All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 17, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
58:06
Yet Another ‘Racist’ Unmasked!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to today's edition of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and with me is, of course, Paul Kersey, without whom we could not stagger through one of these broadcasts.
Thanks for being here with us today, Mr. Kersey.
I think with the upcoming holiday, we should wish everyone a happy Robert E. Lee Day, correct?
That's this upcoming Monday or in a few days.
That's the one I'll be celebrating.
Yes, sir.
Did you know that January 21st is Stonewall Jackson's birthday?
It is also my youngest daughter's birthday.
So it's a very significant day in my book.
Three great people will be celebrating a birthday or the commemoration of their memory.
That's right.
Now we can start the podcast off with some excellent news.
We have had a legal victory in our litigation in Tennessee and District Judge Alita Trauger has ordered the Montgomery Bell State Park, which has been dragging its feet, writing a contract for us that does not have unconstitutional burdensome security charges on it.
The judge has ordered them to produce this by tomorrow.
And so it is virtually assured that we will be holding our conference as planned.
I will not yet announce the date, but I think we are very, very close to being absolutely confident that we're going to be back in Tennessee in May of this year.
So this is a wonderful development.
In fact, I thought I'd read the order.
She says, it is hereby ordered That the defendant shall respond to the plaintiff's time-sensitive motion for order to compel defendant's compliance with preliminary injunction by January 18, 2019.
It is so ordered.
This was something she ordered today.
She gave them till tomorrow.
We had requested, we had suggested she give them a couple of days.
She says, no, these people are not doing what I told them to do.
Do it by tomorrow.
So, excellent news.
Now, the next story that I want to talk about is a bit of a footnote to the James Watson fracas.
I believe all of our listeners are aware of the disgraceful treatment that was given to James Watson.
He had had a spasm of truth-telling in the midst of a PBS documentary that was done on his life, and he concluded that his views had not changed.
from several years ago in which he expressed the view, a perfectly legitimate one, that there are genetic components to the average IQ difference between blacks and whites.
This of course made him a non-person but then the fact that he has failed to rehabilitate himself meant that he once more was covered with shame and obloquy and Cold Spring Harbor Finally cut off all ties with him, removed his three honorary titles.
They said we're washing our hands of this wicked man and I in fact made a video about this because I think his treatment is so wretched and I am pleased to announce that if you go to YouTube And search James Watson.
That's all you need to do is look James Watson, YouTube.
And what happens, Mr. Kersey?
Well, if you go to youtube.com right now, type in James Watson, the number one video that is returned.
It's not the PBS special.
That's number five.
The number one story is, the number one video that you get is the disgraceful shaming of James Watson.
Currently, 39,000 people have watched your video that you put up one day ago, Mr. Taylor.
And a couple of other videos, Sticks, Hex and Hammer 666.
He's a guy who's got a big following.
His video is entitled, James Watts is not a racist.
Ramsey Paul's video, Dr. James... Sticks and Hammer is number two.
Yep.
James Watts, Ramsey Paul number three.
Yep.
And then number four, Stefan Molyneux.
So, all you have to do is type in James Watson.
And this, of course, the algorithm that we know, I'm sure a lot of our listeners saw the story that was reported by, I think Breitbart broke it, about how Google, their CEO, went to Congress and said, yeah, you know, we don't have anyone manually go in and mess with the search algorithms.
Well, it turns out that that was an absolute lie.
They do it all the time.
And so, we see now, with this James Watson video, for the time being, it hasn't happened.
I'm sure if we check tomorrow at the same time, I'm not sure what's going to show up.
After we've bragged about it, you know, no telling.
But for now, the algorithm is working perfectly.
And the most insightful and popular and highly commented videos are floating to the top as they should.
This is something of a footnote to the James Watson story, and I will stop bragging and point out that the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, the fellow who worked with James Watson on this momentous discovery, Francis Crick, it turns out that he too was a race realist.
A race realist of a most outspoken, thoughtful, and staunch kind.
So what you're saying is two of the men who had probably the most, one of the more important discoveries of the 20th century that, again, we still are seeing that tidal wave of discovery felt daily with improvements in life and longevity of every human individual.
You're saying that they were both race realists?
They were both race realists.
In 1971, Francis Crick wrote a letter to a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is really the most prestigious association of sciences in the entire United States.
And I quote from this 1971 letter.
I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average IQ of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in environment.
Moreover, I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious, unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.
Time has only proven the prophecy of those statements.
Yes, yes, he was entirely right about this.
Also, he talked about eugenics.
He went on to say, quote, the Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it's time something was done to make it respectable again.
So this is a couple years after the famous essay by Arthur Jensen, correct?
That was published, I don't remember the publication.
It was Harvard Business, Harvard Educational Review.
Correct.
And it was in 1969.
That's right.
So obviously he read Jensen's findings.
Yes, he wrote specifically about Jensen's findings.
As it turns out, all of his papers are available online.
You can go hunt them down.
And as a matter of fact, Steve Saylor has done a pretty good search through them, and he's got a whole compendium of these remarkable papers.
But he specifically supported not only Arthur Jensen, but William Shockley, yet another Nobel laureate who spoke the truth about these things.
A man, by the way, his book Shockley on eugenics and race is very much worth reading.
Would you say that he's the father of Silicon Valley?
He certainly is.
The inventor of the transistor.
Gee, we'd be nowhere without him.
Now, Francis Crick also criticized the opponents of Jensen, and he said they had made, quote, unsupported statements of opinion instead of having scientific arguments.
In fact, Crick, he threatened to resign as a foreign associate from the National Academy of Sciences, which he was, being a Brit.
He wasn't an American member.
He was a foreign associate.
If, and I quote again, the Academy were to take active steps to suppress reputable scientific research for political reasons.
Now there's an idea for you, isn't it?
Who would have thunk of such a thing?
In any case, I think it is highly significant that it turns out that Watson's co-discoverer, Francis Crick, was absolutely one and the same in his views on this question as James Watson.
Now, I am sure that after having peed on James Watson from a very great height, as the Times and the Post and all of the respective journalists have done, they will remain completely silent on this fact.
I mean, again, it is...
A guy who had had a debilitating car accident.
I believe what?
James Watson.
James Watson.
Back in October.
Yeah.
So he's unable to even speak.
Like you said, peed from a higher ground.
Now they're just kicking dirt on him.
They're kicking dirt in his eye.
This is one of the more disgusting... And we're going to juxtapose it with a story with Steve King here in a few minutes.
And I think it's fascinating that one of the foremost living scientists has been depersoned At the same time that the concept of defending Western civilization has basically been declared anathema by the U.S.
Congress.
Yes, yes.
No, it's quite astonishing.
But in the meantime, I would like to propose something of an update on the Kate Steinle tragedy.
Those of you who are in the listening audience who have been paying attention, and I'm sure all of you have been, in July of 2015, Kate Steinle was shot to death by an illegal immigrant by the name of Jose Inez Garcia Zarate.
Now, many people were shocked when Zarate was led off with nothing more than a weapons charge.
But the fact is, an expert testified at his trial that this was an unintentional ricochet.
And Zarate makes, what is to me, a very strange claim.
He says he picked up this bundle of rags that was under the bench or the chair that he was sitting on, he was fooling around with it, didn't realize it was a gun, and all of a sudden it made a big bang, and then he threw it in the ocean so it wouldn't make any more big bangs.
And the gun we're talking about was a 40 caliber SIG Sauer P239.
Now you and I are both familiar with this weapon, so this really doesn't make that much sense.
It makes no sense at all, unless it was somehow defective or somehow modified.
It is a double action, single action weapon.
If it were on single action, I cannot imagine anybody leaving it with a round chambered and cocked.
But even so, there is a trigger guard.
You have to... I mean, any fool, it seems to me, even if it's wrapped in a t-shirt, wrapped in rags, would have some sense that he's dealing with a gun here.
You've got to put your finger into the trigger guard, pull the trigger for it to happen.
So this has always been very, very suspicious to me right at the beginning.
But apparently that's his story and he's sticking with it.
The significance of this and you know at the time the jury verdict was innocent on this charge of involuntary manslaughter whatever it was everybody was upset but I can sort of believe it maybe you know he didn't intend to do it he didn't realize it was a gun it was all a big mistake maybe so what's significant now is that he is claiming that he should be his charge of illegal weapons a possession of a weapon should be overturned because apparently There is a principle whereby if you are in possession for only a momentary or transitory period of an illegal weapon, and the reason you have it is for the purpose of disposing of the firearm, then you're not guilty.
Here's the question.
What we were told, he picked up this bundle of clothes and the gun happened to be in it.
He was never picking up a gun.
Uh, for the purpose of disposing of the firearm, because he didn't know it was there.
So how can you make that argument?
Well, because he didn't even know it was a gun, and then he threw it away as soon as it went off.
I mean, look, I do not find this a completely implausible argument.
And apparently, Judge Samuel Feng, at the time of the trial, failed to give jury instructions on this theory of momentary possession.
In any case, he's trying to get off the hook.
Now, this is interesting for a number of reasons.
One is that he, when he was found not guilty of manslaughter, then the jury, he was sentenced to time already served.
So he walked free, except the feds decided that they were going to try him.
Now, as it turns out, of course, this is a guy who'd been deported, what, five times already?
Yes.
He was one of the first sick to deport hearing.
Exactly, exactly.
And the feds wanted him, but because of California sanctuary laws, they could not get their hands on him.
And it was just a few days later, they picked up this gun, and Kate Steinle is dead.
Kate Steinle is definitely another victim of California sanctuary laws.
But what's happened now is the feds have picked him up and they want to charge him again on a federal charge of illegal gun possession.
And so he's been in federal custody ever since.
He is a guest of the federal government.
You and I are paying for his room and board and I'm sure nice nutritious meals.
Now, the case has been on hold pending the outcome of a U.S.
Supreme Court case challenging the federal prosecutor's authority to duplicate state court charges in federal court.
In other words, he's already been found guilty of illegal possession.
And that question has been examined, and the judge has reached an answer, or the jury has reached an answer, and the question is whether or not the feds have the right to pick him up and try him again.
What's so fascinating is why this guy was even allowed to be in San Francisco.
If I may indulge you real quick, he had just been released from jail at the time of the shooting after prosecutors decided to drop a 20-year-old marijuana possessions charge.
He had been transferred to San Francisco's jail after serving nearly four years.
Four years in federal prison for illegal re-entry to the United States.
Remember, that's the fifth time, and yet another procedure coming for the sixth re-entry.
So it's it's it's again this whole we're talking about something that's so convoluted to think that this is a reason why this guy is allowed to be freaking.
He's illegal.
All of this is due to essentially two things.
Our Lack of a wall, or lack of ways to keep him out, and this utterly insane suicidal sanctuary law that the state has.
Now, when we get back to this issue of whether or not the feds have the right to retry this guy on the same grounds, I'm generally very skeptical of that.
Yeah.
I do not want this guy walking free.
Although, so long as we can get him out of the country and he never comes back, he can walk free for all as I care.
We'd be back.
He'd be back.
I don't know.
I think we got all points alert for this guy, but send him back to Mexico.
So long as he stays there, I don't care what he does.
I don't care if he goes to prison or not.
But again, another person dead because of insanity.
Now, there's another court decision to talk about here.
And this is a little bit complicated.
This is the issue of whether or not Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ...properly added to the 2020 census questionnaire a question as to whether or not the person answering the census and the people in that household are U.S.
citizens.
Now, up until 1950, it was not uncommon to have that as a Census Bureau questionnaire.
But since that time, the whole citizenship question has been asked of a subset.
It's a smaller subset, and then you extrapolate as to how many citizens there are.
Well, now what Secretary Ross is saying is that this is important for us to know to actually enforce voting rights.
We have to know how many citizens there are.
We have to know how many because that will give us some notion of whether or not citizens are voting in proportion to their presence in the population.
But the other side, of course, is saying that this is an act of direct intimidation against non-citizens, most of whom are non-white, and its attempt to scare them away so that they do not answer the census questions and they'll be undercounted.
And if they are undercounted, then the immigrant-heavy parts of the United States will not have as much congressional representation as they otherwise would, because representation is based not on the number of citizens, but on the number of people.
Also, it's on the basis of census figures that the United States ladles out all of this dough, all of this lolly, to the local entities.
So, they say this is ban, ban, ban, and it's all very prejudiced.
And apparently, there are about half a dozen lawsuits about this.
That's a lot.
It's extraordinary.
Immense pressure from a lot of the leftist-leaning non-profits, and as you can see, it led to this decision.
That's right.
We have a weird ruling by Judge Jesse Furman.
He's a federal judge.
And he has concluded that Wilbur Ross has the constitutional authority to add this question.
Nobody doubts that.
But the way he did it was wrong.
The method was unlawful because of, quote, a veritable smuggler's board of classic and clear-cut violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.
They say Wilbur Ross cherry-picked evidence to support his view and also ignored evidence that this might decrease the participation and that it would add to the costs.
The judge, Judge Jesse Furman, realized that this is going to go to the Supreme Court, and he anticipates the possibility that the Supreme Court will say, you know, it's okay, he did fine.
And he also pointed out that as far as getting to the bottom of whether or not he deliberately attempted to discriminate against non-whites or non-citizens, there's no evidence.
There's not enough, you know, we don't know.
He says, look, you'd have to sit him down, put him under oath, and ask him why he did it.
That's the only way that you could get to the bottom of this.
Now, the plaintiffs, you know, the people who bought this said that it was all an act of ferocious discrimination against immigrants and communities of color.
It's all bad, bad, bad.
And so the question cannot be added.
I must confess that I have not read even a single page of Judge Jesse Furman's 277 page opinion.
I wonder how many citations are in this opinion.
Geez.
Wow, this guy really got going.
But the reason I bring this up is that despite the judge's clear statement that there is the plaintiffs, the people who brought suit to have this question not added, did not provide evidence to prove their claim that the Rawson's decision was intended to discriminate against non-white immigrants.
The judge said you'd have to get testimony from that.
And there's still some sort of legal dickering as to whether or not they're going to put him under oath and find out.
So, all of this is relatively complicated, but the reason I bring it up is to point out that immediately after this decision came out, the New York Times, They're a newspaper of record.
Published an op-ed by a fellow named David Leonhardt titled, believe it or not, White Nationalism Lost in Federal Court Yesterday.
Wow!
This came out just yesterday, as a matter of fact.
And this guy, David Leonhardt, wrote, and I quote from him, Ross claimed laughably that the citizenship... I'll start again.
Ross claimed laughably that the citizenship question would help the Trump administration enforce voting rights.
In truth, it was designed to intimidate Latinos, both legal and illegal, into not responding to the sentence.
The resulting undercount would then reduce the political representation of immigrant-heavy regions and cause them to receive less federal funding.
The judge said, we don't have proof of that at all.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Not only did he say that, we would have to put, like you said, Mr. Ross under oath and ask the questions.
But, you know, you would think that the New York Times would have a little bit of caution in expressing this kind of thing, but this guy just trots it out as if it is an established fact.
Then he goes on to say, it is once again an example of, and I'm quoting Mr. Leonhard again, the use of the census to make Republican victories just that much more likely.
He's talking about gerrymandering, he's talking about voter suppression.
You know, it's just breathtaking, this mind reading of which the New York Times thinks it's capable.
Well, especially when you know that this case is going to go to the Supreme Court.
So this is an example of, to make a really quick football analogy, a defensive player intercepting a pass, running, and right before he gets to the goal line, he decides to start celebrating.
And he inadvertently drops the ball before it can cross the plane, and he continues to dance and prance and laugh and mug for the cameras, when in actuality, the ball is still in play.
Let's hope that that's what's happened here.
We don't know what the Supreme Court's going to decide, and we don't know what Wilbur Ross will say once he's put under oath.
If they even do that, though.
If he's even called to go under oath by the Supreme Court.
But for the New York Times to say white nationalism lost in federal court.
Good grief!
Maybe all Wilbur Ross cares about is making sure that citizens are counted and that non-citizens don't vote.
But everything is white nationalism.
Everything is white supremacy.
Which reminds us of yet another big story this week.
And that was poor Steve King, Republican of Iowa.
I think everyone has probably heard the story about this interview with the New York Times.
And the New York Times quoted him, once again the New York Times, obviously fair-minded, prudent people who are very careful about their facts, very careful about their quotations, as we saw with Mr. Leonhardt.
If I could preface this before we get started.
Yes.
Republicans should know better than to talk to the press about controversial issues such as this.
At this point, you have to understand that when you go into an interview, You are going to be set up, your comments are going to be taken out of context, and they're going to be promoted by...
A litany of leftist sites and the so-called journalists, and they exist for one reason, to destroy, destroy, and destroy, destroy.
Yes.
Yeah.
This was apparently a nearly hour phone call with a New York Times reporter and Stephen King didn't record it.
Apparently the reporter claims that there was no recording made either.
So he's stuck with what the New York Times quoted him as saying, and it says follows.
White nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive?
And so everybody's saying, well wait a minute, he's saying that white nationalist, white supremacist, that shouldn't be offensive.
What Stephen King explained, and I have every reason to believe him, he was complaining about the fact that the left is always accusing conservatives of things like Nazi, fascist, white supremacist, and that there should have been a period after white supremacy.
He's listing these things, and then he says, it's a new thought.
When did Western civilization, how did that, how did that term suddenly become offensive?
That's what he's saying, which is consistent with everything he's always said, but there's no recording now.
And the fact that he has said, this is what he meant, doesn't matter, despite the fact that in the New York Times interview, and the New York Times quotes him, he says, it's not about race.
It's never been about race.
It's about people assimilating to American culture.
And of course, Steve King is wrong there.
Yes, he's wrong.
He's 100% wrong.
But that's always been his position.
Exactly.
He's never strayed from that.
He's never put his... He's never dipped his toe into the idea of racialism.
He's always gone to the point where it's just defending Western civilization.
And even that now is anathema.
That's what he's saying.
As soon as you start defending Western civilization, they call you a white supremacist, they call you a Nazi, and since when is defending Western civilization a bad thing?
You know, I wasn't there, I didn't hear it, but I would bet you any amount of money that that's in fact what he said.
But, no, no, the New York Times, this just went completely nuts to the point that On January 15th, just a few days ago, the House passed a resolution that begins with a whereas clause as follows.
Whereas, on January 10th, 2019, Representative Steve King was quoted as asking white nationalists, white supremacists, white Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?
Now there's another where-ass clause that talks about how Martin Luther King said white supremacy is a horrible, bad, bad, bad thing.
But then the resolution is resolved that the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.
That is, they resolved, they made this revolution.
Resolution, I mean to say.
And the sad thing is that Steve King got on the floor of the house and he said, yeah, let's vote for this.
I agree with every word of this resolution.
He went on to say, look, I mentioned in the whereas clause, but I'm not defending white supremacy.
Let's get that straight.
I'm not doing that.
But he voted for it because, and I think, Probably.
He legitimately, sincerely doesn't like the idea of white nationalism, white supremacy.
Of course, these things are utterly undefined here.
But this was a sad, sad thing.
But to me, the message of this entire incident is that, despite the fact that I think anyone with an even partially
open mind could examine the context and say that the last thing that
Stephen King was going to do in an interview with The New York Times is defend white supremacy.
It's completely hokeyed up, an utterly, utterly false situation that's been set up to discredit him
and there was an absolutely unanimous vote for this resolution, except for one guy.
You know who voted against it?
Bobby Rush.
You're right.
Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther.
He voted against it because it did not include an outright censure of Stephen King.
Well, of course, Bobby Rush is a member of the Black Caucus.
I'm sure all the members of the Hispanic, the Latino, I'm sorry, the Asian Pacific.
How many racial caucuses are there in the House of Representatives?
I mean, this is such a... I think they're just those three.
Just those three?
Okay.
I guess there's not an LGBT one yet.
I'm sure that's about four years down the road.
But here's the point.
Look, whiteness was once what defined The people of the United States.
We know that.
March 26, 1790, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which set aside what citizenship meant.
I guarantee you that Steve King has never even thought about that or what that means.
No, no.
But at this point, anti-racism and anti-whiteness are what define the United States.
And that is something we have to understand.
And that is something that moving forward, if you are someone who is even broaching these ideas in Congress, like a Steve King, hey, don't talk to the press.
Just say no thank you.
It's not that hard.
The New York Times has their audience.
They're not going to magically say, my God, this guy from Iowa, I think he's right about building a wall.
I think he's right about Western civilization.
Don't talk to the enemy.
At the very least, record every word.
And he did confess that he was guilty of a freshman error or something when he was talking on the floor.
He said, I failed to record this.
Well, in looking at the journalistic principles of the New York Times, I was under the impression that if you were You're doing an interview that you are supposed to record it.
No, you don't have to do that.
There's no obligation.
I mean, people have been pushing pencils for years.
And often, when I'm talking to a reporter on the phone, I can hear them clattering away on a keyboard.
They're not recording things.
Now, often they will say, do you mind if I record?
And often I tell them, I insist that you record.
No, and that's a lesson.
Record everything when you're talking.
I'll tell you something else.
I will often, I mean, even if I don't have the apparatus set up, I will say, now, do you mind if I record?
And I will fumble around, and even if I don't have it set up, I'll say, okay, now we can talk.
Because if they think I'm recording it, they're going to be very careful.
So, yes, Steve King, we love you.
We wish you the best.
We wish you were one of us.
You are not quite there, but perhaps with this kind of terrible beating that you've taken, you will realize just what you're up against, but be careful next time.
So, let us move on to a new startup company called NewsGuard.
Were you familiar with this?
I have.
I'm familiar with NewsGuard.
NewsGuard just raised $6 million and signed its first client, which is Microsoft.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds pretty promising.
Now, the point of this is, it is going to comb through all the news and information sites on the internet.
At the present time, they've got 2,000 of them lined up, and they're going to rate them.
Green for okay, red for no good.
And they're going to have a team of roughly 50 journalists and analysts making these evaluations.
Now this would end up being a browser extension built into your browser that shows you right away whether NewsGuard thinks that this is a legitimate source or not.
They say, and there's a certain efficiency argument to be made here, rather than go through every single article piece by piece, word by word, to find out if it's trustworthy, they're just going to go to the source.
And they have, of course, given the New York Times the green light.
So, when Mr. Leonhardt says that white nationalism lost in federal court, they'll say, yep, yep, yep, yep.
Blabasaurs!
And of course, along with them, there's the Wall Street Journal and BuzzFeed, Daily Beast, HuffPost.
They've already got the green light.
Hey, as has Newsmax.
Newsmax, yeah.
And Fox News, The Hill.
Yep, yep, yep.
Media Matters also got a green light.
You know, have you ever looked at Media Matters?
I must confess, not that often.
Well, you know, I look up Media Matters because sometimes my name appears in my Google search results.
And Media Matters, they like to talk about me and people I know.
They are a far lefty, very, very unreliable bunch.
But they got the green light too.
They did pick some lefty site that they did give a red light to, and that was Daily Kos.
Daily Kos, yeah.
Daily Kos.
Apparently, News Guard thinks Daily Kos is just not always quite as reliable as New York Times.
Of course, Infowars, Breitbart, they got that big red mark.
No, no, no, no.
Can't deal with that.
But the theory is that they're going to get Microsoft and everybody else that builds a browser to build this into their system.
And apparently the biggest corporate backer is something called Publicis, which is a big advertising holding company.
And the reason for that, of course, is that advertisers are worried about their adverts showing up next to disreputable sites.
And as one of the founders says, for them, it's the whole problem of fake news being an issue for brand safety.
Woke capitalism at the end of the day.
Woke capitalism.
There you go.
I know you can't be selling Adidas next to some story from Breitbart that suggests that what the New York Times telling you ain't necessarily so.
I thought it was very interesting that one of the founders, he's a former Wall Street Journal editor by the name of Gordon Kravitz, he said, we'd be very uncomfortable if the government were mandating anything with regard to the news.
In other words, rating systems like that.
He says, that would violate free speech values.
You have the First Amendment.
But these guys are happy to take their place.
No, no, we can't have the government doing it.
So we, in our wisdom and our bliss and our enlightened understanding of the world, will step in and tell you what's worthy and reliable and what's not.
Well, we have to go back and look at just the complete, make sure I'm pronouncing this word correctly, the corporate defenestration of Alex Jones and how fast that happened.
And again, I wrote something for Peter Bromlow's site, VDare, that is going to be in there.
2018 anthology, and it stated that Alex Jones was targeted because he was starting to talk about issues that are more and more in our wavelength.
Immigration, the invasion of Europe, and South Africa.
And of course, this is not allowed for someone who had such a popular site and had access to YouTube and Twitter and Amazon and Apple and all these tech platforms that had to be cleansed of his presence.
And it happened quickly.
And Facebook as well.
And it's not going to stop with Alex Jones.
No, no, no.
We're all in the crosshairs.
And what I find fascinating is that these people who are starting this news guard outfit, they're not satisfied with people being deplatformed and their YouTube videos being quarantined.
That's not enough!
They want to be sure that they can pick off the survivors.
They're walking through the battlefield shooting the dead.
Because being deplatformed is not enough.
Not only shooting the dead, but shooting the dead and double-tapping.
I mean, they're making sure that there's no ability for a resurrection or for rehabilitation.
Or, if you are actually allowed to walk around and pretend that you're real, you've got the big letter A, a big red A on you, or whatever red thing they think you are.
I guess it's the big red F these days for fake news.
In any case... Well, as someone like Vox Dei says, We will win if we are allowed access.
And that is why there is such a monumental digital war on the ideas that we have.
Or even those who slightly broach those ideas.
Which, hey, going back to Steve King.
They made an example of him.
The entire establishment did.
The GOP and the DNC and the corporate media.
It was quite clear this is not to be tolerated because we know Well, it's going back to that great quote from Tom Wolfe.
You know, for whites, we have to have some steam control.
Steam control?
We have to have steam control.
I'm referring, of course, to Tom Wolfe's book, Bonfire of the Vanities.
Reverend Bacon, he keeps the steam control so the blacks don't get out of control, but with What's happening with Steve King and these websites like Infowars.
We're going to make a huge example so that all of you know you can't go this way.
You can't talk about this stuff.
Because they realize, with Trump, something was happening.
And it's still there.
It's still percolating.
We know this.
Well yes, the head of steam is building.
It is building and building.
Just the way our listenership is building and building on these podcasts.
We encourage you, if you haven't, go over to youtube.com, type in AMRED Podcast and subscribe so you can know exactly when the next podcast.
It's usually a Thursday afternoon, but when they're posted you can comb through the archives.
Well, you can digitally comb through the archives.
You can't actually comb, but You can go through the archives and find some fantastic conversations we've had over the past few years.
Moving on to Soul to Soul Sisters.
Now this was a new one on me.
This is a Denver-based nonprofit and as the founder explains, this is a black lady, it is a fiercely faith-based racial justice organization that is led by black women towards actualizing black healing and black liberation.
Well, in late 2018, it received a $200,000 anonymous donation.
This fairly small outfit, and this made them sit up and take notice.
Turns out, the donor was someone who wishes to remain anonymous, whose ancestors settled in Mississippi in the late 18th century, and she had always believed that her ancestors had never owned slaves.
Well, turned out that wasn't true, and this revelation came four years after her father had died and left her a substantial inheritance.
So, what did this good white liberal do?
She decided that she would do something good with it, and so she gave $200,000 to this Soul to Soul Sisters outfit, a non-profit that believes in black healing and black liberation, and also, while they're at it, reparations.
That's one of the things that will lead to healing and liberation for white people.
Reparations.
So, she decided to indulge in a certain amount of freelance reparations.
Well, you know, it's a free country.
No, it is.
If you've got $200,000 burning a hole in your pocket and you want to give it to black people because your ancestors owned slaves, you know, who am I to stop you?
Well, let's hope that there's an anonymous listener out there who wants to give, say, 1% of that to American Renaissance, the New Century Foundation.
Remember, your donation is tax deductible.
That is true.
That is true.
But apparently this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.
There is somebody else who is not remaining anonymous.
Lottie Lieb Dula, spelled D-U-L-A, a retired financial strategist, and she learned that her family's wealth, says she, came from slavery.
So, she joined a national group called Coming to the Table.
This is a non-profit that connects the descendants of enslaved people with descendants of slaveholders.
Now this is for really masochistic white people.
If you can find out that your ancestors owned slaves and you can find the descendants of the very people that were enslaved, these people will put you together and you can fall to the ground and kiss their feet and give them everything you have if that is your desire.
In any case, Lati Lieb Dula established a scholarship fund for students who wish to study political science or law, but she restricted it only to black people.
And she also met a young black woman pursuing a career in politics and agreed to help pay off her college debt, calling it direct reparations.
Apparently, she did not find actual descendants of the actual slaves that her actual ancestors had actually owned.
But, because it's all a matter of skin color, we're all collectively guilty and they're collectively owed.
She just found a random black person and dumped some money on her.
May I read to you what her life's goal is now?
Oh, please do.
Quote, I think over the course of my lifetime my goal is to give...
Yep.
And she's also building a website.
through whatever means I can and then at my death the rest of it will go towards
setting up a reparations fund." Yep and she's also building a website, a guide to
reparations for white people by white people. Again you want to hope you wish
this was from the onion but it's not.
This is real life, and the quote is from Miss Doola.
This is how I'll spend the rest of my life.
If only my life could be extended 200 or 400 years, maybe I'd make a small dent.
End quote.
There you go.
There you go.
Now, frankly, as I say, it's a free country.
If she wants to give her money away in this manner, that's just fine.
It's just a sad commentary on the kind of education system we have and the intellectual environment in this country that people don't just laugh this thing right out of court.
Of course, blacks who are living here today have benefited massively from the fact that they're here and not over there.
And one of my favorite quotations about slavery is from the black poet Zora Neale Hurston, who said, There's a great deal of truth in that.
Now, maybe being a slave was not such a fun time.
Of course, there was plenty of slavery in Africa, and I'm not sure that our slavery was any worse than slavery in Africa.
But their descendants, their free descendants, are vastly, vastly better off than they would be if they'd stayed in Africa.
I believe a man who just had his name bestowed upon the Louisville airport, Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay, also made similar pronouncements about how he thanked slavery.
When he went over to Africa to have some fights with George Foreman, He made some similar comments to the poet you just mentioned, thinking that slavery actually had existed.
That's right.
Well, and as a matter of fact, now more Africans have voluntarily immigrated to the United States than were ever brought over.
On slave ships, because this terrible racist country is so much more desirable than the country that they themselves have been able to create.
But anyway, you know, when I think about this kind of voluntary contribution for reparations, if there's ever going to be reparations, that's the way they should be.
I don't think the government has got any business taking it out of my tax money.
Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely not.
And I think, again, something like foreign aid.
There are many things the government does that I think are unconstitutional, frankly, and certainly immoral.
And if people voluntarily want to give money to Rwanda and Burundi or to Israel or to South Vietnam or North Vietnam, well, they're all one now.
That's their lookout, not mine.
So, yes, I do believe in free disposition of one's assets, and so I just hope Lata Lieb Dula doesn't in fact live for 250 or 400 years, but good luck trying.
Well, she'll still try to make a small dent in whatever time she has left upon this earth.
Oh, this reminds me.
Do you remember that group that went to Africa and walked around the cities in West Africa with yokes around their necks, all chained up?
These white people.
I do.
Regrettably, but I do.
Yes, yes.
And the Africans were just bewildered by this.
What's with these crazy white people?
So, were they crazy white people?
Isn't that what they called it?
White people.
I think that's the correct pronunciation.
Crazy white people.
So, we got more crazy white people.
So, moving on to a more edifying story.
This is the results of a team of investigators from Harvard Medical School and the University of Queensland in Australia.
What they did is really quite interesting.
They took a massive medical insurance database containing nearly 45 million people in the U.S.
and what they tried to do is associate genes with environment and try to figure out what causes disease.
Because these people are with a medical insurance company, so we know more or less what their medical conditions are.
And there are more than 56,000 twin pairs And over 724,000 sibling pairs.
So they can see just how much genes affect things and environment affects things.
And another thing they did was go beyond the traditional one disease at a time approach.
Ordinarily, if you're looking at genetic correlations, you're looking at schizophrenia or you're looking at emphysema or something like that.
They are looking at this whole cluster because they've got the full medical records of these people.
It's really extraordinary.
And as they point out, Disentangling how genes and environment contribute to multiple diseases is a pretty tough thing.
But as they point out, one of the usefulnesses of this is that if they find out that really something is overwhelmingly Non-heritable.
Then they'll look for other causes.
Or if it's overwhelmingly heritable, then they won't worry about environmental causes.
It's a very good way to figure out what's going on.
And this analysis included all these medical records.
Blood chemistry tests and cholesterol levels and everything about these people.
And then they also, this is really quite clever too, based on the patient's zip codes they tried to speculate what their socioeconomic status was, what the environmental factors like air pollution levels, what the weather is like.
I find this big data stuff absolutely fascinating.
As do I. Now, as far as I know, there's no racial element here.
At least that's not being reported.
But this is something they should really look into, too.
And as it turns out, 40% of the diseases, and they looked at 560 conditions.
I mean, this is really big, big, big data.
Highly comprehensive.
Yeah.
But 225 out of 560 had a clear genetic component.
But only a quarter were driven, at least in part, by factors stemming from the shared same household and social influence.
And as it turns out, mental illness had the highest degree of heritability.
Not too surprising, right?
No, not at all.
And then, well, interestingly enough, connective tissue diseases, and I'm not quite sure what those are, but those are almost not genetically influenced at all.
But, so, and interestingly enough, the condition that was most strongly influenced by socioeconomic status was morbid obesity.
Well, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.
Different environments have different feeding habits.
And we can figure this out.
But in any case, from this study, they said almost 60% of monthly health spending could be predicted by analyzing genetic and environmental factors together.
And if you do large-scale analysis of this kind, you can forecast long-term spending on various conditions and the kinds of outlays and preparation that the country's going to have to make.
Again, no racial element here, but I am always encouraged and gratified when the powers that be recognize the importance of genetics.
Well, and this also shows you what could happen if you actually had a sane scientific community that wasn't terrified.
Going back to that great quote from Crick where he said, if the academy were to take active steps to suppress reputable scientific research for political reasons, i.e.
egalitarian reasons, and the Dictating that egalitarianism is our highest moral values.
Thus, anything that would negate such a claim must be rigorously suppressed.
That's right.
That's right.
Anything that, any science that goes against our cherished beliefs must be suppressed.
You know, we have a few more items that we're going to cover, but I think we have neglected our listeners for some time, and they have been asking questions, and we have an accumulation here, and I think rather than talking about some of these other news items, we should move to questions, if you think that's okay.
I think that's a fantastic idea, and again, before we get started, if you have any questions, we encourage you to send them to sbpdl1 at gmail.com once again that email address is sbpdl1 at gmail.com or
Two, the contact us link on amran.com.
And we are always happy to hear from our listeners.
Here is one from a fellow who signs himself Richard.
He says, having come to the truth on these matters and seeing the world for what it is and not the fakery depicted in Hollywood, I would like to know any words of wisdom for overcoming the anxiety and depression of it all.
Mr. Taylor always seems calm and optimistic, and I struggle with this.
How do we go about maintaining the same positive attitude as Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kersey?
Well, I have a theory on this.
I think I can maintain a positive attitude and be cheerful because I'm doing something about it.
I think I'm doing my duty.
And that really gives me a great feeling of really doing what I was put on earth to do.
That when I go to the Great White Father in the sky, I think I'll be told, well done, good and faithful servant.
I'm doing what I believe my people want from me.
And I encourage Richard to, perhaps it's not possible for people to devote themselves as I have, or to the extent that Brother Kersey has, but do your duty.
Whether or not that's in terms of any kind of activism, perhaps you can't put your head above the parapet at this point, but even behind the scenes there are many things you can do, and that will fill you with purpose and cheerfulness.
Do you agree?
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
I'd also say that find also something besides the negativity of the news.
Obviously a lot of the stories can be overwhelming.
Obviously people come at this from different things when they've been quote-unquote red-pilled, whether it was a black crime story that they read or something happened to them in college.
Such as this video that we're seeing trending where this black professor has tweeted out that whites should be killed and that whites are sociopathic autists and he filmed this.
This is at the University of Georgia and all these students clap.
This is a viral video right now.
It's fascinating to watch.
A great academic institution like UGA is now just an incubator for anti-white hate.
You can't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by the negativity that's out there.
But the news isn't all bad.
It's not all bad.
In fact, as I say over and over again, I've been involved in this for nearly 30 years and compared to say even just five years ago, certainly compared to 15 or 20 years ago, there's vastly more ferment Vastly more activity and over in Europe we have these big political parties that are waving our flag or something as close to it as they possibly can and for all practical purposes is the flag of the white race.
Well you wrote a depressing essay almost five years ago about what the country would look like where you said that Hillary was going to win and... I was wrong!
You were wrong!
I would encourage Richard, if you're listening to this, go back and look at that article that Mr. Taylor wrote, where you can see the mindset, you can see the way trends are.
Things can change on a dime.
Stay positive.
So definitely go out there and find a hobby, find an avocation outside of just embracing all of these ideas.
Lift weights.
Run.
Just find something to calm yourself.
You say you have anxiety.
Find something that takes the pressure off.
Well, you know, I probably should have mentioned that.
I think regular exercise.
Regular exercise has helped keep me sane for 67 years.
It's really, it's like just a natural injection of happiness, self-esteem, good health, equilibrium.
Exercise is a wonderful thing.
So I'm glad that you mentioned that.
And I also say that sleep is a great thing as well.
Trying as much sleep as you can.
Being the best human being you can be is often the best reply to when things go wrong.
But another question.
This is a person who says in the healthcare field, he's currently planning on entering into it, there's something called culturally competent care.
And some people claim that, say, the medical staff of the same race as the patient understand patients better.
He says he's seen that argument made that this type of sensitivity can affect the hospital's bottom line because patient satisfaction is important.
And the more people come in, the more they pay their bills, the happier they are.
It's good for the financial health of the hospital.
Now, he says, is hiring Hispanic nurses, for example, and having them treat Hispanic patients rather than hiring white nurses.
Is that ethical?
If, you know, you get a lot of Hispanic patients.
Frankly, I think it's fine.
It's a form.
First of all, I think probably people do feel better getting treatment from people like themselves, assuming that they're remotely competent.
And if people are going to be better treated, that's good.
Also, this recognizes a kind of psychological racial separation.
If we are going to get better faster, if we have doctors like ourselves, nurses like ourselves, maybe the same would be if we're governed by people like ourselves, if we're around people like ourselves.
This kind of psychological separation is, I believe, a precursor to physical separation.
Of course, The way, unfortunately, this tends to pan out is that everybody but white people gets this kind of consideration.
Hispanics, blacks, oh, we need to get our special treatment.
So they trot out the black doctor, or they trot out nurse Juanita.
But if white people want that, oh, that's just indespicable racism.
Well, we'd be remiss if we didn't bring up a story that I saw on a lot of sites, that in South Africa, the government there set aside 100 positions for black doctors only.
Guess how many positions they rubbed a film, Mr. Taylor.
Hmm... Oh, I don't want to humiliate myself.
Hmm... 17.
Zero.
Zero.
Oh, dear, I was way off.
Oh, well.
Well, yeah, that's going to be a problem, you know, if they're going to staff with all of these people that scraped up just on racial reasons alone, you know.
You know, there are some black folk, for example, who are going to say, no, no, I don't want this affirmative action, step and fetch it, looking after me.
I want a sure enough competent white man.
Now, here's another question.
This is directed to you, Mr. Kersey, although it's not necessarily one that should be directed to you.
It says, every year, you have a white renegade of the year.
Would it be possible to have a white hero of the year?
Which person would you choose for 2018?
The question was directed to you, although you are not an editor of American Renaissance.
Wow!
That's a tough question, because are we talking about just this country, or are we talking about globally?
Globally, I would say Salvini.
Well, yeah, I was going to say Orban, Salvini.
I think that Salvini or Orban, maybe neck and neck, but what Salvini is doing to show that Italy still has a pulse, and not only that, but his numbers are rising.
Obviously, Orban is doing fantastic work, but I think that I would go with our friend in Italy.
And, you know, we may have to start an annual feature to do it that way.
People like positive news, like our questioner, Richard.
Again, it's tough, Mr. Taylor.
I know we've got a few minutes here, we've got to nail these other questions, but let me just point this out.
It is tough to stay positive, so we should be doing as much positive news as possible.
Yeah.
Now, we still have two comments from readers left, but we are coming to the end of our time, but I promise that we will put them into the next broadcast.
And, as always, Mr. Kersey, I appreciate your participation, and I guess we do stay positive.
I never much thought about it before, but we have got a sense of humor about these things, and I do believe that our star is rising.
Well, like I said, head over to YouTube.com, type in Amren Podcast, make sure you subscribe, tell your friends about us, and make sure they subscribe, too.
So, for Jared Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Our podcast time is up.
We thank you.
▲
Export Selection