club in the United States, which is probably the primary private organization that boosts preserving the environment, they were given a huge donation on condition that they never ever talk about population and immigration.
Until that point, they were prepared to at least occasionally point out the connection between mass immigration, or immigration at all, rising population, and degradation of the environment, which seems like an utterly and entirely obvious thing.
But once they got this $100 million donation, then they agreed that they would never ever talk about those things again.
Yet the connection is so obvious.
It seems to me that, and to some degree, I fault the racially aware movement because of its sometimes strident, scoffing, of anything that the left holds dear, including some of these views about the environment.
I think that we have made ourselves much more difficult to be embraced as allies, whereas if we had a softer view of the environment, of species, of all of those things, it would make it easier for those who have this professed green view of the world to consider us, if not necessarily allies, not quite the pariahs they take us to be.
That's absolutely correct and it's a question of urgency because in the first place people are hampered in those two, if you want to call them projects, or the green project or racial preservation, by the Lack of support that they might otherwise have from people who hold the other views.
And in any case, I believe personally that it is absolutely the priority for the planet as a whole, that two-pronged initiative to preserve Racial identity and to preserve the variety of the fauna and flora of the planet as a whole and for the planet to be habitable for human beings in the next 100, 200, 300 years and not just habitable but also stress, this is sometimes forgotten worthy of being habitable and actually desirable this is an element that is also very much overlooked We have this constant stress on living standards and the fact that apparently Germany has higher living standards than whatever,
Portugal or so on. And those living standards never include the safety of the info security.
The cleanness of the water.
Can you bathe in the local river?
Well, in most Western countries now, you can't.
Not only would it not be allowed, but if you did it, you would run the risk of drinking an unwholesome cocktail of toxic mix that would probably make you very sick indeed.
And those things that now people think are completely normal, in my opinion, shouldn't be normal.
So, yes, I absolutely agree with you.
I fear that there has been a very concerted effort to ensure that we can talk about that if you like.
It's the eternal question, why do people have this fear of the idea of the identity of their own people?
And I think that without On the one side of becoming a conspiracy fanatic, there has been a conspiracy to prevent people and to block people from having this view, from defending their own race.
And this has been extremely effective and successful.
Well, it has been extremely effective and successful only with regard to whites.
It's only whites who seem to be terrified of the idea of actually standing up for themselves and saying, well, yes, we do have a point of view as a race.
As you're well aware in the United States, every other group...
It has countless organizations, publications, pressure groups, spokesmen who say, yes, we as Hispanics think this, or we as blacks, or we as Asians.
There's nothing like that for whites.
And we find the same thing in Europe as well.
Do you have any idea what is at the base of this unilateral disarmament among whites essentially worldwide?
Yes, Jared, you've been asking that question, I think, for many years.
Yes, I have. And if I had a good answer, you probably wouldn't need to ask me now because I would have emailed you the answer and you'd say, ah, that's it, and then you could tell everybody.
So, obviously, I don't really have one good answer myself.
I can only make suggestions.
I think one very, very important factor The first stage of understanding is that it's possible for anybody to be courageous or full of enthusiasm for a cause, even if the cause seems lost.
So long as the cause for which you speak reciprocates, if you wish.
What I mean by that is If you are St George and you're going to kill the dragon and you may be very bold and brave and the odds are all against you, but when you see the pleading face of this most beautiful maiden, you will dare everything.
However, if she says, I hate you and you're pathetic and I don't want to be saved, it becomes extremely difficult.
For St George to summon, to muster the same courage to kill the dragon.
And one of the most difficult things for anybody is to say, I am going to do this for you.
It's like the parents saying, I do this for a child and the child doesn't want it.
It's one of the most harrowing things.
And of course the self-doubt comes in.
Maybe this is a terrible mistake.
If I choose to say to my child, he's got to do these music lessons and he goes to these music lessons with tears running down his face or something.
And as I say, oh my god, perhaps this is some terrible trauma.
Maybe it would be good for the child, but maybe not, as the doubts set in.
If the child says, oh, I'd love music lessons, then you will scrap the money.
You will find the money for these music lessons, even if you're too poor, because that for which you are...
If you like campaigning or whatever, is on the same side as you are.
So one of the most dreadful things for anybody who wants to speak in the name of the white race is not the opponents that really are not so terrible.
I mean, they're just normal opponents, if you know what I mean.
I mean, life is a struggle.
But fellow whites who constantly stab you in the back or say you're crazy or someone.
So one has to ask oneself, how has it come to be that this race It's constantly undermined and criticized by other members of the race.
I don't think that blacks are Chinese, I may be wrong, but I don't think they have huge numbers of people saying, they may ignore you if you campaign for that, because they've got better things to do.
But I don't think there are many blacks, it's absolutely terrible, how dare you say that you want, I don't know, whatever.
Better representation for blacks.
This is shocking. I think this is unknown.
So that's the point, I think, where you have to ask, what on earth is happening there?
I think one of the factors is that if you can tip By whatever means, enough people to think that something is very bad, it begins to have an accelerating effect because it's a kind of social momentum.
And it could be quite absurd.
Lots of things can be considered good or bad by society.
There's not, frankly, much to do with reflection.
Of whether they think it's good or bad, but to do about what other people think.
We take a completely separate subject.
We take the subject of homosexuality.
We're not going to go into whether it's good or bad.
One thing that's absolutely sure in my mind is that up to about the 1950s, people didn't think about it.
They just thought it was bad because other people thought it was bad.
And now they just think it's good because other people think it's good.
There's very little intellectual reflection or consideration or rational thought.
But 99% of people follow what other people think.
They look around them. And some societies more so than others.
Germany a little bit more than Britain or France, but there's a marginal difference on the whole.
And I would say sadly, I think more and more, that tendency in a way is accelerating.
We had a short kind of period of human history where it seemed to be in decline, but this sort of herd instinct is taken off again.
It's very deep, it's biological.
So once that thing has tipped And there has been a conspiracy there to tip it in the right place, get the right people in the right positions of power to push that opinion.
Then it begins to get its own momentum and then everybody finds that it's something terrible.
And then if a large number of people find it terrible to stand up for your own race, then that has the knock-on effect that people don't want to do it because it's no fun.
You might say, I'm going to go down to the local meeting of my National Resurgence Party or whatever the political organization may be called.
And you're quite prepared to do that, and you're quite prepared to face hundreds of people against you from another race or another organisation.
But when those people are against you are your own race, and you're thinking, this is pretty tough.
I'm going to have to take the example of saying, We're a communist and it is, and actually they do, I think, have the same kind of crisis.
If you're a kind of extreme left winger and you can't get people coming out of the factory to agree with you, that's very disheartening.
Much more disheartening than facing the bosses.
You see what I mean? So, I think that's what it is.
It was this kind of knock-on effect created for various reasons.
I mean, of course, the enormous Philip as a result of the Second World War, which was absolutely pumped for all it's worth, and an enormous amount of damage to Korswijk.
Look what it leads to.
It leads to Auschwitz. That's the bottom line.
So, you know, you're in favour of massacring millions of people because you want to preserve the identity of your right.
And at the same time, I think that's one of the biggest elements.
Another thing is, of course, in my opinion, following on from that, when there has been opposition, I think the establishment in the West has been very, very clever.
Contrast that with the establishment of the old Soviet bloc.
Of not prosecuting too hard.
There again, I would like to have a concrete example.
I hope, I don't think, although perhaps I should hope, from what I'm going to say, that either of us are going to receive a visit in the middle of the night as a result of this podcast.
Not because the establishment may be like to do that, but because they realise how counterproductive it is.
That in fact, if you hit hard, you tend to create a resistance.
So you don't hit hard, you just make it depressing and difficult, and that people have got other things to do.
An interesting case there would be the Welsh language, which is in decline despite all the kind of support that it receives, even taxpayer support.
Because in a sense that's the natural development.
It's in decline. People don't have pride in their own language.
I speak a very little bit of Welsh myself and I experienced really the A quiet, hostile reaction of anybody who doesn't speak Welsh if you try to speak Welsh in Wales.
And there was a humorous article many, many years ago in a newspaper called The Independent, which actually I think hit the nail on the head.
The best thing to do for the Welsh language, that it would survive, would be to prosecute it, to arrest and imprison without trial 500 people known to speak fluent Welsh in public.
And to attack anybody defending them.
That would be the best news for the Welsh language.
People would react so strongly to that that they would start speaking Welsh.
It's like the persecution of the Christians.
So all these factors come together.
There's this kind of soft, as the French call it, soft totalitarianism, this knock-on effect, this guilt feeling.
But I'm throwing those up, Jared, as suggestions.
I don't have one simple, easy answer.
Those, I think, are factors, but yeah, they're the ones I would throw up as possible elements.
Yes, there is a lot there.
Of course, I think that thanks to the Internet, there are more and more people who are able to express these dissident and taboo views.
And as there are more, because, as you point out, we are a creature with herd instincts, we find that we have our own little herd in this respect, and it makes it somewhat easier.
At the same time, the punishments that the Orthodoxy meets out I think are becoming, certainly in the United States, more harsh.
There is a kind of piling on of a really vicious kind whenever someone is unmasked as in any way plausibly racist.
And this has to do also with all being homophobic or xenophobic or all of these invented aberrations the left has imposed on us.
The punishments and the vituperation are getting worse and worse, which I think will eventually push people who don't have strong opinions about this sort of thing more into our arms.
I think the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, the actions of the so-called Antifa, the Black Block, Those who are prepared to resort to violence, to shut up people with whom they disagree.
All of this is very much an anti-racist movement and its excesses.
And even, I think, ordinary, more or less just go-along-to-get-along type people realize that they are excessive.
They will make it easier for them to wonder, well, gosh, If those people, if the people they are hating, if the people who oppose these racialists behave in such a terrible, awful way, perhaps it's worth inquiring as to what these racialists think themselves.
I don't know, but all of this combines, it seems to me, to a situation in which our ideas are increasing, not nearly rapidly enough, but certainly more rapidly than they have done in the last one or two or even three decades.
I agree with you, and that is indeed the case.
An aside, it's not directly relevant, but that's a slight amusement there with the interesting American pronunciation is Antifa.
In Europe it would be Antifa, but it doesn't matter.
Isn't that Europe's revenge to America?
We're always complaining in Europe about all these ghastly things that come from America that we have to, you know, hamburgers, McDonald's, oh God, all these.
Awful things! The subversion of the English language in Britain, all these Americanisms, and so on and so forth.
And now you've had a really poisonous present from Europe, which seems to be completely alien to America, which is this Antifa, which is almost disgusting!
Really the worst effluent of Europe.
Which really kind of overnight has been transported like a disease to the United States.
It's not germane to our argument, but it's a sort of awful irony there that Europe's complained so long about American imports.
Now I think the Americans can bitterly complain about something truly horrible, which I think really comes from Europe.
I don't see anything in American history.
I mean, They have militant civil rights activists and so on, but it's not the same.
It seems to be a very European phenomenon.
I'm very sorry that you have to put up with it.
It's truly awful.
Anyway, going back to what you said, I think you agree with me there that the tendency that when you Hit people or prosecute them too hard.
It tends to produce a reaction against the wishes.
In other words, you either got to hit them so hard that you crush them.
And even this crushing seems to be counterproductive.
If we look at the two examples of a very hard authoritarian state, such as the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany.
Where they truly crushed opposition, but they're not exactly successful, it seems to me, in terms of the fact that once these regimes were overthrown or something went wrong, the people didn't very much hold on to the faith.
I mean, yes, you talk about, in quotation marks, old Nazis and the other other nostalgic Soviet types, for sure.
Quite big groups, indeed.
But I mean, they're not overwhelmingly successful, only compared to Christianity or something like that.
So I wonder if there isn't a strong feeling in the establishment that being too hard is probably a mistake.
And the tried techniques of, on the carrot and stick, where the stick is not, you know, destroy you, but quite make your life very uncomfortable.
Specifically in Germany, I mean, officially there is a party called the National Democratic Party, which you are free to join according to the constitution.
But this is, in effect, as much a joke as Stalin's constitution was, saying that The republics had the free right of choice to reject anything that was decided in Moscow.
I mean, if you did that in Stalin's Russia, you would be in a concentration camp before you'd finish signing the document.
And if you think naively in Germany that you can just join the NPD and have a normal life, you will very quickly find out that you can't have a job, that your house will physically probably be burnt down, and that you will become a pariah.
So there's no way that there's a kind of freedom there.
But it's not official.
It's not official. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that for the majority of people, it's a kind of soft totalitarianism with a stick for the very committed.
And on the other side, the pleasant life, the ability just to get on, the following of the principle from Queen Elizabeth, you know, we're not going to put a window on men's souls.
We're not going to indulge in interrogations so long as you shut up.
You can play toy soldiers in your basement and win the Battle of Gettysburg with your toy soldiers in the basement.
That is accepted. But please don't become political.
You may be correct about Europe, but I believe you would be overestimating the intelligence of the American authorities.
I don't believe that they think in terms of such subtlety.
And it seems to me that as the egalitarian orthodoxy collapses here in America, it's going to react, it's going to lash out with ever-increasing viciousness.
And that, of course, is a terrible mistake because it will show how weak it is, really, how unable to persuade through ordinary means.
And all of these manifestations of leftist violence in the United States, leftist intolerance, opposition to freedom of speech, all of this plays very much into the hands of dissidents like myself.
I don't think they are intelligent enough to realize the impact and effect this has on ordinary Americans.
Okay. That may be the case.
Certainly we can agree that these kind of measures are likely to be counterproductive.
Unless limited to very, very few individuals.
But if it becomes... Seems to become a general phenomenon.
The danger, let's put it like the danger from the point of view of any establishment, is that it will be counterproductive.
Yes. But probably if you are, whoever holds power is probably always going to be, whatever your views, a kind of a balance between Tolerating a certain kind of opposition and cracking down on real physical threat.
Yes, we'll have to see how all of this plays out.
Well, Michael Walker, as we approach the end of our allotted time, I would like for you to tell our listeners about your latest literary undertakings.
That's very kind of you, Jared.
I have recently had a play published and as we were talking about The democratization, if one could call it that, caused by the new social media.
An example of that, of course, is publishing on demand, which enables one to publish without having to go to a traditional publishing house.
And my play, which is called The Return of Odysseus, has been published and is available on Amazon.
And follows the myth of the return of Odysseus to his homeland.
Homer's myth, Homer's tale tells of the return of Odysseus from Troy, the siege of Troy.
Odysseus is the man, according to Homer, who He thought up the trick of the horse, which enabled the Greeks to break into the city.
And he, having killed the cyclops, I won't give the long details anyway, takes him a long time to come back because the sea, the god of the sea, Poseidon, is against him.
And in the meantime, his homeland is occupied.
By suitors to the hand of his wife, who insists that he's dead.
And it is a myth of the return of the hero and the regeneration of the homeland.
And I feel very, very strongly that people who believe in the preservation of the white race or the success of the white race underestimate too much the importance of culture and the fact that we don't have things like plays, poems and so on. I would dearly love to see this play produced.
And if anybody would like to do that, please, please do so.
The play itself, as I say, is available.
I think it's $10 from Amazon.
Very easy to order. And I should be delighted if people would take advantage of that and read the play.
And of course, in this democratic age, you give your opinion.
If you don't like it, you say that as well on Amazon.
All publicity is good publicity.
Thank you very much. Yeah, that would be excellent.
Well, I certainly approve of any kind of artistic or literary effort that has to do with the preservation of the homeland.
And I hope that it has the effect, both artistically and perhaps politically, that you have in mind.
And with that, I will thank you very much.
I very much appreciate your joining us, and perhaps we'll have to do it again soon.
▲
Export Selection