All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2018 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:03
Google Becomes ‘The Good Censor’
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to this edition of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and with me is my stalwart regular guest.
He is the incomparable, indefatigable, inimitable, often imitated, never equaled, except no substitutes, Paul Kersey.
And I believe we're going to start this program by talking about this piece of research, this internal research by Google.
That has just appeared.
There's 85 pages of an internal memo that basically lays out all of the things that we have been suspecting about these internet companies.
Now I believe this report was leaked and Breitbart was one of the first organizations to report on it.
Breitbart was the first.
Yeah, this is something that Google did not intend to see the light of day.
So that's important to point out before we get started that this is an internal Excuse me.
Report that, again, we remember last year what James Damore was trying to warn us about.
And he still is doing a wonderful job of trying to warn us about how bad things are going to continue to get.
And Mr. Taylor, if I may be so presumptuous, the report you and I are about to talk about shows just how bad things are going to get.
Although, as you point out, they say this is not an official company position.
But this was something commissioned by Google.
And they clearly put a lot of effort into it.
But yes, this was leaked exclusively to Breitbart.
Hooray for Breitbart!
Now, the entire 85-page report is available right at the Breitbart page.
And you can leaf through it.
I leaf through it as well.
But there are a couple of very, very interesting things that they are saying.
Google, well, okay, setting aside the fact that this is an internal document just for reference purposes internally, but they say that Google is now has a new role as the guarantor of civility.
That's an important line right there to keep in mind as we continue this podcast, listeners.
Yes.
And it acknowledges that in the old days, the idea was that the internet was to be a complete free-for-all, complete freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
But now that has become no longer viable.
And one of the reasons they give, and this to me is quite astonishing, events in the real world explain why freedom of speech is no longer viable.
And one is the rise of the Alternative for Deutschland, the AFD, and the other's election of Donald Trump.
They're in effect saying free speech is no good if this is the result.
Well, we've talked about this ad nauseum on this podcast.
Which, if you're new to this podcast, listening to Jared and myself, I encourage you to go back and search the archives.
They're fantastic.
In fact, I think, Mr. Taylor, all of the archives are now on YouTube, correct?
They are getting there.
Great!
Very soon.
Very soon there'll be a whole YouTube channel for you and me and a few others.
Well, one of the points we make constantly, and it's so important to reiterate over and over again, is that the establishment and the technocratic elite are trying to criminalize pattern recognition.
And that, of course, is what allowed the alternative for Deutschland to pop up out of
nowhere and the Donald Trump phenomenon to finally coalesce into this movement that
continues to inspire. But to me, to me, when Google in this internal document says, well, hold on
here are the results of democratic elections.
The elections went the way we didn't want them to go.
So we are going to start censoring speech to affect the way the world works.
This is incredible.
This is incredible.
They're saying, if we do our job right, we can make sure that Donald Trump is never re-elected and nothing like the AFD gets into office.
Well, you saw how quickly the technocratic elite were able to excise Alex Jones's footprint.
I think they've done the same thing to a guy named Roosh of Return of the Kings.
They've successfully silenced him, and of course, yourself.
They kicked me off Twitter, and the American Renaissance account is gone from Twitter.
And every time we put up a new YouTube video, it seems that they put another six of them, old ones, into the deep freeze.
They acknowledge in this document that the tech platforms, Google, Facebook and Twitter, they really now basically dominate internet expression.
They say that if they are going to expand globally, They're going to have to start censoring because, just for example, China.
They admit that China is one of the worst censors of the internet in the entire world, but Google is in the process of developing a search engine to China's specifications that will automatically censor the stuff that China doesn't want its people to see.
It's just incredible what they're acknowledging.
Now, when that was first announced, I believe that censoring search engine is called Dragon.
When that first came to light, there was an internal movement within Google protesting this.
And I thought, how interesting.
They're worried about censorship in China.
How come they're not worried about censorship in the United States?
No, this document shows why.
They are the guarantor of civility.
Of what they claim to be civility.
Correct.
But they say, yes, Google and the other tech platforms now, and this is quoting, control the majority of online conversations and have undertaken, again a quote, a shift towards censorship.
Now, I think it's important to note the title of this document.
It's called The good censor.
The good censor.
The good censor is any censor who agrees with you.
It's just incredible.
The Chinese are a bad censor, but Google is a good censor.
If I may throw this out there, because I just thought of this and I think it sounds nice.
It's got a nice sound to it.
When you perceive yourself to be on the right side of history, whatever action you engage in is automatically righteous.
That's right.
And that's the way we have to look at everything that our ideological, I don't want to say enemies, I think that might be too strong of a word for even some of our listeners, but what these individuals at Google are collectively trying to do, and this document makes clear, It's not going to be too long until you and I get our own social credit score like the Chinese have.
I think that's where we have to understand this is all headed and then we have to ask ourselves if our debt with our social credit score is too... if we're in the red, we're not going to even have access to this new internet that the good censors are creating.
Yes, yes, yes.
But they, in this document, they draw a distinction between the European pattern, which is to have a limited free speech, but greater civility and more control, with the freewheeling American tradition of anything goes and the marketplace will sort things out, and that is how you arrive ultimately at the truth.
But, one thing that they point out here is that the trouble with the internet is that you have these have-a-go commenters.
That's the expression they use.
That means anybody who wants to comment, they can get an audience just like authoritative sources like the New York Times.
And we can't have that!
We can't have that.
It's the approved opinion makers that should have authority.
And the rest of us, if they don't like what we're saying, we've got to shut up.
And then they go on to say, and this really goes to show you, it is a strictly political position.
This document bemoans the fact that, quote, racists, misogynists, and oppressors, whoever they are, are allowed a voice alongside, and this is again a quote, revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.
In other words, the trouble is, racists, misogynists, and oppressors have equal access to their heroes who are revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.
And what could be a more transparent admission that they are on the left and they are suppressing the right?
That's all there is to it.
Well, it is an admission, but in their eyes, again, they see themselves on the right side of history and they're trying to ensure that the evil of the 18th, 19th and 20th century never is allowed to rise again.
That's why they The evil of human nature is not allowed to be expressed or understood.
Human history is all just one rampaging evil white man and so we've got to put a stop to that and make sure AFD never gets any further and Trump or someone like Trump's never elected.
I mean, as I say, I just go back to this astonishing admission they're making.
They don't like the political developments, and so they're going to want to control the dialogue to make sure that the people they want get elected.
This is astonishing to me.
Think about back in the election, when individuals such as the gentleman who ran the Ricky Vaughn Twitter account, he became one of the more cited and influential individuals on all of the internet.
Right.
And it was all of a platform he built up, and there were that many people who were following and retweeting.
He was basically the Pied Piper of Twitter because there is that large of an audience.
I would argue, Mr. Taylor, that the fear isn't that this type of ideas can be disseminated.
It's that these ideas are going to galvanize so many people and they realize, holy cow, look how many people are attracted to this.
Exactly.
What?
Yes, no fewer than 60 million Americans voted for this.
Horrible Donald Trump?
And look at all the people who were following this horrible Jared Taylor on Twitter.
Gotta stop that.
But of course, the objective is to create a different world.
And this desire for power, it's really a desire to rule the world.
They're in effect saying, if we can control the conversation, AFD will never be elected in Germany and Donald Trump will never be elected in the United States.
I'm astonished that anybody would ever dare put something like that on paper.
It's an admission of such... It's a tyrannical will to power.
Well, the hope is that it's this type of leaking that Mr. Trump and those in the White House will see this and be...
And finally understand that Congress has to step in and do something.
That the president's got to put out, I don't know, what kind of executive order can you do, but they've got to step in and you've got to consider breaking up these organizations, these entities that wield so much power and influence.
Right, and are planning on wielding it in very, very specific political directions.
Well, look what they admitted, Mr. Taylor, if I might go ahead and say this, that when Google, GoDaddy, and Cloudflare simultaneously withdrew their service and the domain hosting for the website, The Daily Stormer, after the events of Charlottesville in August of 2017, that they were, quote, effectively booting it off the internet, unquote.
And this could happen tomorrow to Amarin.com.
This could happen to VDare.
This could happen to Breitbart.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
What's to stop them if that's what they want to do?
And I think insofar as Breitbart is the outfit that got hold of this document, they're certainly not thinking happy thoughts about Breitbart today, are they?
Anyway, here's another quote from this document that says, Although people have long been racist, sexist, and hateful in many ways, They weren't empowered by the internet to recklessly express their views with abandon.
Uh-oh, uh-oh.
And yes, now we have these just ordinary people who might be persuasive, who have just as much access to the Internet as true guardians of the truth like the New York Times.
Anyway, now, you know, it's pretty clear.
Now, of course, they've long denied that they have any kind of political bias, that there's no filtering.
And, of course, they're going to say, well, no, no, this is just sort of an internal document.
What was the video from a few weeks ago that was leaked of the Google employees?
Weren't some of them crying about Trump's election or they were talking about how they were going to push back?
That's right.
This just could not have been allowed to happen.
Oh, it was right after the announcement in...
In late January of 2017 of the Muslim travel ban and they were going to try and fix the algorithm on Google to stop a lot of these searches and to find information that would have been positive in regards to why they were going to do such a travel ban.
And you would think that, hey, you know, guys, 9-11.
Isn't that enough?
The facts must be suppressed if the facts are inconvenient.
That is pretty much any tyrannical approach to the world.
And this is shared by... It's funny because I know we're about to move on on civility and as this, you know, Google's new role as the guarantor of civility, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, they all feel the same way.
That's right.
Wouldn't it be delightful if they were even just one who believed in free speech?
You know, it's interesting to note that even back in the early days of, say, Facebook, they claimed to be free speech people.
And as I've said many times on this little program, Twitter used to claim to be the free speech wing of the free speech movement.
And it was!
It was amazing what you could say on Twitter even two years ago.
There was a great tweet that someone put up there where he said, hey, you know, three years ago on Twitter I could teach you how to smoke crack and do all sorts of stuff and no one would care.
And that's not an endorsement of such activities, but Mr. Taylor is correct that Twitter and Facebook, they were built up on this libertarian principle of free speech.
That's right.
But boy, they sure went the other way quickly.
As soon as the politics ended up not suiting them.
Does that confirm O'Sullivan's law?
Which it is.
Didn't O'Sullivan have a law, John O'Sullivan from the National Review, where he said any institution that isn't emphatically conservative will automatically drift left?
That always seems to be the case.
Unless you really do have absolute rock-solid principles and are prepared to stick to them, you get dragged, you get dragged.
We're always refighting the old war we lost and then conceding yet more ground.
No, it's a pathetic state of affairs.
But now that Google and the entire internet community considers itself the guarantors of civility, Oddly enough, some of their favorite people are turning their back on civility.
One, of course, being Hillary Clinton, just on October 9th this week in an interview with Christiane Amanpour.
Ms.
Amanpour asked about the possibility of a return to civility, having noted some of the nastiness that has been circulating politically in this country, and our darling Hillary replied with the following words.
You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.
That's why I believe if we're fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again.
But until then, the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Now, the fact is, she's not even talking about people who are trying to destroy you.
She says, destroy what you stand for.
I mean, isn't that what politics is about?
Disagreement on ideas, on policies.
But no, no, you can't have a political party that is opposed to what you want, is in fact what she's saying.
Yes, it is.
And until we're in power, until we are in a position to crush them, to heck with civility.
Now, I doubt that they would suddenly, overnight, turn into great believers of the Queensbury's rules and Robert's rules of order and civility.
No, no, I don't think so.
But it's quite astonishing.
Well, not astonishing.
I should never use that word when we talk about... You can't be astonished with Hillary because she let slip where they were going in 2016 during the campaign when she talked about the deplorables and irredeemable.
And I can't stress how important it is to go back and think what they were planning to do.
We know that some of these social media entities, we know that they were working to help out the campaign.
If you look at the campaign contributions, if you look at the CEOs, CFOs of these companies and what they were helping out, they're all embarrassed by the fact that their platforms gave voice to the Trump phenomenon and allowed it to actually... That's right.
To win.
And that's the fact that they can no longer allow this.
And I think when we tease that whole guarantor of civility, when you look at what Hillary just said, and then you think about just a couple days later, this is yesterday, our favorite Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Eric, my people holder.
Look what he says, Mr. Taylor, at an event where he's campaigning for Stacey Abrams down in Georgia.
Of course, fellow African-American.
Yes.
Fellow African-American Stacey Abrams.
Who, he's talking, I think this was in Macon, Georgia, if memory serves correctly, I saw this, and he's, can I use the word aping from Michelle Obama, or is that a bad metaphor?
That's a very bad metaphor.
He's evoking Michelle Obama's comment when she said during the 2016 Democrat National Convention, quote, when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don't stoop to their level, our motto should be, when they go low, we go high.
And you know what?
That's good.
I agree.
There's nothing wrong with that.
She got a lot of justified praise for that.
I say hats off to Michelle.
Because that's the exact opposite of what the Democrats are doing since Donald Trump has been in office.
And what Eric Holder says at this Stacey Abrams event, quote, when they go low, We go high.
No, no, no.
When they go low, we kick them.
That's right.
So he started off by saying what Michelle said, and then he says, no, that's wrong.
We kick them.
Yes, we kick them when they're down.
And then he finished by saying, quote, that's what this new Democratic Party is about.
And the room erupted in applause.
Yes, I've seen a clip of this.
I've heard the clip.
Yep, that's what they're all saying now.
But, you know, to her credit, Michelle Obama just today came out and said, well, hey, you know, Eric Holder's a great guy, but no, this is not the right way to go.
A number of Democrats are actually coming out and distancing themselves from these You know, untenable comments.
You would never hear, and you know, we are not card-carrying members of the Republican Party by any means, we're not here to carry their water at all, but I don't think you would hear a Republican say something like this, who then wouldn't be eviscerated and have to not only apologize, but might actually have some authorities knock on his door to say, hey, what is this?
Are you conspiring to riot with this comment?
What's going on here?
Well, you know, one thing that Michelle Obama said to her credit, she says, look, is this what we want our children listening to?
When they're down, kick them?
Good grief!
No, I say, good for Michelle.
I've never had a particularly high opinion of her, but I think I'm very pleased that she's come out for civility.
As you know, I'm something of a believer in that myself.
And I believe that I have always practiced it, no matter how Unfashionable or unwelcome, my comments have always been.
I think I've tried to be polite about them.
Now, I think this reminds me, of course, of what Representative Maxine Waters of California was saying just a couple of weeks ago when she said Democrats should effectively just harass any Trump administration official if you find them in public.
Make their lives uncomfortable.
Now, she took some criticism for that, but it seems like people like Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton are moving in that direction.
They want to stick their thumb in the Republican eye whenever they possibly can.
So, civility, well, maybe Google thinks it's maintaining civility, but their loves, their pets, the people that they fawn over... Maybe shouldn't use that word either.
Here we're self-policing now.
What's going on?
We've got to stop this because we're allowing them to be the guarantors of what we're allowed to and to say.
That's right.
Oh, but you know, I just wanted to make one more comment about this Google document.
When you have these enormous giant companies who are acting under cover of a part of federal law, actually something called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from back in the 1990s, that exempted them from any kind of libel responsibility if somebody on their platform says something libelous.
They are acting under the protection of a federal law that I think they're misusing in a number of ways.
In any case, if you have, now that you have, you have a Republican president, you have Republican Congress, and we have a Supreme Court that is arguably one that is liable to see sense on some of these matters, and if they are incapable of taking some kind of action against These private companies who say, hey, we don't like the Republicans.
That's in effect what they're saying.
We don't like Donald Trump.
And we're going to do everything possible, sort of, well, we are going to, we're going to try to keep them from, keep the American people from expressing their democratic views in any way that we disapprove of.
If a Trump administration and a Republican Congress can't do something about that, they are really pathetic.
Well, where's the law?
Yeah, where's the wall?
Where's the infrastructure, Bill?
Where are the things that could have had the Republicans up significantly as we head to the midterms?
We know that people are excited about the way that the Republicans fought to ensure that Brett Kavanaugh got through, which is a nice segue to, I think, a good news story.
And I would be talking about Brett Kavanaugh's first comments on a case before the Supreme Court.
Here's a guy who, what was he?
It was, was it Monday or was it Friday that he took the oath?
I think it was Friday he took the oath and was it, I don't recall exactly, but the very first case that apparently he sat on and made comments.
It's something called Nielsen versus Priap.
Who are these people?
It sounds like a body part.
I know.
It has to do with how legal immigrants with criminal records are to be treated.
Now, there is a law that dates back to, I believe it was the 1990s.
1996 law that calls for arresting and jailing such immigrants.
Despite their good record since serving time.
The point is, yes, if they can be legal immigrants, but if they have been arrested for any number of different crimes and released, then they can be held for deportation.
That's what this is all about.
Any criminal aliens and including legal immigrants convicted of crimes,
says that the Homeland Security Secretary shall take into custody any such alien
when the alien is released.
Now, what the ACLU of California is saying is that when the alien is released,
that means, oh, that day or maybe a day or two later.
And if they have managed to run into the community and the Homeland Security Secretary
has not actually done that right then and there, then they're home free.
That's what the ACLU is saying.
Correct.
But Kavanaugh is saying, no, Congress put no time limit on that.
And in fact, the ACLU lawyers have said, no, a proper time limit would be one or two days.
But Kavanaugh is saying, no, Congress put no time limit on that.
And in fact, and this is something I say hats off to Samuel Alito, he pointed out, look, California.
This is the state of California.
They're probably releasing dozens of people, hundreds of people, into the community and they are deliberately not even telling the federal government.
Not even telling the federal government.
How were they supposed to get there in a day or two anyway with the state of California fighting them?
Yeah, actually if I could quote what he said because this is something that It's shocking to think that was actually uttered in the halls of the Supreme Court when he said to this lawyer, you guys are not inclined to limit the authority of federal agents.
Quote, how is the federal government going to catch them in a day or two when California won't even tell the federal government, hey, look, we're releasing this person.
Right.
That is awesome.
You're not even telling us where they are, who they are, when they're walking out of their jail cell.
So that is as good a reason for the Supreme Court to say, I mean, if this ruling goes against California, Then they'll be hoist on their own petard.
Because if they were telling the feds, okay, here's Jose Gonzalez, rapist extraordinaire, we're letting him loose, come pick him up, that might be one thing.
But there's a Don't tell the Feds!
But, and here's the opposite extreme of course, Stephen Breyer says, can the government arrest a grandfather 50 years after he's released?
And the Solicitor General, the government attorney says, that's right, there's no time limit.
There's no time limit.
And that is Justice Kavanaugh's position.
Congress said, no time limit.
If you think that it's got to be within a week, get the Congress to change the law.
But as it is now, they can be here illegally.
If they committed certain kinds of crimes, then we can arrest them 50 years later and boot them.
If we're to have a country, this is the type of mindset that has to exist.
Yes, exactly.
And so, I would say Justice Brett Kavanaugh is off to a good start.
Would you say that you'd have a beer to Justice Brett Kavanaugh?
You have a morbid sense of humor, sir.
Maybe send him a cigar.
I don't think he has been accused of smoking too many cigars, but they'll get to that eventually, I'm sure.
Then, of course, there is a recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
We quote these people all the time.
They're arguably one of the best, I'd say, Judicial Watch and then it's Center for Immigration Studies, these non-profits that exist within Washington, D.C.
Center for Immigration Studies puts out the type of papers and The type of incredible research that should be the basis of Republican bills to end this type of stuff.
And it's a travesty that it rarely ever does come to anything except for some clicks when Breitbart or these other websites, they regurgitate in a quick piece and then it gets disseminated all across social media, people get mad, and then within a day The study's forgotten.
It's gone.
This is a great study.
And what they did is they took the birth records in the United States for 2014, which is the latest figures that were available, and they figured that one in five births, that's nearly 800,000 births in the United States, were to an immigrant mother.
Legal or illegal.
Now we're not even talking about births to maybe citizen mothers with the father is illegal or an illegal.
We're not even talking about that.
These are births to immigrant mothers.
About 800,000.
One-fifth of all of them.
And their best estimate is that the legal immigrants accounted for 12.4% of all births.
That's about 500,000.
And illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5%.
About 300,000.
That's about 500,000.
And illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5%, about 300,000.
That is 300,000 automatic new citizens every year from illegals.
And of these about 300,000, the larger, that's more than the total number of births
in any state other than California or Texas to illegal immigrants.
It's also larger than the total number of births in 16 of the low birth states plus the District of Columbia.
And one of the numbers that's important when you think about what that actually means The CIS estimates that the cost to taxpayers for the burst to immigrants, both legal and illegal, is roughly 5.3 billion dollars.
5.3 billion dollars in one year.
And of course, 2.4 of which is for illegal immigrants.
That's right.
We, the taxpayer, we shell out $2.4 billion paying for these uninsured illegals who are giving birth in our country to what then immediately become U.S.
citizens.
Because, you know, I think these figures are really quite shocking.
This is the worst news of all, as far as I'm concerned.
Even native-born new mothers, 42% of them are either uninsured or on Medicaid.
42%!
Nearly half!
And then when it comes to legal immigrants, 47% but illegals.
Now this really takes the cake.
67%.
Two-thirds of illegal immigrant mothers don't have insurance and chances are they're doing it on your and my dime.
Two-thirds of them.
You would think that a fact like this would get the Congress, the country, the media hopping mad.
Hopping mad.
And that's why, as you point out, we get this staggering figure of the fact that you and I shell out $5.3 billion a year for the medical expenses for birthing of these immigrants, $2.4 billion of which is for illegals.
And you look at what's going on in California, of course, which is, I think California is just under 30 percent white at this point.
And you look at these numbers with 65,000 of the first immigrants being in California.
Texas, which should be blue by 2022, 2026 perhaps, when you realize that 51,000 of the illegal alien births
And then Florida, which is teetering on the edge of going blue, as California has, 16,000.
Yes.
16,000.
Now, 18 years from now, how are these folks going to vote, huh?
And of course, we've probably had similar figures for this.
Oh, now this is back in 2014.
So we don't even have to wait 18 years before these lovely little babies of illegal immigrants start voting.
But yeah, it's just a staggering thing that here we have, as I say, a Republican administration, Republican Congress, doing nothing about this.
So far as I can tell, nothing about birthright citizenship.
You would think there would be some way that... I mean, I know there is a Supreme Court decision according to which if you show up at a hospital and you're indigent and you have a serious condition, you've got to be treated.
Hippocratic Oath as well.
Well, there were doctors who were turning people away, or at least hospitals who were.
If they want to actually survive and be fiscally solvent.
One of the more depressing features of this CIS study, Mr. Taylor, is that North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, three-fourths of births to the Global Grants were probably paid for by taxpayers.
And those three states are on the cusp of being Impossible for Republicans to win unless you get 95% of the white vote.
That's right.
I mean, that's where Georgia basically is.
North Carolina is a few years away from that.
And Texas, hey, I know there are a lot of people out there who think that Texas is this impenetrable state that is going to stay solidly red, guys.
No, it's full of Mexicans.
Full of Mexicans.
And no, no, no, I don't see why anybody thinks it's going to stay that way.
Just look at the demographics.
Look at the demography.
Demography is destiny which maybe we could jump ahead to a story that actually solidifies Mr. Taylor that demography is destiny and that is what's happening in the soon-to-be-named Londinistan.
Well, you want to talk about London.
If we're going to talk about demography, we've got to talk about this, because this is one of the more depressing stories.
Well, yes, we don't want to depress our listeners too much, but there was a recent article that pointed out, they quoted an Islamic preacher named Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, and he told local media that London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries.
I like that quote.
I don't like that quote.
It's a terrible quote, but at least all those white people who are still left, which I think, what, London is now majority non-white?
Oh, majority non-white, yes.
They have ethnic food, so they don't have to eat just bangers and mash and fish and chips, so they've got their shawarma.
That's right.
That's all that matters, unfortunately.
Chicken tikka masala is now the national dish, you know.
And, no, some rather unpleasant statistics showed up in this piece.
Since 2001, 500 London churches have been turned into private homes.
And who knows how many have been turned into other things, too.
Some have turned into discotheques.
Restaurants.
Yes.
But at the same time, mosques are popping up all over London.
And from 2012 to 2014, the number of Brits who say they are Muslim has grown by over one million in just two years.
One million.
Boom!
And the estimate is that by 2020, that's not too long from now, Muslims going to mosques regularly will outnumber Christians going to church.
Now, in Britain, there are still more churches than mosques.
But mosques are packed to the gills and churches are rattling around with just a few people in them.
And apparently, five years ago, the Daily Mail, the British paper, published photos of churches and mosques in action.
And it was just a startling difference.
We have a few grandmothers in the corners of the churches, and everybody's packed into the mosques.
No, it's a remarkable remark.
I'd encourage those listening to us to go seek this article out.
It's on Voice of Europe, and you need to then click and go to the link to see these pictures, to see this Daily Mail piece, and to think that was five years ago.
That's right.
Most of those people in those pictures of the white prisoners are probably dead.
Could Bearmail be many of them dead?
Yes.
They're not Gen X. They're not Gen Z. No.
Now, another thing that this article pointed out.
I've been hearing about Sharia courts in Britain.
Nobody really knows how many there are.
I was looking into this.
There could be as many as 100 of these.
A great many of them are in London.
But it's fully legal for Sharia courts to rule on disputes within the Muslim community due to something called the 1996 Arbitration Act and the system that the British have imposed called Alternative Dispute Resolution.
You don't have to go to court.
If you're Muslim, you can go to Muslim Tribunal and they can decide.
Mostly it is issues of family law, divorce, inheritance.
But now they can decide business and financial disputes.
It's really quite extraordinary.
And one of the reasons why For many Muslim men, they want... Well, I should backtrack.
You can marry legally under Sharia law in the UK, in Britain, without conforming with British law at all.
And because Islam allows for four wives, you can take your four wives under Sharia law.
And that's just fine.
Britain's bigamy laws do not even apply.
No, no, no.
You can... Exactly.
You can practice polygamy till you're...
content and that's one of the reasons why you see the need for so many more mosques because of the fecundity rates and the again these mosques are nothing more than a forward operating base for the advancement of Islam and Islamic expansion and this is this is one of those stories again You have to face reality.
This is one of the key components, I think, that America Resence has stated time and time again.
There's no truth that you fear the whole world to know.
And what's happening in England is just so tragic.
But for those who think that these states like Texas and Georgia and North Carolina are going to stay red, demography is destiny.
Wake up, white man.
Wake up, white woman.
Yes, these things are happening.
Our countries are slipping through our fingers.
And another reason why Muslim men like Sharia law is because women have so few rights, too.
So few rights.
And a woman can be beaten regularly, her husband can be a philanderer, frequenting prostitutes, threatening her children.
She goes to one of these Muslim tribunals and she faces a panel of three Muslim men.
Who are they going to side with?
Who are they going to side with?
No, it's an astonishing state of affairs.
But, as of August 2018, this was the first time really the British court officially recognized an Islamic marriage under the law of Sharia.
This has been an accepted thing, but in August, just this year, for the first time, a British court said, yep, yep, yep, that is for sure.
This is a legal, this is a legitimate marriage.
So, you can have four legitimate wives.
Four legitimate wives.
And the legitimacy of the British state continues to dissipate.
Yeah, yeah.
Sorry, state of affairs.
But yes, that's the good news from London, ladies and gentlemen.
And we have another sort of a bad news story here.
This was about a Kansas politician.
A Republican precinct committeeman named Michael Kaney of Shawnee, Kansas.
He was writing about a Democratic congressional candidate, Sharice Davids, for whom Kansans in the district can vote in November, just coming up very soon.
She's running against incumbent Republican uh representative Kevin Yoder for the congressional seat in Kansas.
Now the Republican precinct committeeman said about this woman, well he wrote the following, the real Republicans, remember he is a Republican, the real Republicans remember what the scum Demon rats.
This is one of those clever things people come up with.
It's not clever.
No, no.
It's not clever at all.
Please don't ever use that, listeners.
No, surely.
No, that was pure irony on my part.
One of these ostensibly the scum demon rats tried to do to Kavanaugh in November.
And now he moves on in the next sentence to talk about Sharice Davids.
Your radical, socialist, kickboxing, lesbian Indian will be sent back packing to the reservation.
Now, he got in trouble for this.
What did he get in trouble for?
Calling the Democrats demon rats?
Or calling them scum?
No, it was of course the phrase radical socialist kickboxing lesbian Indian.
Now, and I don't know whether he said we'll be sent back packing to the reservation or we'll be sent backpacking to the reservation.
This is not clear to me.
I assume he meant sent back packing to the reservation.
In any case, No, no, you can call the Democrats scum, that seems uncivil to me, and you can call them demon rats, but calling this lady a radical socialist kickboxing lesbian Indian.
Of course it turns out that all those things are in fact true.
She is very... I mean, you can imagine.
Just take one look at her in her photograph.
You can see it all coming.
What kind of politics she is.
And she does MMA training.
She is a lesbian.
She's an open lesbian.
And she is a member of the Ho-Chunk tribe.
Okay.
So all of these things are true.
All true.
But simply, I guess, putting them all in one sentence makes you unacceptable under today's standards and he was forced to resign.
Did he post this on Facebook?
He put this on Facebook.
Let me make a suggestion to everyone out there listening.
If you want to make comments on Facebook, and have a account where you're going to be political.
Don't do it under your own name so other people can see and then tattletale.
I mean a couple weeks ago at the University of Georgia football game a baseball player who played for the University of Georgia was Heard to utter the dreaded N-word when the University of Georgia football team put in the freshman black quarterback.
No one actually heard him say it, but someone went and told an administrator that, hey, we heard somebody say it.
I think it was that guy.
This dude got dismissed from the University of Georgia baseball team.
He was one of their best players.
Now if a school would do this so quickly to one of their best players, what do you think is going to happen to a precinct committee member?
We live under the tyranny of political correctness.
It's only going to get worse.
Look at what we talked about at the beginning when we discussed Google's role as the guarantor of civility.
Understand when I'm saying that we are going to implement Some sort of Chinese social capital score.
That's not hyperbole.
It's not.
I mean, the changes that are happening, what you're seeing in England, what you're seeing in Germany, what you're seeing in France, what we want is of course what's happening in Italy, what's happening in Hungary, what's happening in Czechoslovakia, what's happening in Austria.
But the demographic Tides have gotten to a point where it's going to be
increasingly difficult unless the white vote comes out 68 70 percent in all these states for the Republicans that
we're going to see the end of the free internet
And it's happening, as you noted, even with the Republican Congress, Republican President.
Exactly, exactly.
So what do you think is going to happen?
Ineffectual.
You know, it might interest you to know, I had a conversation maybe a week ago with a guy who has been in politics, oh, for 30 years.
He actually worked in the White House for an administration.
I don't want to identify this guy.
Obviously not.
But he's a pro.
He's been in this for a long time.
And he's basically still a liberal in terms of what he thinks government should do.
He cares very much about the working class.
He's a liberal.
But he says he thinks that white people are waking up so rapidly that within 10 years 80% of white people will be voting Republican.
Now, that's an extraordinary prediction.
He and I have got an agreement.
Ten years from now, I told him, I don't think that'll be true, but if it is, I'm buying him a beer.
I'm buying him several beers.
You're buying him a Cavanaugh.
Because at that point, beers will be known as Cavanaughs.
Again, that is an amazing prediction.
Again, I'm working on a review of a book that just came out called Republicans Buy Sneakers Too.
The main theme of that book is he can't believe how culture has changed so much.
The guy who wrote the book, Clay Travis, was a Democrat.
He actually worked in a number of campaigns.
And yet things have changed so much that he realized after the University of Missouri Poop Swastika incident back in 2015, if memory serves correct, wow, the media exists to just demonize white people.
And this is a best-selling book right now.
And this is a guy, you know, his politics didn't change.
The mainstream changed.
Well exactly.
And it's the same with this guy.
As I say, he is still a liberal.
He thinks the working class gets a bum deal.
He thinks the government has an important role in making things better for everybody.
But he sees white people being blamed for Absolutely everything that's not their fault.
Yes.
Here's a guy who, as I say, he's been a professional in politics, campaign strategy, and all of that stuff.
He says it's going to change very quickly.
I hope he's right.
I hope he's right.
I think he is right, and I'd actually say Dare I say it, I'm almost half that.
I think that the 2018, we're going to start seeing just how racial things are with the Florida campaign, DeSantis vs. Gillum, and then of course the Georgia campaign, Abrams vs. Kemp.
We're just going to get a taste.
It's the appetizer for what's coming in 2020.
That's right, that's right.
But yeah, in 10 years' time?
Well, we'll see.
We'll see.
I mean, that would be extraordinary.
If 80%... Now, the other thing we agree with, it could very well be that the Republicans that these white people are voting for are a waste of space anyway.
They're just a bag of rocks and they're not going to do anything really for white people.
But at least it will show a kind of unified sense that we are on one side and everybody else is on the other side.
We'll see.
Now, our next story will be yet another push in that direction for Wide Awake White People.
It has to do with what's going on in Arkansas.
The current guy, there's a fellow named Clark Tucker.
He's running for Congress.
He's challenging the incumbent Republican by the name of French Hill.
Now, Clark Tucker is named in part for his great-great-grandfather, James P. Clark, who is one of the two Arkansas statues in the Capitol.
You know, each state has one or two statues of important people from that state, and James P. Clark was Arkansas governor and a U.S.
senator in the late 1880s and early 1900s.
He was looked upon as a great son of the state, did all sorts of wonderful things, but his great-great-grandson, this Clark Tucker, says that his statue should be removed.
And why should it be removed?
Well, apparently, at one point, at one point, James P. Clark said that he looked to the Democratic Party to preserve, quote, white standards.
Now, I, I ghouled around looking for this more, more dirt on James P. Clark.
What'd you find?
That's all I could find.
That's all I could find.
He had a number of policies, some of which failed, some which succeeded, but he was a beloved fellow.
But apparently, at one point in his life, he said the Democratic Party has to preserve white standards.
Now, if you're going to remove him for that one sin, Nobody standing in that hall except for Pocahontas and King Kamehameha is probably going to survive.
No.
It's astonishing.
Now, he wants both the statues removed.
I looked up who the other, it's of course, the other guy is a fellow named Uriah Milton Rose.
Now, who knows what he did that was wrong, but it's dawning on me, finally.
It takes me a while to tumble to the obvious.
What'd you find out?
The sin of these guys is they are white men.
That's all it takes.
That's really all it takes.
It's why we have to fight their future, because white men have no place in the future that these individuals are trying to ensure is created.
We are on the wrong side of history.
We're on the wrong side of biology, too, as far as they're concerned.
Well, you know, Florida, one of their statues is E. Kirby Smith.
He was in charge of the Trans-Mississippi Confederate Armies.
Now, he is to be replaced.
And guess who they're going to replace him with?
Probably not a white person.
Mary McLeod Bethune.
She was a black civil rights activist.
You know, it's not enough, it's not enough to say take down or to take take down a black person.
I'm sorry, take down a white person that was a bad white person.
You don't replace him with a good white person because there's no such thing.
You've got to replace him with a black person, hopefully a black woman.
It's like Andy Jackson on a $20 bill.
You don't replace Andrew Jackson with, I don't know, Chief Justice Earl Warren.
No, no, no, no.
I mean, he might have done nice things for black people with Board Brown versus Board.
No, you replace him with, of course, Tubman, Harriet Tubman.
I mean, they just go from one extreme to another.
They just can't help themselves.
This weekend the movie about Neil Armstrong, The Last Man, comes out and you wonder how many people are going to see it and think, well, wait a second, where are the hidden figures?
Where are the gifted black mathematicians who calculated the trajectory?
Why aren't they in this?
This movie is not legitimate.
You have to wonder, Mr. Taylor, if you were to make a bet with someone, How long will it take for all the white men in the Capitol to be replaced with the best, quote, civil rights leaders, unquote, of that state that that state ever produced?
Of course, of course.
If you look, if you look at those statues, they are being replaced and invariably it is a white man who's being replaced by a non-white somebody.
Yes.
Most often a woman.
That's going to be inevitable.
If you look at all of them, they are all these sort of 19th century, early 20th century people.
Great men.
Yes, great men.
But I bet if you look, you can find something just as bad as the Democratic Party's got to preserve white standards.
That'll be easy.
That'll be easy to find.
Well, because it's funny because today's moniker for the Democratic Party is, we have to do everything to erase white standards.
That's right.
Well, there's no such thing.
White standards are, of course, the worst possible thing.
It's a social construct.
Well, no.
White standards are genocide, slavery, spreading disease.
Those are white standards.
Come on.
Get with the program.
A smallpox-covered blanket.
You're right.
It was just Columbus Day, after all.
You're right.
Columbus, Ohio, won't even celebrate that great man's achievement.
No, not anymore.
Okay, we don't have much time left, but you persuaded me that I should talk a little bit about the present state of our lawsuit against Twitter, and I shall so do.
We filed, back in February, our suit against Twitter, and we had three causes of action, two of which had the possibility of ending viewpoint discrimination on the Internet.
Now, on July 11th, 2018, our judge in the case, Judge Harold Kahn, he dismissed those two.
They can be referred to as a kind of a shorthand as Pruneyard and Unruh.
But he left one other ground, one other ground, which was a cause of action based on the unfair competition law.
We were suing Twitter on the basis of false advertising, really.
Because they had said at the time when I got my account and when the American Renaissance account were both established, they said, we will not kick you off of our platform unless you do certain evil things.
And it was like copyright violation, libel, defamation, exposing private credit card information, promoting illegal activity, selling drugs.
They had a very clear list of things.
You don't do this, then you're home free.
Do anything you like.
Anything you like but this.
And so, I took them at their word, but by the time they kicked us off, they were saying, nope, we can kick you off for any reason at all.
Any reason or no reason.
And we say, this violates the unfair competition laws of the state of California.
And Judge Harold Kahn said, yeah, yeah, that does violate those laws.
Well, and so we were expecting to go to trial against Twitter on those grounds.
And some people think, well, so what?
Well, actually, that would be the first crack in the internet tyranny facade, holding them liable at least for their terms of contract.
They're saying, no, this Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act Even exempts them from being held to the terms of their user agreement.
They're hiding behind this federal act that we mentioned earlier.
But they did a very extraordinary thing.
Even before we went to trial, Twitter did an unusual ex parte petition.
That is a petition to the Court of Appeals in which we didn't even have a chance to reply.
They said to the court of appeals, no, no, no, no.
Even if letting this thing go to trial will result in irreparable harm, irreparable harm to us.
Because they think they are shielded from any kind of lawsuit by this Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.
It is really a preposterous misreading of this act.
And so, although it might sound like not an important thing, if we go to trial in this case of false advertising, that is the first breach in what all of these California companies have been hiding behind.
Namely, Section 230 of the CDA, the Communication Decency Act.
So, the Court of Appeals ordered Judge Kahn to reverse himself, which he duly did.
But on November 14th, we will have the first opportunity to make our arguments against that.
And because, as I say, the Court of Appeals, in what strikes me and strikes our lawyer, our legal team, is absolutely, well, practically unprecedented.
They made this argument without hearing from us.
It's really just a violation of the most elementary basis of due process.
What you're saying real quick is that Judge Kahn, he duly reversed himself voluntarily on September 24th, 2018, but without any notice to you or your legal representation.
Exactly, exactly.
So, on November 14th, we're going to have a hearing before Judge Kahn and we're going to be able to present our case.
Your Honor, we didn't have a chance to object.
Your original decision was correct.
And then he can decide whether or not he wants to go back to his original decision based on the arguments we present at that time.
We think our grounds are good.
We think his initial grounds were good.
And we think the reasoning at the Court of Appeals was just the worst sort of flummery.
Now, if Judge Kahn says, nope, sorry, I've reserved myself and that's it, we can appeal all three grounds to the Court of Appeals.
Interesting.
That's very important, including the ones I mentioned earlier, Pruneyard and Unruh, in which, if they were found in our favor, and there's chances are not perhaps great, but on either one of those, if the Court of Appeals finds in our favor, that in effect means That these internet companies cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.
That possibility is still open.
And it was always the case that going to a trial court judge with a case which, if we won, would in effect upend the industry was very unlikely.
But if he denies us, then we have an opportunity to take these arguments to the Court of Appeals Which is likely to have more backbone, more brains, and more independence to see if the law really is applicable in the way we say it is.
And that does still have the possibility of ending viewpoint discrimination.
And of course that statement was not made to denigrate Judge Kahn.
It's just this is a highly important case.
Oh no, I'm not denigrating him at all.
It's just that at the trial court level, for him to say, okay, the law reads like this, he'd be the first guy to be saying that.
He's in San Francisco.
The pressure is immense is what you're trying to say.
All of Silicon Valley is breathing down his neck.
And all the attack dogs on the internet ready to say, look at what this guy just... Who'd you just side with?
Look at this organization's dossier on X website and Y website.
So yes, to conclude, we are still very much in the fight.
There is a possibility that we could go to trial on the original unfair competition law basis and knock the first hole in this barrier that the Silicon Valley companies have set up and they're hiding behind.
Or, we can appeal all three, and even if we just go to trial on the unfair competition law, we still reserve the right to appeal on the larger, broader issues of prunery or denomination.
So we are still very much in the fight, and that means we are still very much in need of your generous support, ladies and gentlemen.
And this is why I did want to have Mr. Taylor discuss the current state of this immensely important legal action that he has so bravely, in American Renaissance, the New Century Foundation, thanks to listeners like you who have given support, monetary support, which I might add is tax deductible, to help fight the tyranny and to ensure that these websites cannot engage in being the only guarantor of civility.
Because I'm sitting, you know, I'm talking to someone who is probably the most genteel, benevolent, magnanimous individual that I've had the privilege of knowing for many years and I come to you via the beauty of the podcast to request that you guys help out with your tax deductible donations in this monumental battle for freedom of speech.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kersey, and thank you very much again for coming in and lending your wisdom, insight, and perspective to this podcast.
How can people send those donations?
They can go straight to the internet, and we have a store.
It's right, stores, where I do all of our processing, and they can do it online.
Or, of course, they can write a check and send it to Box 529, Oakton, Virginia.
What's that zip code?
22124.
22124.
Box 529.
Hey, so for Jared Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Our time is up.
▲
Export Selection