All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2018 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:06
‘The Best Hope for the Future’
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to today's Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and with me is my reliable, indefatigable partner in this enterprise, Paul Kersey.
Welcome, Mr. Kersey.
Always glad to have you on.
You know, that word reliable is so important because I think consistency confirms commitment, and a lot of people who get excited about the type of Ideas and the ideology and the topics we talk about sometimes can get burnt out when the news goes an unsettling way.
And it's important to remember that, hey, this is a marathon.
It's not a sprint.
Consistency confirms commitment.
We have always made that point.
This is not something that's going to be turned around overnight.
And we are in the process of doing what we can to turn this great ship into a better direction.
And whether our listeners want it or not, we're going to continue with a little bit about the midterms.
Because we've had some interesting developments and the exit polls have come out in a way that have given us a different kind of perspective on things.
Not always an encouraging one, but it's three steps forward and an occasional step back.
And in some respects it's been a step back in terms of how whites voted.
And we can discuss a little bit as to why they might have voted how they did.
Overall, The Democrat versus Republican vote during the midterms was, and this is an astonishing figure to me, 53% Democrat to 45%.
That's a pretty substantial margin for the Democrats.
For whites, whites voted only 54% Republican, 44% Democrat.
In the presidential election, it was closer to 60-40, but on this occasion, they split more towards the Democrats than they had in 2016.
Non-whites, not surprisingly.
They went 76% for the Democrats and only 22% Republican.
Now, interestingly enough, when you break the voting populations down by where they live, we get interesting results.
Needless to say, in rural areas, which accounted for only 15% of the vote, The split was 60% Republican, 40% Democrat, with whites voting 63 Republican, 36% Democrat.
That is the kind of vote it would not have surprised me for whites across the board.
But you have to go to the rural areas to find that kind of split.
Why do you think that is?
Why the people in the countryside vote the way they do?
Well, because in the suburbs, which represent 51% of the votes tallied in the midterms, 57% of whites voted Republican compared to 41%.
in the midterms, 57% of whites voted Republican compared to 41%.
Now, obviously, in the suburbs, non-whites voted, 72% for the Democrats and 27% for the Republicans.
Yes.
The point is, when you're looking at non-whites, where they live doesn't seem to make much difference.
Not at all.
It makes a little bit of difference if you go to big cities, where instead of 76-22 for the Democrats across the board, in big cities non-whites voted 86% to 12.
That's about as lopsided as you can get.
In the big cities you have a one-party state because a lot of the people, regardless of whether you're You're white or non-white, guess what?
Your main fear is being a victim of black gun crime in these major cities.
Why would that make them vote Democrat?
Because the Democrats are for gun control.
That's just one idea that I would throw out there.
They're one-party states.
But the fact that they're a one-party state also means that in many cases they're not even a Republican that is running.
And that's certainly going to make it a lopsided vote, Republican-Democrat.
I mean, if there's not even a Republican to vote for, for heaven's sake.
As this data makes clear, Mr. Taylor, and I encourage all of our listeners to track down this ABC News poll.
We'll find a way to include it within the podcast, maybe a link.
Well, I think if you just look for ABC News exit polls, you're bound to find this.
It's quite an interesting table.
What it makes clear is that a lot of districts across the country increasingly are going to have no Republicans running.
That's the distressing news of where we're seeing the vote go for Democrats.
And of course, as the non-white population grows, we're going to be talking about this.
You're going to have these ascending people of color coalitions run unopposed.
What surprises me is the areas in which a majority of whites voted Democrat.
20% of the voters in the country live in what they call mid-sized cities.
There, the Democrats edged out Republican voters 50% to 48%.
50% to 48%.
And in the big cities, in the big cities, here we have whites voting 64% Democrat
as opposed to 34% Republican.
And I'm assuming the ones in the big cities, say Chicago, New York,
probably they are the wealthiest, best educated white people.
Those with the most to lose.
Washington, D.C.
is notorious.
The whites in Washington, D.C., I think they voted 80% for Hillary.
Something just astonishing.
But these are the people who are voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.
And I think that it says something about the educational system, for one thing.
You were asking me why those in rural areas vote much more healthily.
The whites are 63% for Republicans, the only 36% for Democrats.
They haven't been brainwashed nearly to the extent that college-educated city slickers have.
And I think there is a kind of just common sense in rural areas.
There's something about being in small-town America, a sense, I think, of rootedness, of traditional American life, that I think makes them more impervious to the kind of nonsense we're all supposed to be believing.
You have communities, you have social capital, and in a lot of cases in these rural areas, the people living can go and they can show you the graves of their ancestors.
They can show you where their father proposed their mother, where their grandfather proposed their grandmother.
Whereas in these big cities, you know, you've got Let's face it.
They're transplants.
They're transplants.
There are whites who have recently graduated.
I'd love to know what qualifies now as the big cities versus the mid-sized cities, if a Dallas or Houston, where those represent.
One of the really shocking things about this election is Texas is now in play in 2020.
I've seen a lot of stories, Mr. Taylor, saying, hey, if this Latino wave shows up, Texas can flip blue Not 2028, not 2032.
We're talking about 2020.
I entirely believe it.
Things are moving with a surprising clip here.
But then we get to the suburbs.
In the suburbs where 51% of the voters are alleged to live, according to ABC News.
And here we have 57% of whites voting Republican, only 41% Democrat.
So, in the country and in the suburbs, that's where you have whites voting for Republicans.
Everywhere else, it's either 50-50 split or they're voting more Democrat than Republican.
And why that number?
Overall, 53% of those voting in the House voted Democrat versus 45 regardless of race, just everywhere.
Yes.
You know, the suburbs make up 51% of that vote, but the suburbs, regardless of the city, regardless of the municipality we're talking about, the suburbs now, especially that first outer ring of suburbs of major cities, like take Atlanta for instance, they are so heavily majority-minority now, all these counties.
Many of them are.
White people continually are going further and further out.
Again, this runs counter to certain kinds of experience.
you wouldn't see a non-white face when you go into the grocery store.
Again, this runs counter to certain kinds of experience.
Often, when you have whites who live where there are no non-whites around,
which we would expect to be in the country.
Often they will vote in a profoundly liberal way because all they know about non-whites is what they read in Time Magazine.
And Time Magazine will tell you that they're just the most wonderful people in the world.
Whereas people who live in big cities, you would expect them to be around non-whites in a much more physically Palpable way, who would have a more sensible idea about minorities.
So, there are a lot of different things going on here, and it's not always as we would expect.
But, what we can expect, and what is entirely consistent, is the way non-whites voted.
In the case of blacks, they voted for the Democrats by a proportion of 90% to 9%.
Democrats.
That's what we expect.
Hispanics, 69%, 29%.
That's basically 70-30.
They moved a little bit more, Democrat, compared to the presidential election.
Asians, now this to me is the aspect that is mysterious.
Asians voted Democratic by 77% to 23%.
Now, I think of Asians as potentially a kind of uneasy political partner to whites in staving off such things as basically socialism.
Higher taxes.
Racial socialism.
Yes, yes.
All of this take from the rich and give to the poor so long as the rich are white.
Well, many of the Asians are going to be rich.
Why they outvote Hispanics for the Democrats.
I would love to see some sort of intelligent analysis of that.
This is something that I would not have expected just given the demographic profile of Asians.
Well, look at what Cord Booker, we talked about this a couple weeks ago, Cord Booker has proposed this idea where anyone born gets potentially $50,000 of money redistributed from the wealthy, from taxpayers.
Into, what is it, a pool, where as they start to age, more money goes in?
I think by the age of... Government gives them, I think, $5,000 to begin with, and then an additional amount every year, depending on how poor they are, they get more.
Correct.
And Cory Booker established this thing specifically to try to close the racial gap.
Correct.
So it takes from the rich and gives to the poor, this sort of Robin Hood thing, with an explicitly racial intent.
Now, the Asians are going to have money taken away from them.
Correct.
So why is it they continue to vote so consistently Democrat?
It's an interesting thing.
Now, they're only about 5% of the vote.
I'm sorry, not even 5% because there's so many who are non-citizens.
I think it's more like 3%.
So it's not as though that they are the swing vote in many different places, but this sample size for the exit polling was large enough so that, according to ABC, They had confidence, even for their figures for Asians.
And this is the figure that you often get in the presidential elections.
70% voted for Hillary.
What do Asians see in dumpy old Hillary?
It beats me.
I would postulate the idea of the coalition of the fringes again.
America is now becoming a racial spoils system.
And a lot of people look at this country as already post-white.
Okay, but why would Asians Well, I suppose I have a high regard for Asians.
They're a high IQ race.
Hispanics are much more of a natural candidate and target for this kind of thinking than
Asians.
Well, I suppose I have a high regard for Asians.
They're a high IQ race.
I just expect better from Asians.
I'm disappointed.
So, but then there was another big disappointment here too.
And that was despite the fact that whites across the board voted 54% Republican, 44% Democrat.
Whites aged 18 to 29 voted almost exactly the reverse.
Democrat whites aged 18 to 29 voted almost exactly the reverse.
55% Democrat, 44% Republican.
Now, that's not a good sign.
Of course, the young people, they ordinarily get wiser as they age.
I would have to say that that was the case for me.
You were wise when you were born, but that is an unusual thing.
I've had an exchange of ideas with this political expert that I mentioned on our last podcast, who thinks that within 10 years, 80% of whites are going to be voting Republican.
His view was, and he sort of threw some of my ideas back in my face, why did so many whites go Democrat rather than Republican?
He says many whites are repelled by some of Trump's personal characteristics and that was what pushed him in that direction.
But my reply to him is, well, wait, Trump wasn't on the ballot.
Trump kept saying, it's as if I were on the ballot.
I think that was a terrible, stupid thing to do, to say, I'm not on the ballot, but this is all about me.
Well, it doesn't have to be all about him.
But in any case, he still sticks to his prediction that things are going to get so much more anti-white, so quickly, so explicitly, that whites are going to flock to Republicans, whether or not they are worth voting for, but at least away from the Democrats.
Well, they aren't worth voting for, but the thing that I think is most important to remember about the midterms is that the Republican ideas... I couldn't even tell you what a lot of the Republicans even stood for in a lot of these districts.
Many of them ran away from Trump.
The Republicans had so many incumbents retire.
You had a lot of bad candidates.
I just found out from a friend that The congressional district that represents Mount Pleasant in Charleston, South Carolina, actually flipped.
Very close.
They had a longtime Republican who, it was, what was the former governor, Mark Sam, what was the governor, Samford?
Samford?
Yeah, he had the seat.
Well, he did not run this time, and there was a female who ran as a Republican nominee, and she ran a terrible campaign.
She had a hard time articulating the ideas.
And she lost by a percentage point, basically.
But look, it's all very well to criticize the Republicans for not having had a consistent message.
What do the Democrats have?
Health insurance?
Pre-existing conditions?
Is the idea of some sort of insurance plan, is that really going to mobilize the voters?
Send them streaming to the polls?
This is very penny-ante, small-scale stuff.
Compared to the idea of American nationalism, putting America first.
And there were some Republicans who were pretty good about that.
A lot of Republicans ran on a, I'm basically a Trump clone.
And those are the ones who did well.
Of course, they were in areas where it made sense to talk that way.
So who knows?
This is a very interesting outcome.
But I did want to talk about some of the celebrating by those who are looking forward to our minority status and are being pushed aside.
And there was an article in The New Yorker.
The New Yorker used to be a magazine of some distinction, but is now just so gruesomely, relentlessly liberal, they did a celebratory piece on four new members of Congress.
They all happened to be women, and they all happened to be non-white.
And this, of course, was the reason why they were so happy about them.
But the title of the article was, Your Cool New Congresswomen.
If you're a woman and you're non-white, you're cool.
Automatically.
It's axiomatic.
Yes, yes.
And the article begins like this.
The 2018 midterm elections saw historic wins for women across the country and provided some of the best hope for the future.
It's hagiography when you read this.
It's shocking.
As I say, the New Yorker has become just so reflexively, so unabashedly partisan.
But all the mainstream media have become this way, and they keep wondering why they keep losing credibility.
Well this saccharine language that you read, we're about to talk about these four people of color females that the New Yorker praises, it's saccharine.
You read this and you're like, how is this journalism?
It's not, you're right.
Actor in teen vogue that you would read about some actor or some new heartthrob.
And that's the way that these women, these people of color, are being positioned.
They're heartthrobs.
You want to know every little detail about their life to swoon over.
And the reason they are heartthrobs are two.
They are women and they are non-white.
That's all it takes for them to be our new heroes.
Well, thank you, New Yorker.
We're glad that you're showing your hand so obviously and so clearly.
Keep doing it.
Keep doing it.
Keep slapping white people in the face.
But in any case, just a few details about some of these new people who are representing the country in Washington, D.C.
Ilhan Omar.
She'll be the first Somali American to go to Congress.
Now, she succeeds Keith Ellison.
He was the first Muslim to run for Congress.
He did that in 2007.
And he was famous for taking the oath of office on a Koran rather than the Bible, which has been traditional.
But there has to be a first for everything, I suppose.
Well, she, of course, is a Muslim.
And along with Rashida Tlaib, the two of them are the first Muslim females to serve in Congress.
Now, she's got some interesting points.
She's been accused of anti-Semitism for talking about the apartheid Israeli regime.
This doesn't seem to have been a problem in terms of getting elected, but she supports BDS, in other words, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel.
And what I find most interesting, though, is her district, her electoral district.
I had assumed that the district that first elected Keith Ellison to Congress in 2007 would have a pretty substantial Somali or black or non-white population.
As it turns out, this district is 67% white.
It's whiter than the United States.
Now, it could be that there are Arabs included in this.
I don't know.
But this is Minnesota.
I don't hear about a big Arab population there.
67% white, 17% black, 6% Asian, 9% Hispanic.
And they have sent this woman, this Somali, to Congress.
Astonishing!
It's not as though her opponent was an absolute nobody.
She was a white woman named Jennifer Zielinski.
But this is a consistently democratic, a consistently democratic district.
The Democrats always get 70 or 80 percent, whether they're white, black, blue.
And so I suppose Ilhan Omar rode in on this democratic wave.
Again, you look at Minnesota, you look at what's going on in Sweden, there's a connection between the two since so many of the Minnesotans, the white Minnesotans, can trace their lineage to Sweden.
Blood is thicker than water, unfortunately, and for some reason there is this disconnect between what's happening around the world, the United States, and we continue to see these type of people voted in.
And you want to tell us about the other Muslim?
Like you said, Rashida Tlaib.
Yes, you know it's fun when you have people representing your Congress with names you can't even pronounce.
You know that, as the New Yorker says, the best hope for the future when you can't even pronounce their names.
Exactly, you know, you can't even pronounce these names.
Well, she's the first Palestinian Congress Yes.
Congressman, there is a photo of her with a Palestinian flag that a lot of people tried to use to persuade those within her district not to vote for her, that she might have anti-Semitic leanings.
Well, she ran unopposed, so what did it matter?
What's the point of Conservatism Inc.
putting out all these stories when it was It was a foregone conclusion that she was going to win.
She was born in the United States.
She was in the Michigan House in a district that is only 30% white, 40% Hispanic in the Detroit area.
The seat that she now has was the former seat of John Conyers, who you might remember stepped down because of sexual harassment.
And for those longtime listeners, you might remember that One time, a date of Jared Taylor's was actually... Was she propositioned or was she just catcalled?
She was evaluated in just the most explicit manner.
Well, you know, Rashida's platform is as follows.
Abolish ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Palestinian right of return.
Yes, now that would have gotten her a lot of opposition in some places.
Yes, it would have.
That the Palestinians have the right to return to Israel?
Boy oh boy.
Well, especially you would think in Michigan where there is a sizable Jewish population, especially in the Detroit area.
You would think that a lot of the editorial writers for the Detroit Free Press or The Detroit News would have said something, but obviously,
and this as the people of color ascension, this coalition starts to rise, it's get out of
the way and just praise.
Yes, and I think that this will tend to push more Jews into the Republican Party when you
have more Democrats talking about it.
Well, Ilhan Omar, the other Somali, talking about the apartheid Israeli regime.
That doesn't sound very Israel-friendly.
You would hope so, but I have read that in the 2018 midterm elections that Jews voted 80% for Democrats.
Well, they continue their old pattern.
Yes, indeed.
Alright, just finishing up real quick on Rashida.
Her House District is 33% White, 56% Black, and 7% Hispanic.
And remember, there was no opposition.
She ran unopposed and waltzed into her seat.
The interesting thing about that, though, was that having won the Democratic primary, that is what assured her the election, because Republicans just don't run in this just completely outvoted district.
But it was a six-way race.
And I think this is significant.
She got only 31.2% of the vote.
So, she wins 31% of the vote in a primary and then represents the district.
Now, if this had been a racially conscious white man, the press would be howling about how unrepresentative, how can this person represent the district?
Which you got a plurality, you're correct.
Yeah, on a six-way race like that, not only, and it's odd, we have this Palestinian in an area that is so heavily black.
You know, the number two in the runoff, I'm sorry, in the primary, was a black woman who had beaten her by a narrow margin in the special election to replace this sexual offender Conyers.
So anyway, the blacks had an opportunity to vote for a black, but not enough of them did.
Quite interesting result.
Then, of course, there is the black woman, another person celebrated by the ever, ever astute and ever patriotic New Yorker, Ayanna Pressley.
Now, she was born, well, of course, she grew up in Chicago, actually.
Her mother worked for the Urban League, so she has this kind of racially oriented background, but she attended a very fancy private school in Chicago called the Francis W. Parker School.
Now you wonder about black people who end up in places like that.
I do know that many private schools make a special point of waiving fees for deserving non-whites.
I remember a friend of mine who had his children in a private school in Newark, New Jersey.
And he was on the board of the school, and it infuriated him that they were always insisting on hunting down blacks or Hispanics, whoever they were, and offering them tuition-free attendance.
But, of course, where'd the money come from?
The tuition from all the whites.
So, who knows?
Maybe her mom and dad paid cash?
I somehow doubt it.
But, apparently, she was the commencement speaker and acquitted herself in a respectable manner here.
But what's interesting about her is that in the primary in this Massachusetts district, she beat Michael Capuano, a white man who'd been in Congress for 20 years.
This is the trend, and we'll find out with the next one as well that we talk about this idea of the old white people, white people have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party, being knocked off by these younger non-whites.
Well, white males, it's also important to point that out.
Yes, exactly.
Exactly.
A white man.
And it was quite—everybody expected this old-timer to win, but she beat this Capuano guy 59% to 41%.
And then, of course, no opponent in the general election either.
Now, you know, this makes me wonder, in how many races do the Democrats not run a candidate?
I don't hear about Democrats failing to run.
Probably less than a handful, if that.
Yeah, yeah.
You should always throw up a candidate, especially if you're in one of these districts.
Just run.
Run as a Republican.
What harm is it going to have?
Who knows?
Maybe start doing some canvassing and polling.
It's just such capitulation.
Not even putting up a candidate?
Now, she's the standard lefty candidate.
She wants to impeach Trump.
She wants Medicare for all, and she says ICE is, quote, an existential threat to immigrant communities.
Isn't that interesting?
And to me, it's interesting that blacks, these elite, running for Congress type blacks, are so much in solidarity with illegal immigrants.
Well, look what Kamala Harris said today in a Senate hearing.
She compared ICE to the KKK.
She compared ICE to the KKK.
And I've seen a lot of Conservative Inc.
reporters, they've stated, hey, 51% of ICE is Hispanic.
Why are you going to say something like this?
Well, my question is, why are we so happy that 51% of ICE is Hispanic?
I don't understand why people point that out as an escape.
It's like, ICE is doing a really good job.
Who cares who is, who mans, or female, male.
ICE should be allowed to do its job.
When you actually have Democrats who are calling not just for the Abolishment of this great organization, but also the Klan.
I mean, come on.
We are in for a very interesting 2019, Mr. Taylor.
Very interesting.
I don't doubt it.
Let's finish up with everyone's favorite Alexandria Cortez.
At 29, she would be the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress.
She, of course, defeated Democrat caucus chair Joe Crowley, who had spent 20 years in Congress in a very publicized primary.
This was that first moment, that shot across the bow, if you will, where the old guard, the old white male guard, was being drowned out by the calls of its time for minority representation.
She's of Puerto Rican descent.
She spent just under $200,000.
To Crowley's $3.4 million war chest.
Yes.
And if memory serves, the election was even close.
No, no.
She trounced him.
Trounced him.
This was the upset of perhaps the decade.
Nobody expected it.
She came right out of nowhere.
Killed him.
Of course, this is one of those districts that is minority white.
Correct.
And one of her campaign slogans was, it's our time.
It's our turn!
And as this profile makes clear, it highlights the main policy points, positions that she has.
Medicare for all, she's obviously for gun control, job guarantee for everyone, forgive all student loans, abolish ICE, and impeach Trump.
So basically bankrupt the country and continue to accelerate the anti-white mindset that seems to be captivating so many people of color and regrettably a If we're to look at these House numbers where 55% of 18-29 year old whites voted for Democrats, unfortunately still a large number of white millennials are fine with this anti-white mindset that is becoming the backbone, the foundation of the Democrat Party.
Not only the anti-white mindset, but an explicitly socialist mindset.
Guaranteed jobs for all.
Good grief.
That's the old Soviet Union.
That's communist China.
This is absolute insanity.
I don't know what our stance on the minimum wage is.
Maybe $25 an hour?
Why not?
Why stop at 25?
Yes, 50.
Why not?
Yes.
After she's impeached Trump, she can get that passed.
Mike Pence probably will not talk about him.
Then the other aspect that the lefties are all crowing over is the number of women in Congress.
There are 128 serving in Congress.
That's up from 85.
That's substantial.
Along with 23 women senators.
So this means that 23% of the House and Senate together will be women.
This is some kind of record.
Now, speaking of women, I must not leave out the new Senator-elect from Arizona, Kristen Sinema, if I'm pronouncing her name properly, the first openly bisexual person to serve in Washington.
Progress.
Yes, progress.
All of these doors are being smashed down one after another, and we're all to celebrate.
But of course in Congress, the people who care about these things are grousing loudly about the fact that of these 128 women, 105 are Democrat and only 19 are Republican.
You've seen a lot of publications, ABC News most notably, where I actually found this data of the House vote that we just broke down.
Where they actually talk about how America, how the Republicans are, yeah, they're relying on white voters, but that America's dying.
This people of color coalition is ascending.
It's inexorable.
It's inevitable.
And, you know, you look at the roster of congressmen and women that are coming in for the Democrats, and these publications crow, this is what America looks like.
But you know, it's interesting to me.
I don't think of blacks and Hispanics as being overwhelmingly pro-feminist.
This is going to be, I think, an interesting mix.
You're, in effect, asking blacks and Hispanics to vote for women.
And I'm not sure that black men and Hispanic men are all that eager about being under governmental order, taking governmental orders from women.
So I see a built-in contradiction there.
Now, at the same time, there is the black attitude towards homosexuality.
All of these people, once they get elected, they've got to be absolutely pro-LGBTQ, But there are blacks who are not keen on that.
So there are built-in tensions that entirely aside from the obvious built-in tension of blacks and Hispanics jockeying constantly for position.
So we will see which way this goes.
Now on the issue of gun control there was an interesting development.
Given the fact that Democrats flipped 15 House Republican seats that had an A rating from the National Rifle Association, and every one of the 15 Democrats who came in got an F rating, And so there are people who are feeling their oats and saying, you know, we're finally going to get firearms under control.
And about 13% of Democrats and 8% of all voters said that gun control was the most important electoral issue for them.
You know, earlier this year, I pinned a piece for your fantastic publication about gun control and race, where it noted that, What was it?
85% plus of gun owners are white in the country.
The NRA must start to understand that the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment, it's largely white people that even care about preserving these, especially the Second Amendment.
And as we talked about last week, the district that the black woman who was part of the Mother's March, her name escapes me at the moment.
She beat Handel, the Republican candidate, by a few percentage points.
Macbeth.
I'm working on a piece on her for actually Peter's site right now.
It's just a Peter Brimlow site.
It's It's so obvious that the Second Amendment is tied.
There's such a correlation with race.
And yet, the NRA will do everything possible to find that based black guy who they'll position and say, this is who's going to finally win over the urban vote.
We promise.
All those white gun owners, all those white hunters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, this guy is going to preserve your rights to bear arms.
We promise.
And we're going to pump all this money.
And then, like you just said, 15 House Republicans with an A rating from the NRA.
They all lost to people with an F rating.
You know why that is?
Demographic change.
That's the only reason.
Yep, yep.
And I would bet you any amount of money that all 15 were white.
These ones who lost.
Oh, of course.
No question about it.
Now, there was a rather gloomy analysis about things to come.
One of the ideas as to why the white vote for the Republicans declined was that, as opposed to 2016, Hillary was not at the top of the ticket.
I don't know whether that's true or not.
It probably had something to do with it.
Hillary Clinton's been around a long time.
There are a lot of people who just can't stand her.
Just can't stand the sight of her face, the sound of her voice.
So that certainly could have been part of it.
She was the worst candidate in history.
She was the worst major candidate in history for presidency.
The worst.
But I will say this.
In all of history?
Absolutely.
Any other candidate would have beaten Donald Trump.
I can confidently say that, but I will say this.
One of the reasons why I believe the Republicans didn't fare that well is because to your average ordinary American, regardless of what state you're in, what has Trump done?
What have the Republicans done in the past two years that's actually benefited their lives?
Nothing tangible.
There's no wall.
There's no deportations.
Well, he kept talking about the economy, and presumably people are living well, or better than they had in 2008 when we were in the trough.
All the people that I ever heard interviewed, and, you know, all these things are selective anyway, you don't know how representative they are, they kept saying that, you know, maybe the economy's doing fine, but I'm not.
So who knows?
That is something that ordinarily people would have floated back into office on, if people really had a visceral sense of doing better economically.
But something else that people have pointed out, and I don't know just how far this is going to go, the idea that now that Congress has a Democratic majority, they're going to launch all these investigations into Donald Trump, And make him squirm, get his tax returns and all of that.
And in effect, promising to just completely tie him up.
Make it impossible for him to move a muscle because he is so busy answering these subpoenas and having his close associates have to appear and testify before Congress.
Who knows?
I think that could backfire on the Republicans.
Or the Democrats.
I beg your pardon, yes.
On the Democrats.
Oh, I completely agree with that.
I actually think we're gonna see I think we're going to see so much squabbling and internecine battles start to arise between these Coalition of the French and the Democrats.
We're already starting to see that with who's going to actually get the gavel.
And I think that is a, you know, again, we do live in, unfortunately, the post-white America
where we are, again, that's the whole purpose American Renaissance.
The trends, everything that writers and polemicists for the past 30 years of AR's existence have been saying was going to happen, it's happening right now.
There's no running from it.
One of the trends that was noticed is that in southern states, because
of the rise of the Hispanic population, most notably Georgia, which is going
to be a battleground state in 2020, like North Carolina, like Florida, and like the aforementioned Texas.
There's not one trend.
What was that amazing quote?
There's not one demographic trend in America that benefits Republicans.
That was the analysis.
I don't remember where this particular data comes from.
Well, this is something many people have pointed out, and it's not just racial.
It's in terms of the number of people with a college education, for example.
It's the number of the increasing voter participation of women.
And another one that most people don't think about is married women tend to vote Republican more than single women.
And to the extent that there is less marriage going on, that too reduces the Republican vote.
Younger people are voting Democrat.
They will get older, but the lopsided vote for Democrats among young people is now greater than it was.
So nothing is looking particularly up for the Republican Party in terms of demographic trends.
Well, the Republicans just spent two years trying to implement a Koch Brothers approved agenda, the Paul Ryan agenda.
And there was a great story that came out today about the tax cuts and how inflation is basically going to eat away at those tax cuts in the next year.
Passing this bill did absolutely nothing in the long term.
Well, at the same time, if it doesn't stimulate the economy the way the economists hoped it would, we could be seeing a trillion dollar deficit just for one year.
Correct.
Trillion dollars!
And if things go bad in the economy over the next couple of years, then it's going to be a very, very tough slog for Donald Trump to be re-elected.
And what is Donald Trump talking about right now?
Just last night he had a press conference where He was talking about bipartisan criminal justice reform.
There's an issue that's going to win over suburban white women.
Boy, boy, wow.
Yes, that's high on his agenda.
Well, we went on rather longer than I expected on the subject of the midterms.
I don't usually have that much interest in political questions, but the significance in terms of the demographic trend is one that I think we have to point out.
One thing that I did want to talk about was the recently related hate crimes report by the FBI.
Congress said they've got to do that every year.
And they said that hate crimes have increased by 17%.
Everybody's howling about this.
They said that there have been more than 7,100 hate crimes.
Nearly three out of five were motivated by race and ethnicity.
Now, every single report on this I've seen has just been shocked and hand-wringing over the 17%.
They blame it on Donald Trump, of course.
The NAACP says the acceptance of intolerance that has been condoned by President Trump and many others across the country has simply emboldened individuals to be more open and notorious with their racial hatred.
That's how he explains the 17%.
I love the way people read minds.
They seem to assume that this is the reason.
Down in the fine print.
Let us not fail to mention that reporting hate crimes to the FBI is voluntary.
There are police agencies that don't do it.
There are several thousand that don't do it.
And last year, roughly a thousand more agencies submitted data than did the previous year.
Now, might that contribute something to this increase of 17%?
There are big places like, I think, Miami.
They provide information, but they don't report a single hate crime.
They're not looking for them.
They don't care.
Same thing for Las Vegas, another major city that reported zero hate crimes.
Yeah, yeah.
But it's the data.
across the board, the Associated Press, you know, your ThinkProgress,
Yep.
all these leftist sites that are basically stenographers for the Antifa, best way to put it.
They are running wild with headlines about, this is Trump's America, this is the new normal.
Well, what exactly is the race of the offenders?
This is something that's left out of all the stories.
It's just, oh, hate crimes are up.
Obviously, it's white males that are committing these.
Right-wing terrorists.
Yes, well, all you need to do is look into the data a little bit, and you will find that.
And this is the kind of analysis that only American Renaissance does, so far as I know.
Maybe Steve Saylor, if he's listening to our podcast, he'll start doing this.
But of the 6,370 known offenders, 50.7% were white and 21.3% were black.
Now, the white includes Hispanic offenders.
And so if you look into the hate crimes, you'll find a number of white on white hate crimes.
And you might be scratching your heads over this, but my guess is these are probably hate crimes committed by Hispanics against whites, or maybe by whites against... No, if they're against Hispanics, Hispanics are a victim class.
Correct.
So that's separated out.
That's separate.
So we know about them.
So if there's a white-on-white hate crime, chances are it is a Hispanic who is considered racially white committing a hate crime against a white person.
Correct.
So the 57.7% that is white includes Hispanics.
But even if you take that number at face value, what this means is that blacks are on a per capita basis twice as likely as whites to be offenders.
Now, Nobody.
Nobody talks about this.
Nobody.
It would be terrifying, I suppose, to even suggest that they might.
And it's always been my view that if hate crimes... I mean, why are hate crimes so horrible?
They're so horrible apparently because somebody's been targeted because of race, and this is very upsetting, and it's another way to pretend that white people are wicked.
But if you're going to tack extra penalties onto a crime that tears at the fabric of society, which is what they always say, it seems to me you could start tacking extra penalties on any crime of violence that was interracial.
I mean, does it really make a difference if somebody's surrounded by five Mexicans and they beat up a black guy, whether they say the n-word while they're doing it, Does it really make a difference?
But of course, if you did tack extra penalties on to interracial crime offenders, the people who would get the most penalties are black.
Here's a question for you.
Of these hate crimes that were reported, these 7,100 hate crimes, a 17% increase, do we know if this includes data of those hate crimes that were then rescinded?
You know, I don't know.
Once upon an investigation.
I just don't know.
And it would make sense only to include hate crimes that have resulted in a conviction.
Correct.
Those would be the only ones that make sense.
Because often, if you're looking at some, a lot of these cases are anonymous graffiti.
We don't even know who did that.
We don't know.
They could be phonies.
I don't think that this is limited to conviction.
So that's another reason to really conclude that the data in something like this is just pure hot air.
Pure hot air.
But, everybody from the New York Times, on down, takes this all very seriously and they're blaming Donald Trump for this probably spurious 17% increase.
Now, something I did want to talk about briefly was an article in The New Yorker.
Once again, my favorite magazine, The New Yorker.
The article is called, The Country is Hopelessly Split, So Why Not Make It Official and Break Up?
I thought this was extraordinary.
Then one of the key lines from it is, let's just admit that this arranged marriage isn't really working anymore, is it?
That's certainly the way I believe.
I believe.
Yes.
I never would have thought that.
Reconcilable differences.
I think it's quite obvious.
Yeah.
But they quoted Reagan from his 1981 inaugural address saying, All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states.
The states created the federal government.
And, of course, at that time, libs, like the New Yorker, they thought, oh, this is an excuse to implement reaction.
All those evil, old, outdated, bad white man policies are going to revive under states' rights.
They point out that it is now the so-called progressives that are going in this direction because it's at the state level that you have almost their own citizenship policies with a dozen that allow illegals to get driver's license and nearly twice as many, at least 20, that allow them to qualify for interstate tuition.
And of course seven states, most notably Oregon, which actually had On the ballot this past election, should we get rid of our sanctuary state designation?
That, regrettably, was voted down.
It's staying as state policy.
So Oregon, along with six other United States states, have adopted sanctuary policies.
And if you visit these places, I mean, Oregon, gosh, Oregon is a state that, what, in the 19th century had a policy in their state constitution that would not allow blacks to be citizens?
That's right, that's right.
When the Constitution was adopted, they voted on two things, whether to make it a slave state, and that was defeated, but they defeated at an even larger margin the idea of letting blacks of any kind, free or slave, into the state.
But, anyway, yes, those days are long gone.
But, yeah, states are really going their own way.
And in this case, in this article, from The New Yorker's point of view, it's because they see this as salvation.
Now liberals see federalism as their last, best hope for a just society.
In other words, states' rights is now becoming a liberal mantra.
And of course, they like the fact that California sued the federal government to block construction on the wall with the Mexican border.
And I like this too.
I think this is great.
Since 2015, California activists have been circulating petitions to put a ballot initiative that would require a binding referendum in 2021 on whether to make California a free, sovereign, and independent country.
They call this CALEXIT.
You know, I have mixed reservations as an American.
You don't want to see this, but it's obviously inevitable, and more and more people are talking about it.
I mean, I've told you about that book that Redmeri came out with, I think it's called Erasing America, and there's a weird chapter.
There's a very weird chapter in the middle of the book about how, is Civil War inevitable?
And this is a book that's just about statues being taken down, and all of a sudden, It starts breaking down how a civil war is about to break out.
And as you noted off mic last week when you said, ah, it's not going to happen.
I won't say why you said it, but the point is you're having a lot more people in positions of influence and power having these type of conversations now.
Well, see, I would be all in favor of Collexit.
I think that it sets a remarkable precedent for states going their own way.
And this New Yorker article, it actually talks about states forming associations and having their own single-payer insurance programs, or having their own united across-the-board minimum wage, or tax treatments, or uniform state income taxes.
And you could ultimately, ultimately look like we're ending up with some kind of genuine independence.
And one of the points they make is that, well they say, I thought this was a good line, if we are already living in two political geographies, talking about conservatives and liberals, why not generate a system of government to match it?
Now, I think two's not enough, probably, but we're talking about a different kind of separation.
And as they point out also, recent votes in Scotland and Quebec have modeled the way that secession in a developed country during years of peace can become just another political question.
And the point that they're making in this article is that it need not be violent.
Yes.
We can go our separate ways.
And I think that's exactly what's going to happen.
Well, I hope that's what's going to happen.
And more and more I can see it as a possibility.
Well, we're running out of time, so I think one thing I would like to talk about And this is a woman, the black student at Howard, who goes by the name of Quran.
Aptly named.
Yeah, spelled Q-U-R-A-N.
Now, we don't know if that's even her real name.
But you were talking earlier about this idea that Republicans are always hoping for the black hope.
The NRA is hoping that some gun-toting black person is going to be the symbol for the Second Amendment.
Well, this is a very interesting story about the psychology of Republicans and how easily they are tricked.
But this woman, she took a photograph of herself with a Make America Great hat on and claimed that she was a Trump supporter, she was finally out of the closet, but that her parents were making life miserable for her.
They just couldn't believe it.
In one of her tweets, she did this all on my Twitter, she says, my mother literally woke me out of my sleep
and screamed at me, how could you support this monster?
Because she's a Trump supporter.
She doesn't even know him.
How can he be a monster?
I just wish they understood.
And what happens next is really, this is gonna be one of those case studies
that years from now, historians will point to and say this was the mindset that allowed
your country to be given away.
Yes.
So what happens next?
Her parents disown her.
They kick her out of the house and they refuse to pay her college tuition.
That's what she claims.
Yes.
So what does Quran do?
To make ends meet, she sets up a GoFundMe account asking for financial support from her newfound white Republican family.
That's right.
They wish she got all of the support.
Oh, you go girl!
You're wonderful!
But then, only three hours after having claimed to have been disowned by her family, she launched a new tweet.
She says, Trump is a racist, homophobic, transphobic bigot and you think my black ass would support that rotting carrot?
Ridiculous!
Any black person can put on that ugly ass hat and say MAGA and y'all will instantly be up to their ass cause you want to prove so hard you're not racist.
She's actually right.
She's absolutely right.
A few minutes later she would tweet, quote, stealing from Republicans isn't bad because Republicans aren't PPL people.
That's right.
End quote.
Yes, yes.
But she's absolutely right.
All of these Republicans, they want to prove how virtuous they are, that they want to wrap their arms around this poor black woman.
Who is being persecuted for being a Trump supporter.
And there were rumors that with her GoFundMe account she raised more than $150,000.
Now we don't know for sure because there were reporters who contacted her about this.
She was cagey about just how much there was.
She said it wasn't that much and she claims that she refunded everything that she had gotten.
And GoFundMe's terms of service say that fraudulent fundraisers are against the rules.
But she said this.
A lot of Republicans have this idea that everyone thinks Republicans are mostly racist and they're really desperate to get that stigma off of them.
I just felt like capitalizing on that.
God, she understands white people better than white people understand white people.
She has a brilliant career in politics ahead of her.
She needs to actually become a Republican consultant and she'll be making six figures quite quickly.
I would like to point out some of the DMs, that's direct messages that she actually received that were published.
I can't believe you finessed Republicans.
A true hero.
Sis, I stan you so much.
You're a genius.
LMFAO.
That's an acronym for laughing my fucking ass off.
LMFAO.
Get that bread, boo.
Keep scamming till the day you die.
End quote.
Well, of course that is a...
That's right.
for Republican consultants who continue to tell these white candidates, you've
got to go after the minority vote.
They are going to only continue scamming until the day you die,
and the Bill of Rights is retired.
That's right.
And to me, it's so interesting that she had so little difficulty understanding
the Republican mentality.
She figured it out.
Now, and she realizes just how far white people go.
They're prepared to give her money.
They're prepared to pat her on the back.
They're prepared to fall in love with her to prove that they're not racist.
Now, this is a symbol for American society in general.
All whites, all whites, except for a few intelligent, enlightened ones, act and think exactly this way.
They will do anything to prove that they are not racist.
They'll suppress the truth.
They'll vote for candidates not in their interests.
They will promote ideas that are absolutely without any kind of basis in fact or science, just to prove that they are not racist.
But you have to admire her.
She came right out and said, I tricked these poor Republicans, who are really not people.
It's that old Peanuts analogy.
Lucy with the football.
Hey, Charlie.
Charlie Brown, come kick it.
This time you're going to kick the football.
And you know what?
She's just laughing as she pulls the football and watches Whitey go tumbling to the ground.
And the Republicans and the National Rifle Association keep falling for it every time.
So, I think we've got a little bit more time.
Let's just touch briefly on, you know that citizenship question that the census was going to include?
Well, the latest judicial decision by U.S.
District Judge George Hazel In other words, you'd have to say whether or not you're a citizen.
question on the census. In other words, you'd have to say whether or not you're
a citizen. This was motivated in part by Donald Trump's racial prejudice. This
judge quotes the, well I don't like to quote him this way, We'll call him those people from those outhouse countries.
And he quoted Donald Trump as talking about making degrading comparisons of immigrants to animals who infest the country.
And the judge wrote, while these statements were not made specifically in relationship to the citizenship question, they are nonetheless relevant to understanding the administration's motivations.
Boy, oh boy.
The citizen question simply asks, are you a citizen or aren't you a citizen?
But people seem to think that this is going to scare away legal residents.
I mean, if you're not a citizen, just say you aren't a citizen.
How terrifying is that?
And what's racial about it?
But this is, in a judge's mind, because Donald Trump is officially a racist, as all right-thinking people know, this means that this motive was a racial one and that is banned by law.
You know, it's funny.
I can see in 2030 if Cory Booker or Kamala Harris or a Gosh, even in Alexandria Cortez, when she's eligible to run for office in six years, if they're elected president and, say, in 2030, there's a question on the census, hey, are you a white male?
And you say yes or no.
You say, yeah, I am.
You then, of course, lose your right to vote.
I think they'll just have a supplemental tax on us.
Okay.
Supplemental tax.
I don't think we're going to lose our right to vote.
Maybe give it another 50 years.
50 years?
Yes.
Then we'll try that.
But, yes.
But still, there are reasons for optimism.
One of these days we ought to have a program on reasons for optimism.
There are a lot of reasons for optimism.
Yes.
Many reasons for optimism.
I think one of the reasons that we should be optimistic is listeners like you.
Those people at home right now, maybe you're in your car, you're commuting to work, you're driving home, maybe you're sitting around.
I got an amazing Facebook message from someone who says, my wife and I listen to your guys podcast every week.
We both love doing that.
So we do encourage you to share these podcasts with your friends.
You can do it on social media.
Hopefully you won't get kicked off social media for sharing it.
But hey, for Jared Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Our podcast time is up.
▲
Export Selection