All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2018 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
51:47
Is Civil War Coming?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another edition of Radio Renaissance.
This is an unusual and special broadcast because we have a special guest.
Our guest today is the impresario who has been bringing V-Dare to the world for well now, what, 15 years now?
Since 99, so it's getting more than that.
1999, gracious.
And so now that you've heard his voice, you know that our guest is Peter Brimelow, one of the great stalwarts of our movement, defending the traditional America against all of its enemies, domestic and foreign.
So, welcome and delighted to have you in the studio.
Thanks for having me, Gerald.
Yes.
Now, I gather that you've been conscious of what has been, in some circles, a very significant anniversary, that is to say, the events in Charlottesville of last August.
And you've been reflecting on what those signify, what we may have learned, we may not have learned.
What are your views on this?
You know, I guess the anniversary is August 11th-12th, so it's almost a week to go.
We're running a piece tonight, I'm talking on August 3rd, by Paul Gottfried, discussing how he thinks that there are objective reasons behind the rise of the alt-right.
And the fact that it's been under such sustained attack since Charlottesville shouldn't make people forget those objective reasons.
You know, one of them is of course the rising racial tensions and the Contradictions, really, of the establishment's immigration policy, which is just importing problems, making things difficult for them, even though they are determined to press forward and create a new America.
I think it's very easy to lose sight of the great success that the loosely defined alt-right had in the first half of 2017.
And I don't know that you and I had much to do with this, Jared.
I mean, some of our readers did, but we certainly weren't involved in In, for example, the Battle of Berkeley, the police withdrew and it turned out that the alt-right people and the Proud Boys and so on could actually defend themselves and they prevailed in the street fight.
I don't think that's happened in America for a very long time, that the nationalist forces prevailed against the left.
Then, of course, was the Auburn situation, where Auburn was compelled, the university was compelled to host Richard Spencer because, of course, they were trying to violate his First Amendment rights.
And the police showed that if they enforced the law against masking and so on, it was possible for an outright event to go ahead, and I think with considerable success.
Now, what happened at Charlottesville, of course, was a Democrat riot, you know.
It was a riot organized by elected, paramilitary, judicial, civilian and vigilante Democrats, all in alliance with the mainstream media, a very closely coordinated narrative.
And I think that did, you know, to take everybody on the outright by the people who were there.
And we weren't there.
We had nothing to do with it.
By surprise.
But as I say, I don't think we should forget.
I think the left was very frightened in the first half of last year.
They really thought they were losing control of the streets.
It certainly is the first time in a very long time that people have been gathering in large numbers in the streets, in public, standing up for the rights of, gasp, white people.
Right.
And it's an international phenomenon, of course, because of these... I mean, the British just happened to, obviously, decided to take out Tommy Robinson, and they came up with the Trump sub-charge, but there was a serious reaction.
People actually went into the streets to protest about it.
I don't remember this happening.
And I've been in this country since 1970.
I don't think we ever saw anything like that before.
No.
Well, you mentioned this article by Paul Gottfried about the objective conditions that are giving rise to this.
Well, as I have said to many people, reality is the most powerful red pill.
Just look around.
You and I like to think, and I think we're right to some degree, that the things that we have been writing about and speaking about for all these years have woken a few people up, maybe quite a few people.
But many of them simply look around themselves and they see that this multi-culti paradise that we're supposed to be expecting has not happened.
All we do, as you say, is import problems.
That every other racial group has got very sharp elbows, elbowing us out at every opportunity, and we're supposed to be celebrating diversity.
And then I think the fact that we have created an internet environment in which people, once they're curious, then with a few mouse clicks, they can stumble upon a site like Video or Amran or any number of different ones and get a very coherent vision of what's gone wrong.
Now, there's no doubt that the political class is doing its best to get control of the internet.
We have a fundraising campaign going on at the moment, Avida.com, and we have an extraordinary difficulty buying ads on Facebook.
They appear to think we're a Russian bot, you know, and this battle's been going on now for three weeks.
Lydia's been struggling with them.
And they simply don't want... Facebook has ceased to exist as an important source of traffic.
You shouldn't worry about not being on Facebook, Jared.
And also we see this remarkable phenomenon with Twitter.
They're obviously shadow banning people and they've also capped a very large number of accounts.
Ann Coulter was telling me the other day she has nearly 2 million followers on Facebook.
On Facebook?
book on Twitter but it's it's not altered in over a year it's fluctuated
within a range of about a thousand for over a year and we find the same thing
ourselves and not only us but even perfectly in milquetoast polite
gentlemen like John O'Sullivan former to National Review has reported the same
thing to me that is his Facebook it's his Twitter following is just is just
absolutely stalled and so they're obviously doing the best to get this
genie back in the bottle but they won't succeed and I think that people are
right to say that the unite the right rally in Charlottesville a little over a
year ago was a not quite a year ago not quite I beg your pardon, not quite a year ago, yes, was very much a turning point in that respect.
And people have blamed the organizers, people have blamed the participants.
I think that what made that rally particularly significant was the completely unanticipable death of Heather Heyer.
When people die, that changes something.
That changes something in a very, very significant way.
The fact that there was a battle between the folks who were standing up for whites and the folks who opposed them.
We'd had them in Berkeley.
We'd had them in Sacramento.
That's significant, but it doesn't, it didn't rouse just this militant hatred of the other side, but a death.
That changes everything.
I don't agree with that.
I think that, for example, one of the alt-right people whose daughter's committed suicide, yet that got absolutely no attention.
I think they were set to hit it, to bring down the jackpot at Charlottesville, and they would have done it regardless of what had happened.
Well, I think you can see that about the highly coordinated press coverage.
One thing the internet's done, I mean, it's a two-edged sword, the internet.
It's allowed the other side, the media, to organise too.
They put out talking... You remember the journalist scandal when there was that list of lefty journalists who were...
Who were coordinating the coverage of Obama in 2008.
That's obviously now reached a very high pitch.
I think there was a New York Times report who tweeted out that it wasn't just the left, the right that was causing violence, it was the left and she was immediately attacked by all her Twitter followers and she was denounced by people and so I deleted the tweet.
I mean they knew what they were supposed to report and they reported it.
That may be, but I really am convinced that when there is an actual fatality that can be hung around the necks of a particular movement, that changes things in an important way.
As you know, there were two state policemen who were in a helicopter that crashed.
And for a while, the demonstrators in Charlottesville were being blamed for their deaths, too.
That's right.
Completely crazy.
That's right.
But I think death is a very powerful weapon to beat us with.
But perhaps you're right.
Perhaps it made not as much difference as I expected.
This, of course, makes the president's behavior all the more amazing.
I agree.
Because he was actually just about the only public figure who said anything sensible about Charlottesville.
He wasn't perfect.
He said there were good people on both sides, whereas I don't think that's true.
I think the left was wholly evil.
But he's quite right.
I mean, although we weren't involved with Sharks, there were certainly new individuals who went.
And these were young couples who had just gotten interested in the issue because they saw Richard Spencer's speeches on podcasts.
They were totally innocent.
And if you read Michael Wolff's account of Trump wrestling with the issue up in Bedminster that weekend, It wasn't anybody else who was saying this to him.
Steve Bannon wasn't even around.
He was already on the way out at that point.
It was just the President himself who intuitively realised there was something wrong with the mainstream media narrative, which I think is truly remarkable.
Yes.
Well, then he is a fairly remarkable fellow.
Yes, he's remarkable in both good ways and bad, but I agree that it is astonishing that when you have video footage beamed all around the world of two different helmeted, shield, baton-wielding people having at each other, and then everyone in America says it's all one false side.
This is extraordinary.
It takes two to tango.
It takes two to have a pitched battle of this kind.
And the idea that somehow it was all the fault of the demonstrators, the people who were the Unite the Right Demonstrators.
Now, you know, I know that you have great faith in the judicial system, which I'm afraid to say I don't.
But I mean, we think there's a serious... I mean, we've run an article about the guy we had at Charlottesville.
Arguing that there's a serious case, the chance that this poor fellow Fields, who's been in solitary confinement since this incident, you know, may turn up in the next George Zimmerman.
That, you know, it's entirely possible that he simply panicked and ran this car into the crowd, you know.
I think there's a very good chance of that.
I mean, it's extraordinary that this fellow who killed people in Toronto with a van, he killed eight people.
He wasn't, it doesn't look to me like Fields was deliberately trying to kill people.
Otherwise, he would have done a lot more damage.
But we'll see.
I mean, you have faith in the judicial process.
Perhaps you can tell your astonished readers why you have faith in the judicial process.
Listeners, why you have faith in the judicial process.
I have a certain amount of faith in criminal trials.
The United States system is set up to give the accused of a crime Every benefit of the doubt, frankly.
We have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that's a pretty high standard of proof.
And if you are charged with a serious felony, your lawyers have subpoena powers.
They can get documents from opposing witnesses.
They can compel people to testify.
And I think a good example of this is George Zimmerman's trial.
Here was a trial that was supposed to be a slam-dunk case for the prosecution.
He was going to go to the big house for a long time.
And lo, once all the facts were in, the jury decided, well, this was legitimate self-defense.
The same is true for the first trial of the police officers who subdued Rodney King.
Absent the effect of the 1992 riots, which cost 60 deaths and billions and billions of dollars, absent that, jurors saw the evidence and said, well, okay, this was a regrettable but legitimate police response.
A criminal trial really gives the defense, as well as the prosecution, the opportunity to go into every detail.
And I have no idea what's going on in the field's defense at this point.
And I don't believe that he's got anybody but a public appointed, a public defender.
But even public defenders, they have all of these rights, and if he's got a capable, hard-working guy, If it is the case that there are rumors that some college professor, Antifa, was waving an AR-15 at him, I don't know whether that's true or not, but this stuff will come out.
Now, the question in my mind is, given a fair presentation of the facts in the case, how will the jury decide?
I don't know even where they've decided on a venue.
I'm sure there are arguments about that.
Whether or not you could have a get-a-fair try-on in Charlottesville, we'll see.
But that's what I'm waiting for.
All the facts will come out in a criminal trial.
Well, I hope you're right, but anybody who sits on a jury and acquits feels must know that they're going to be hunted down and killed.
They won't be hunted down and killed.
The people who acquitted George Zimmerman, not one of them was hunted down and killed.
Now, it is true that they had some woman who was on the jury who said later on, Oh gosh, I would have voted the other way if I'd realized that there was going to be so much upsetness about this.
But let's hope that this is something that doesn't happen in this case.
So yes, unquestionably, last year was a show of a kind of widespread consciousness.
That we have not seen in the United States.
A street-level consciousness, it was shown in the sizes of the people that attend American Renaissance conferences, for example.
The fact that you can get several hundred people marching publicly in the street in defense of the rights of whites.
On the other hand, of course, the repression has been extraordinarily intense.
As we were discussing a few moments ago at Vida.com, we've had five hotels cancel on us this year at conferences.
We weren't going to have tiki torches and marches and anything.
We're just going to have boring old white men reading papers to an assembled multitude.
What happens is, the pattern is always the same.
The local people who run these hotels are Americans and they think they live in a free country.
So they're eager to book the conference business, and they assure us they've had controversial conferences before, and maybe pro-abortion or anti-abortion or something like that.
But then it gets into the enforcers, the SPLC and so on, Media Matters, start mourning about it.
And then at the corporate level, they tell Chain Panics.
And to break a contract, they have to pay us considerable amounts of money to get out of these contracts.
Which is nice, but we would still rather have the conference.
Well, Peter, you may forget the American Renaissance went through this process 10 years ago.
We were kicked out of many, many hotels under the same circumstances.
And we've simply given up trying to deal with the private sector.
I find myself a little bit embarrassed to have to throw myself on the public sector for what I should think would be an ordinary business transaction.
But that's the state of affairs of the United States.
I remember the first time that we had to cancel a conference because we had been thrown out of no fewer than four hotels for one conference.
We would book, there would be some sort of security leak, they would cancel a contract, and we booked for three more, and ultimately, just a few days before the conference, the last hotel folded, despite having been alerted to the circumstances.
They said, oh no, we can take it.
No, they couldn't take it.
The kind of pressure that's brought to bear.
One of our hotels folded after someone called him up and said, you hold that conference, we'll go in and shoot you.
Now the question is, where is the FBI here?
Well, good question.
I mean, really what's at fault here is the law enforcement.
I mean, these are people clearly engaging in a conspiracy to violate our civil rights.
They should be prosecuted.
Well, go ahead, Joe.
It's your show.
No, no.
No, it's your interview.
And certainly when you have internet chatter from people who are saying, we are going to shut down the American Renaissance Conference.
And you get this every time we have a conference.
I suspect that if you did have an ambitious prosecutor, one who wasn't afraid of all the lefty criticism he was going to get, there is some kind of RICO charge.
There is a conspiracy to deny civil rights.
I don't think that would be that difficult a case to make.
But no one seems to be thinking those terms.
Yeah, I mean, it speaks really to the total intellectual inertia and cowardice and so on of the Republican establishment, that no Republican officials were prepared to do this.
Yes.
I think it's been a good year for the cause of righteousness within the Republican Party this year in many respects, but there's no doubt that the elite, the establishment, is still utterly terrified of these issues.
Yes.
And we see that really right now.
I mean, the president, apparently, in his own weird way, has decided to run the 2018 midterm elections on the immigration issue, which for us at VDA, after nearly 20 years of struggle, is a tremendous relief and delight.
But it's absolutely terrifying to Republicans.
I mean, you see all these Republicans saying, no, no, no, we don't want to shut down the government after he's announced he doesn't want to shut down the government.
They still haven't learned how to run on this issue.
But they will.
They will.
Let us hope that the Republican voters will teach them, no matter how thick-headed and bone-headed they are, that if they want to get into office, this is what they have to talk about.
I think the midterms are going to be very significant.
I'm not all that optimistic about how the Republicans are going to do.
But both sides, I mean, this is always the case.
We see the Democrats running these democratic socialist types.
We see the Republicans, some of them going to victory in the primaries with people who are out-and-out Trump supporters, and in some cases, probably sincere Trump supporters.
I mean, one of the things about the Republican side in the primaries, which I find is very significant and really not sufficiently commented on, is the extent to which Trump has totally prevailed.
I mean, nobody is running as a never-Trumper.
There are never-Trumpers running, but they're lying about it, generally speaking.
And we saw this in the gubernatorial race in Tennessee.
That was yesterday and Thursday.
Everybody competed to say how much they liked the president.
Even people who obviously don't like the President.
I mean, the Republican establishment in Tennessee is totally rotten.
So, to that extent, he's achieved a really significant victory in his own weird way.
Yes.
Now tell me, why do you think the Republicans support him in the manner that they do?
What is it they find about him that is so attractive?
Any possible answer to this question?
The grassroots.
Yes, the grassroots.
In other words, what is it that is compelling, even the Never Trumpers, to at least pretend that they support Trump?
Why is it that there is such... Well, the Never Trumpers are just simply afraid of the Republican voters.
As for Republican voters, I think that he has become an implicit symbol.
McDowell has this concept of implicit communities, that people like NASCAR, it gathers a lot of whites, it's a wholly white event, even though it never advertised itself as a white event, and in fact the people who run NASCAR are horrified by this development.
I think that's happened with Trump.
In some kind of a Jungian way, he's tapping into, you know, the deep consciousness or unconsciousness of the American white voter.
You think that there is a significant racial element to the Republican support, at least at the grassroots, for Donald Trump?
In some sense, I think that's true, yes.
I mean, the left keeps saying this, that it's white racism.
That's simply putting it in left-speak.
But it actually is his white identity, of course.
This is one of those things that's perhaps impossible to ultimately determine to one's satisfaction.
Back during the campaign, I went to a Trump rally, and it was wildly, wildly popular.
So popular that I got there an hour and a half ahead of time, but I still didn't get in because there was an enormous line.
Right.
And this was out in the sweltering sun.
And so I had my microphone, and I walked up and down the line interviewing people, asked them why they were there.
Not one person said anything about immigration.
And even when I opened the door and said, well, what do you think about the way the United States is changing?
All these people of different languages, different religions, different races.
Is this good for the country?
Even those people lined up determined to sweat their way into an oversold Trump rally, not one of them said that was an important element of his support.
They talked about bringing industrial jobs back, holding ourselves, holding our heads high.
Cutting taxes.
Nobody talked about that, no.
But all of them make America great.
Nothing even faintly or remotely racial.
Now, I tend to agree with you.
There must be a kind of deep calling unto deep going on here.
A guy who is standing up for Europe against the immigrants, for example.
For the United States and against all of these folks coming in on welfare or criminals.
There must be some deep racial appeal there, but I'm just not convinced how significant it is.
And then I would take issue also with this idea of implicit communities.
Well, you go to the opera, that's an implicitly white community.
What good does it do us?
It has to be explicit, Peter, unless it's explicit.
The Republican Party is implicitly white, but unless it starts standing up and saying, white people have rights, they will just be whittled away.
They're not stopping the dispossession that's going on now.
That's what has to happen.
No, and even Trump isn't stopping it because there's not actually been legislation, which is what's necessary.
But he is campaigning on the issue, and that's apparently a huge step forward.
But he's campaigning on immigration.
See, I suppose I have this fantasy of Donald Trump standing up in front of one of his famous press conferences and saying, well, what's wrong with wanting to live in a majority white country?
I have this fantasy.
He almost got to that point when he was talking about Europe.
Just the other day, he's saying that unless Europe changes, unless Europe does something, it's going to change and the change ain't going to be good.
Is he really talking about Islam?
Is he talking about race?
We don't know what he's talking about.
I mean, the other way of looking at it, Jared, is Deep calls on to Shallow as well.
In other words... But Shallow may call on to Deep.
Well, the left, no, I think the left, or if not Shallow, the swamp, I mean, the hatred that the left has for Trump is clearly racial in origin, the latest figure, even though You and I, the objective evidence for this is actually rather small, at least on the explicit level, but I think the pathological hatred that they have for Trump stems from the fact that, you know, the various groups that make up the left really thought they were on the point of abolishing the white majority and they're very angry to find that there's a threat to this.
They are still on the way to abolishing the white majority.
That is the fact that we have to deal with.
Gregory Hood wrote a piece for American Renaissance the other day in which he said, look, let's face it, so long as they keep coming.
Every day is a defeat.
We may be slowing down the process of dispossession.
You were talking earlier about the possibility that we could cut the number of refugees.
And every time there is a real exercise in which immigration law is enforced.
That is a small victory, but it just slows down the process.
And until there is some expression of the legitimacy of white rights, it's a losing battle.
And of course, it's in this respect that the so-called conservatives, the mainstream Republicans, are utterly hopeless.
Utterly hopeless.
Until they can take a four-square position in favor of their race and their heritage and their culture, it's just a delaying action.
Yeah, but on the other hand, you know, as I say, he does appear to want to campaign on this issue, and that's a major step forward.
I mean, in terms of the debate, I mean, it's so easy.
I mean, we're not directly focused on the American white majority, such as, in a way, we take a civil nationalist approach of VDAIR.com.
We're concerned about immigration in a very broad sense, the problems that are caused by Illegal but also legal immigration.
The fact is that 10 years ago you couldn't even get this debate to precipitate out along party lines because the Republican Party was controlled by people who wanted immigration and wanted amnesty.
So that's an enormous development.
He's broken those people.
Yes, and it's astonishing to go back and look at some of the statements that prominent Democrats were making on the subject of immigration.
There's this famous quotation of Bill Clinton from one of his State of the Union.
It sounds like Donald Trump.
Right, exactly.
The importance of borders, the importance of...
Well, I mean, one of the things that apart from the Trump victory at the primary level,
and I should mention that fellow in Georgia, you know, Trump basically pulled him through
the Georgia governmental candidate, came from behind to get the nomination.
Brian Kipner.
Right.
And that race is precipitating out on racial lines because the Abrams, the black Democratic
candidate has apparently openly said she's not going to try to bring back rural white
Democrats.
She's going to campaign for the new Georgia.
I mean, the Democrats are very, very explicitly counting on demographic change to create the
electoral majority.
And that has to affect, you know, all Americans and white.
They can see what the Democrats are doing because the Democrats are quite open about it.
It never occurs to me that anybody's going to criticize this.
They actually boast about transforming America and the demographic change in Georgia and so on.
It's for that reason that I find Democratic politics more interesting, really, than Republican politics.
Until Republicans come out and take an explicit position, I think it's just nibbling around the edges.
But the Democrats have taken an increasingly explicit position.
Of course, there's this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez woman in New York City who's made such a big stink for having Knocked off this old white guy, Joe Crowley.
He wasn't that old, you know.
He was only in his 50s.
All right.
Younger than we are.
Yes, but they consider him an old white guy.
Right, right.
And her campaign slogan was, now it's our turn, or something like that.
Now, of course, she would say, oh, it's for the dispossessed.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she's Puerto Rican.
But she's not the only one.
Kevin DeLeon, who is in the Statehouse in California, has gotten the official endorsement for the upcoming Senate race against Dianne Feinstein.
Despite the fact that Dianne Feinstein—I think she's running for her, what is it, her fifth full term?
She really is getting old.
She's got maybe ten times the war chest, she's bound to win, but the Democratic Party in California is siding with the young Hispanic against the old white woman.
This is just more and more explicit.
I can see you're about to come up with another example, Gerard.
Yes, yes.
Well, the fact that, what is it, the leader of the caucus, the Democratic caucus in Congress, Joe Crowley, the not-so-old white guy, who was knocked off by this young hotshot Hispanic, he had a leadership position.
It's now open, because he's not going to be there anymore.
Well, the leadership position is now being contended for by two non-whites.
Right.
One is one of these appalling black congresswomen, Barbara Lee, and the other is Linda Sanchez.
You know, Sanchez, she's an interesting case.
She's married to a white man, and the first time she ran for Congress, it was in Orange County, and she ran under her married name.
I can't remember what it was.
Sort of a waspy name.
And she lost.
But then she realized, well, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I should play to my advantages.
And she changed her name to Sanchez.
And she's been Sanchez ever since.
She knows which way the wind is blowing.
Now, my hope is that more and more white Democrats will figure out which way the wind is blowing.
I think that's rapidly happening.
I mean, at VDARE.com we run these interactive charts which allow you to convey enormous amounts of information.
I assume people are actually interested in numbers.
And recently I did one on the makeup of the Democrat presidential vote over a long period of time.
And what you find is that the non-white proportion of the Democrat presidential vote is absolutely surging.
It was significantly higher for Hillary than it was for Obama, even though he obviously got a better vote among blacks.
If you then add on to that chart the proportion of the Democrat vote which is Jewish and homosexual, Jewish and or homosexual, we have to eliminate double counting, you find that I think it's like 52 or 53% of the Democrat vote was what you might call non-standard issue American whites.
They are now in a minority in that party.
And you know what happens in these situations like this, as we know from housing projects, is that there's a tipping effect takes place.
There's a certain point at which the whites realize that they no longer control or dominate this.
It's no longer their party, and they just leave.
And I think that's what we've got a powerful, powerful undertow in current politics at the moment.
Oh, I certainly see it that way, too.
In school, whenever they had these integration campaigns, they found that about 40% black, that is when the character of a school changes so dramatically that it's only the crazy whites who leave their children in.
And as you point out, the support is increasingly non-white, the leadership is increasingly non-white, the rising young stars are, it seems to me, almost exclusively non-white.
I mean, if you look at the makeup of that New York district that this Puerto Rican woman ran, it's about 18% white.
It's astonishing that he held on as long as he did.
You're absolutely right.
And this woman who's running for governor in Georgia, Stacey Abrams, I don't think she's going to win.
But it's just a matter of time.
At least that's the way she sees it.
The new Georgia.
Well, that's what she's saying, yes.
The new Georgia.
You know, there's this whole idea of dog whistling.
And apparently dog whistling only works when white people do it.
When a black woman talks about the new Georgia and also makes an explicit point of saying she's not even going to bother to campaign for rural white voters, that's a pretty clear dog whistle to me.
Right.
Of course, the press never recognizes it when I guess black women just don't know how to whistle.
It's only white men who know how to whistle.
I mean, one of the things about the Democrats which we're working on at VDARE.com is, you know, they have this anti-ice campaign.
Which, of course, is fantastically unpopular.
Most people think that it's just, you know, dismantling the borders.
It's madness from the point of view of most ordinary people.
So we have these stickers that we've developed.
We're going to come out with another one in a few days.
I like ice, you know, like the old I like Ike sticker.
And people getting them and putting them on, whenever they see these anti-ice stickers up, they put one of our stickers on top of it, you know, and we've had people order hundreds of them from various parts of the country.
I'm not advising that you put them on your cars because, although it's very little reported in the press, there is a rising tide of violence against Trump supporters, which you've reported in in American Renaissance. Did you notice by the way that Drudge
referred to this, these 500 cases that he documented through the middle of
last year?
And he referred to it but there was no documentation, he didn't link to it.
No, there is still a certain amount of squeamishness about linking to American
Renaissance directly.
People are perfectly happy to use our data.
We have a mutual friend who sometimes uses our data without wishing to publicly do so.
I do not reproach people for that.
People have to make their own calculations about this.
I'm always disappointed when they do fail to link.
We live in oppressive and dangerous times, and people have to make all their own decisions of that kind.
The whole question of ICE, though... Well, we're charities, aren't we?
We're 501c3 Charities, so we're giving stuff away.
We're working in the public interest, you're absolutely right.
But the whole idea of campaigning to abolish ICE I find this wonderful.
This is just like Black Lives Matter saying, uh, white violence, white silence is violence.
Right.
Keep that up.
Keep that up.
Keep telling white people that their silence is violence and keep telling people we must abolish ICE.
Now, uh, it's difficult to know what they exactly mean by that.
Perhaps they're saying, okay, we don't want to deport law abiding people who've managed to slip in who've lived here for a certain amount of time.
But most people will hear that slogan and think, Gosh, they just won't let anybody in.
Abolish the borders.
And let them, let them... I may say most people are right on that.
That is what the Democrats want to do.
At least it's certainly what the Hispanic Democrats want to do.
Yes, yes, I agree.
So I agree.
One of the things that's fascinating about the Democrats, you know, is that they really can't resist pressure from the left.
Their own left.
Every left-wing idea ultimately moves to the mainstream.
Yes, which doesn't happen on the right, unfortunately.
There has been some resistance.
I think Chuck Schumer said, well, no, I think we need something in the form of ICE.
Maybe reform it.
We can't get rid of it.
Some of the leaders have been saying that.
Well, Kamala Harris, of course, said that, but then she reversed herself.
Oh, did she reverse herself?
Now she wants to abomination herself.
Right, right.
You know, there are some people who think that she may be the Democratic candidate for the presidential election in 2020.
We'll see.
That would be quite an amusing matchup.
It's going to be very hard for them to nominate, to continue to nominate whites for the president because the... Now, of course, the fact is that what Saylor calls the coalition of the fringes is itself very unnatural.
Very unstable.
The various components don't like each other and so on.
So it's maybe that the white Democrats will be able to hang on by doing a deal with the Hispanics or the blacks or one or the other of them.
But it's not a stable situation.
No.
They may have thrashed out some sort of deal to get Joe Biden at the head of the ticket.
Who the heck knows?
But I would love to see Kamala Harris run myself.
But no, the idea of Democrats coming right out and saying, abolish ICE, that draws a kind of very clear line.
And so it says, we stand for an America that ceases to be.
I think that in their guts, a lot of white people see it that way, that this is a declaration of war on their country.
Likewise, I think yesterday's news was particularly fascinating.
Again, drawing a very, very clear line of demarcation when the New York Times, having added Sarah Jeong, this Korean-American, naturalized Korean to the editorial board, Very prestigious position.
This girl's only 30 years old, and she's going to be their main science writer.
And then it turns out all these really quite appalling tweets.
I probably shouldn't quote too many of them, but one of the milder ones was, white men are bullshit.
And she tweets about how, well, white people are not reproducing.
That means they'll go extinct.
That was my plan all along.
Right.
And talking about dumbass effing white people spreading their opinions all over the internet like dogs urinating on hydrants.
Good grief!
I was convinced when this came out, absolutely convinced the New York Times was going to rescind its decision.
She was going to be another, what was that, Quinn, what was her name, another woman that they found that they'd hired.
Her tenure lasted about seven hours.
They discovered insensitive tweets in her past.
I thought this was going to be another case of that.
No!
The New York Times defends this.
So, the New York Times is memorializing, making permanent this idea that you can say anything you like about white people.
Anything you like.
To me, in its own small way, I think this is going to be another dramatic red pill for a lot of white people.
Yes, I mean, I was very impressed with Razeeb Khan's brief moment in the New York Times.
Do you remember that?
Now he's this righteous Indian who writes about genetic issues very ably.
And they fired him because, I can't remember if he was involved with you, but he'd written a letter to VDare.com And that was the grounds for firing, among his other grounds.
But the letter was actually criticising, I think, something that Steve Saylor had said.
But that wasn't enough.
The fact that he appeared at all, or engaged us in debate at all, was... Exactly, exactly.
And how far, how far the times has fallen.
If that was enough to get him fired, and now this woman can say anything she likes.
The most contemptuous things about white people.
And of course, Twitter doesn't care.
I never would have, I have never ever or would say anything remotely as
contemptuous about any group of people and yet I'm considered bad for the
health of the community as far as Twitter is concerned. So it's very clear
here are the lines and I'm in a way I'm delighted that the New York Times has
made it so so crystal clear for us. So yes I think that all of these forces
abolish ICE. The idea that whites are going to be a minority that you can say
anything you like about whites.
All of this is drive the United States into a greater state of tension and conflict, unlike anything probably since since the Civil War.
You were speculating before we started this podcast that we could end up in civil war.
Yes, it's hard for me to see any other way out of it.
I certainly think we're going to see, I don't see any way of avoiding the kind of situations that were in Weimar Germany in the 1920s, where rival gangs were, you know, commies and nazis were actually clashing and shooting each other and so on.
I mean, in the end, you know, Well, if we can't meet in public, you know, how can we... We've got to be able to defend the public space, and I think there are people who will do that.
We know we have people who will do that, and there are going to be clashes, and there's going to be violence, and the state is going to lose control of the situation, unless it actually intervenes and starts prosecuting the source of the violence, namely the totalitarian left.
That's why these J20 trials were such a disappointment.
You and I were at the inauguration.
We know that the city was turned into an armed camp.
We know that in spite of all the mainstream media reports that Trump's crowds at the viewing
stand across from the White House wasn't full.
The reason for that was that, as anybody who could have reported it looked into it, was
that the security was so tight that people couldn't get in.
And they just gave up and went away, went off to have lunch.
And the reason the security was tight was because of this tremendous assault from the
anti-farrioters.
And it was a very good day when it turned out that the DC authorities had arrested maybe
250 in charge of felony riot charges.
But that subsequent, which carried a nine-year sentence, and that did upset the left a lot.
But the trials were sabotaged by this judge and most of them have been let go.
So they're going to be back.
And as I say, what we really need here is enforcement of the law.
Otherwise they're going to lose control of the situation.
I can see things going in any number of different directions.
Trump is probably the only possible president who I can imagine really enforcing law, at least at the federal level, against that kind of behavior.
Now, the district is an odd situation, and even with a sensible man in the White House on these matters, Judges can go off and go rogue, no telling what they're going to do.
At the same time, if the other side really digs in and decides that you and I do not deserve a public voice, if the internet is completely cut off to us, That could either squelch any kind of patriotic movement, or it could result in even more frustration and explosions.
It's hard to say.
Very hard to say.
People have suggested to me that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, we'd already be off the internet.
I'm not convinced.
I think that this is something that all these private companies... There may be some glimmering of the notion of respecting freedom of speech, but this is going to have to be fought out in the courts, alas and alack.
That's of course why American Renaissance has sued Twitter, and barring some kind of miraculous derailment of our present suit, we'll be moving into discovery and going to trial in California.
And let us hope that in the process of discovery we learn just how utterly whimsical and arbitrary they are.
As I say, this Sarah Jong can say the most repulsive things about white people as a group explicitly.
And all I do is publish crime statistics gotten from the New York City archives.
The Federal Crime Victimization Surveys and I, I am a danger to free speech.
The contradictions here, the double standards are just so utterly flagrant and the clearer they are, the more people will wake up.
You know, I think there's a lot of truth in that.
I think that the Republican Party thought that it had successfully suppressed the Tea Party movement, which was obviously an implicit white movement as well, through a series of manoeuvres, and they didn't respond in any way to the attempts to turn back illegal immigration.
They were all sabotaged by the Republican establishments in these various states.
But then they got Trump as a result, and that is something which we have to bear in mind, that the reaction, you know, it's not really possible to repress this stuff unless they actually start jailing people, but of course that's not impossible.
These hate speech laws and so on.
Yes, yes, it's not impossible.
If Hillary Clinton had been in position to appoint the next three Supreme Court justices, if we're filled with Elena Kagan's and Sotomayor's, I can easily imagine a creative reading of the Constitution according to which you and I are offenders against the public order.
Right.
It's not that difficult for me to imagine.
We're not there yet, but we could certainly be moving in that direction.
But, you know, you were talking about the extent to which Republicans dare not ally themselves with Videre, or even worse, American Renaissance.
I think the case of Seth Grossman, this fellow who has won the Republican primary, I believe it's Jersey City.
He said some very sensible things.
He said that diversity is obviously not a strength.
I think he even said diversity is, and he used a rather vulgar expression.
But he made the mistake of circulating an article that appeared first on our website, and he's taken tremendous, tremendous criticism for this, and the official Republicans have cut him loose.
Yeah.
He also circulated an article on videa.com written by Alan Wall, who is our correspondent, who was at that time living in Mexico, and he was discussing the way in which the Mexican police cooperate with the immigration authorities.
This was a long time ago, 2005 I think, and Grossman tweeted that it all circulated in 2010, but it's come back to haunt him because of these various vigilante groups that exist on the left, Media Matters and so on.
And he didn't cover himself with glory gloves, I must say.
He said he never heard of VDare.com, wasn't aware of where he got the article from.
That's probably true.
Also, when the American Renaissance article showed up, he said somebody had floated it his way.
He had no idea who we were.
Well, of course, in the case of the American Renaissance, the American Renaissance article, it was circulated by Colonel West, wasn't it?
This black former congressman.
That's right.
So he obviously thought it was... Yes, it had the stamp of approval.
Right, exactly.
If a black former congressman is circulating something, it can't be racist.
Now, Seth Grossman has defended himself fairly vigorously, and in particular he's defended himself against the Republican campaign committee or whatever it is, which has of course properly disavowed him.
Actually, he's not the establishment candidate, and that's really the subtext here.
Is that they lost control of the primary and somebody was chosen who they don't like.
So they're seizing on every opportunity to destroy him, as they did with Judge Moore in Alabama.
But I mean, one of the lessons of this is that the Republican establishment is still not willing or cannot figure out a way to defend itself against the charge of racism.
That's right.
It just immediately turns turtle as soon as that charge is made.
And at some point they're gonna have to stand the ground and fight.
I couldn't agree more.
Because the charge is not going to go away, they'll simply continue making it.
I mean actually, there was an extraordinary, extremely funny article written by a Romney campaign consultant in Huffington Post at the early stages of this last election campaign.
And he quoted people saying that the Republican candidate was a neo-Nazi and this, that and the other.
And it turned out they were talking about Romney.
Because we forget that in 2012 they said all these things about Romney that they said about Trump.
Yes, yes.
I wish I had been the person to invent this expression, but the conservatives have to realize that they cannot make a separate piece with the left.
So long as they oppose our dispossession, even indirectly, they are going to be in the crosshairs and they're going to be accused of racism.
Here, as you know, every time we turn around, some non-white or some hopped-up, crazy, counter-jumping white man is accusing Donald Trump of wanting to make America white again.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
But as you say, they invariably make it a racial issue.
And until the so-called conservatives and republicans can say, well, yes, it is a racial issue, then they're just going to drift.
Absolutely.
Well, I think, unless you have any particularly compelling nuggets of wisdom... I have extremely compelling nuggets of wisdom, which is I have this remarkable book here called If We Do Nothing, by somebody called Jared Taylor.
It's a collection of his essays, and it's arrived to the Mail of the Day, so I'd like to ask you to sign it.
Oh my gosh!
Well, aren't you kind?
Well, that would be a great pleasure.
If you don't mind, maybe I'll sign it to both you and to your helpmate and another person who is becoming increasingly important in our movement, Lydia, if that's acceptable.
I want to point out also, I'm delighted to see that one of the essays in this book originally appeared in VDad.com.
It's a memorial to Joe Sobran.
And it's only there because I yelled and screamed and made you write it.
That's exactly right.
Which leads us to the next question, which is, when are you going to write your article about how it was impossible to run in, say, Virginia Tanney, against this awful woman, Barbara Comstock?
Sometime in the future, Peter.
I can't write it in the past.
Before I come on with the next podcast?
Well, I don't know about that.
Then you'll never have to come back to Northern Virginia again.
No, we shall see.
We shall see.
I've made a promise, but I never told you when it was going to appear.
But yes, it was an extraordinary thing.
At least in Virginia, the political process is completely stacked against any kind of newcomer.
The Democrats and Republicans, and it varies from state to state, but here the Democrats and Republicans have got things just locked up tight as can be.
It's just very, very difficult even to run as an independent.
Yes, very difficult to write to come in.
But in any case, Noel, thank you.
Thank you very much for agreeing to this.
And we will look forward to our next opportunity.
And I wish you and Lydia and Vidir and your entire family success in all your undertakings.
Thank you, Giles.
▲
Export Selection