All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
58:23
A ‘Human Rights Committee’ for MasterCard
| 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 my usual companion and host, PK, without which this program would just be a bust.
And, PK, I believe you're going to start the program with some quotations, perhaps, and some sentiments expressed by our fearless leader, Donald J. Trump.
Well, this is a topic that's near and dear to your heart because you have been the regrettable beneficiary of tech censorship on numerous fronts.
Victim, victim, please.
Beneficiary is too kind of a word.
I'm not referring to anyone as a gentleman there, but you were one of the first people banned.
And that was, shockingly, that was 2017.
You're talking about Twitter.
Yeah.
Was that early 2018?
It was 2017.
That's right.
But actually, our Facebook page was banned before that.
One of the first pages probably to be banned.
So, I know all of our listeners have paid attention to what happened last week when Alex Jones, when Paul Joseph Watson, when Milo Yiannopoulos, when Laura Loomer, and a number of other popular conservative figures, as well as Louis Farrakhan.
Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
They were all banned by Facebook.
Not just banned, mind you, but if you even mention the name of Alex Jones in Infowars, Mr. Taylor, you run the risk of having your own Facebook page dismantled, digitally erased, put into the digital gulag for praising Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson.
Yeah, I think you're allowed to condemn them, but you're not allowed to praise them.
Nope, that is true.
And certainly not allowed to link to them.
Oh, no, no, no.
The whole link banning.
The fact is, I remember a couple years ago I was looking to see what type of inbound traffic Facebook was doing for certain conservative sites.
And one of those sites was InfoWars.
And Facebook was driving an enormous amount of their overall traffic.
And this was in the wild, wild west days before President Trump was was elected when there was no digital censorship except for evil bigots such as yourself when the American Renaissance Facebook page was kicked off Zuckerberg's platform.
But mind you, this attack on someone like Paul Joseph Watson, who there deemed his views terroristic, They're deeming Alex Jones a part of a terrorist group.
And this was some of the same language, I believe, that was used as justifying your banishment from Twitter.
Yes, our Twitter ban was justified on the assumption or on the assertion that I and American Renaissance were affiliated with a violent extremist group or groups.
Now, they never specified which they were.
That's right.
Well, this situation where people, and again, When Alex Jones was banned, you can go back to our archives, Mr. Taylor, you and I were speaking highly of what Alex was doing because he was spending a lot of his time talking about the plight of white South Africans.
He was removing himself from the conspiratorial nature that, unfortunately, like the Ghosts of Christmas Past, haunted him in the past few years when they brought up Sandy Hook, when this targeted assault to really discredit lawsuits that were crippling.
But that's not the reasons they gave for banning him.
No, that's exactly right.
They were using terms such as white nationalist, racist, anti-immigrant, because these were the topics that Alex Jones' audience cared about.
These were what was really motivating his listeners.
And Paul Joseph Watson, he took that baton, Mr. Taylor, and he ran with it.
He just came up with this new site called Summit.News.
I don't think you can even link to that anymore on Facebook, because it's associated with PJW.
And Paul Joseph Watson is doing great work on the identitarian nature of what's going on in Europe, this rise of populism that we're seeing everywhere, and his voice was silenced.
The better the work, the more likely the man.
That's right.
Well, this prompted President Donald Trump to go on a tweet storm.
As usual, we get a lot of tweets full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing in the end.
He retweeted some pretty important people.
Laura Southern, And Paul Joseph Watson.
And he was attacked in virtually every major publication.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN.
How dare you link and popularize the ideas of these nefarious individuals by tweeting about them?
How dare you give voice?
Because you are legitimizing Paul Joseph Watson.
You are legitimizing Laura Southern, who has gone out and done a fantastic documentary on South Africa and white South Africans.
I think she did a documentary also on the invasion of Europe, correct?
The boats they went on.
I think she's done a couple of really good documentaries.
She's done fantastic work.
And Donald Trump, I will say this, the fact that he did retweet these, a lot of people who are probably not familiar at all with the work of Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Southern, these MAGA boomers that people derisively call some of his supporters, they encountered these ideas, which is a good thing, but again, all Mr. Trump is doing is tweeting, and I'd like to say what he tweeted, but of course this story's gone away since he tweeted this, which is the bad thing.
He said, quote, I am continuing to monitor the censorship of American citizens on social media platforms.
This is the United States of America and we have what's known as freedom of speech."
Now of course his son, Donald Trump Jr., he urged conservatives to fight back against the next level censorship that's happening and You know, again, James Woods, the actor James Woods, he's not suspended from Twitter or completely kicked off.
James Woods does some pretty good stuff.
He's retweeted a lot of important people.
He's got a massive audience.
He's just banned because of some language he used and he's too stubborn to delete the tweet, which I think is a mistake.
If you have access to a platform, you should use it responsibly to Educate as many people as you can.
And one of the great things that's going on is I believe Texas is actually taking the lead, Mr. Taylor.
Yes, the only thing that's going to change this is not hot air from President Trump.
The only thing that's going to change this is the law.
And I'm delighted to see that a few state legislatures are taking the lead here.
The Texas Senate has actually passed a bill, Senate Bill 2373, introduced by Brian Hughes.
And this would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting user speech based on personal opinion.
And he says that this would apply, however, only to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users.
Now, the bill, as I say, it passed.
It passed on April 25 by an 18 to 12 vote, not a lopsided margin, but it's now gone to the House.
The way this bill would work, it applies the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, one of these nine jointed names of a law, and the idea would be that if a social media platform claims that it is neutral, then you could make a complaint to the Texas Attorney General, The Attorney General would then decide whether to bring a public case against the platform.
It's a rather cumbersome thing, it seems to me.
And frankly, I do not understand how the state of Texas is going to bring a case against a company that's based in California.
Texas law is hard to apply in California, but at least this is a good step.
Now, there are people who point out that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that's a federal law.
This is the one behind which all of these social media people are constantly claiming, basically, immunity from any kind of suit.
There's some experts who say this would apply, some experts who say it would not.
But be that as it may, it would be very interesting to see whether the Texas House will pass this, and if it's passed, what kind of action that this will result in.
Again, it seems very cumbersome that someone who has faced discrimination has to go to To the Attorney General of Texas, who would then decide whether or not to launch some kind of action, which might eventually be futile.
To me, it is more promising to find that in California, there is an assembly member by the name of, oh, one other point here.
All we're saying here is if you claim to be neutral and you are not neutral, then you might be subject to this law.
It seems to me that Twitter and everybody else could get around that very easily by saying, well, we don't claim to be neutral.
We're on the side of the angels.
We kick the devils off our platforms.
We agree with Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris that hate has no place on our platforms.
And we're getting rid of it.
That's all they need to say.
And they are no longer claiming to be neutral.
We are not neutral in the sense that we are not neutral.
We don't consider good and evil the same.
And that would be a very easy way out.
What I find far more promising And in some respects, far more surprising, given the state that is talking about this, the California State House, Assembly Member James Gallagher, has filed a bill that would prohibit anyone who operates a social media site in the state, and that's just about everybody who matters, from removing content based on political affiliation or a viewpoint.
Now, there is very little news about this.
In fact, I couldn't find a single news story about this measure.
I had to call up James Gallagher's office to find out what gives here, and apparently it was approved in committee on May 1st.
And there has been a second reading on May 2nd, and they've ordered a third reading.
Now, what that signifies, I do not know.
But James Gallagher's office has promised to get it, to look into this and get back to me and find out what the prospects of this are and where this is headed.
Now, I would be astonished if the California legislature actually passes a bill of this kind.
Because I don't know if they are an absolute majority, but Hispanics are very, very numerous.
Democrats have controlled everything for a long, long time.
How this even got out of committee, I don't know.
It got out of committee apparently by a unanimous vote, no less.
But that is the one I want to keep my eye on.
Now, the more state legislatures that pass something like this, the better.
But still, this is a good first step, and I'm glad to see it coming our way.
Or of course, to see pressure put on in terms of them having to pay taxes.
I mean, think about how little taxes Google.
Amazon and Facebook, these multinational corporations, which look to European-style law now.
We all know what the Democrats want, and we all know what Republicans want also.
Republicans don't want their constituents even thinking about the issues that you, your fantastic website, And the writers who are associated with American Renaissance bring up.
They don't want them having to even look at these ideas.
They want to talk about tax cuts.
They want to talk about entitlement reform.
They want to talk about, regrettably, criminal justice reform, which seems to be in vogue as bipartisanship at this point.
Democrats look at where things are going and they're like, wow, we don't want any of this white, identitarian conversation happening.
We don't want anyone to see any of these people to have a platform because we can just simply say that's hate and the tech and the CEOs, the C-suite of these Silicon Valley companies will say, hey, all we're trying to do is make a profit.
We want to see our stock price go up and our market cap go up.
We'll gladly get rid of this.
We're woke.
We get it.
That's right.
And unfortunately, it's not just tech that's in the pockets of these social justice warriors.
We have here rather bad news of pressure being put to bear on Mastercard.
They are activists who have successfully forced the company to hold a vote by shareholders at its next meeting.
That's just next month, in June.
And the proposal here would aim to see MasterCard establish an internal human rights committee and it would stop certain designated so-called white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists from getting access to any money that any donor might send them using MasterCard.
In other words, MasterCard would decide who can be a recipient of their services.
We've seen pressure put on big banks by anti-second amendment organizations who want to try and divest these entities from doing business with or lending credit to gun manufacturers, gun companies, or the NRA.
I mean, we are, sad as it is to say, we're witnessing the collapse of the NRA in a lot of ways and their effectiveness because of these silly lawsuits that are going on between the state of New York and the NRA.
Well, their internal ugliness doesn't help either.
It does not help at all.
But what the Second Amendment groups are facing, what gun companies are going to be facing if they lose access to credit or they have creditors call up and say, hey, you know what, you're... Well, as I recall, I believe it was MasterCard at one point was refusing to let their cards be used for purchases at certain gun stores.
That dropped out of the news at some point.
But there is an enormous amount of pressure that can be brought to bear on a company if you cut them off from their financial supply.
It's really one of the most gruesome things that you can do.
But the group that has successfully forced the company, and the company was opposed to this by the way, they do not want, MasterCard does not want a Human Rights Committee telling it who it can do business with and who it can't.
But the group that has brought this about is something called Some of Us.
I've never heard of them before.
They are S-U-M and then O-F-U-S.
The sum of us, so to speak.
Absolute Marxists.
That's what they are.
Well, come on.
They're communitarians.
All of us is what they really mean.
Basically, they want MasterCard to choke off any kind of donations.
Now, what some of us are saying, they are not satisfied.
That outfit's like PayPal.
have banned payments.
I mean, Tommy Robinson recently got cut off.
The Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes, Laura Loomer, all of them got cut off.
We, American Renaissance, we were cut off years ago.
My personal account was deactivated.
And also, to me, it's astonishing that Patreon, they have been banning people, and some people really suffered badly on account of that.
Sargon of Akkad, whose real name is Carl Benjamin.
Do you know how much he was making every month on Patreon?
It was in the thousands, if I believe correctly.
$12,000 a month.
$144,000 a year.
Yes, indeed.
$144,000 a month. $144,000 a year for the Yes, indeed. All of a sudden, gone. Gone.
And now, you see, this Some of Us bunch, they're saying, OK, we've managed to snuff out Patreon.
Now we're going to snuff out MasterCard, too.
It's just, it's absolutely extraordinary.
But the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission was consulted, and they gave the green light for the shareholders to get to vote on this.
Again, that will be a fascinating thing to see.
The shareholders will decide.
And if the shareholders say, yep, you've got to set this thing up, this Committee on Human Rights, it will be at the Board of Directors level.
So you're suggesting that our listeners buy MasterCard stock and then they can vote in this?
The trouble is, you vote according to your number of shares.
And you'd have to own a large number of shares to be able to swing the vote.
Now, it might be worth having a few shares.
You could attend the meeting and talk about it.
No, it's funny you're talking to shareholders because there's a great anecdote of Charlton Heston.
He had a lot of shares, I want to say in Time Warner.
And in the late 80s, he went into a shareholder's meeting, Mr. Taylor, because he was upset about some of the lyrics, the rap lyrics, anti-cop lyrics.
And he went in and he actually read the lyrics in a stately voice, as only he could, and that much more refined that much more American of a year than where we live in now, where you see this type of pressure put on corporations, they actually decided to not do business with that rap group.
It might have been N.W.A.
I don't remember what group it was, but it's such a great story.
Yes, I think it might have been N.W.A., which is composed of words that we are not allowed to pronounce either on or off the air.
There's no need to dignify that.
But, yes, apparently the board members up on stage were visibly, visibly embarrassed when Carl Heston got up and actually quoted some of the lyrics that they were pumping out to America's households.
They were happy to when it brought in profits for Carl Heston to his everlasting credit.
You know, I don't know if that's on film, or I don't know if they filmed shareholder Meeting to that point, but that would be a lot of fun to actually see, and if they actually showed the crowd, and the shock, and their faces.
That was the days before everybody had a video camera in his pocket, so there's a good chance that it has not been on video.
Just a fun little anecdote for you, a more civilized time in American history.
But moving on to another story, as you characterize this as yet another false crisis.
And the New York Times headline read, HUGE RACIAL DISPARITIES FOUND IN DEATHS LINKED TO PREGNANCY.
Uh-oh.
Starting ringing your hands already.
And what the New York Times discovered and reported in the most dire tones was that African American, Native American, and Alaska Native women are about three times more likely to die from causes related to pregnancy compared to white women.
Now, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Elizabeth Warren, both have raised this as a terrible example of the kind of racial injustice we encounter every day in the United States.
Kamala Harris has said everyone should be outraged that this is happening in America, that black women and that Native American women are suffering from pregnancy-related deaths at three times the white rate.
Crisis!
Horror!
Now, and of course Kamala Harris went on to say that this is due to racial bias in the health system.
That's the only possible reason that could occur to her.
Well, it turns out, well, first of all, black women are considerably fatter than white women.
And this can lead to potential problems during pregnancy and afterwards.
And what we're talking about here is deaths of mothers related to pregnancy. Now, do you know how many of these
there are every year in the United States?
There are 3.8 million births. Okay. And there are 700 deaths related to pregnancy.
So that's a statistical anomaly. I mean, that's not what these numbers are so small.
I'd like to take that back, because I don't want to sound as if... We don't want to be callous here.
No, this is horrible that any mother, when she's trying to... No, you're right.
Callous is the exact right word.
There are 700 such deaths.
Now, we don't want any of these deaths.
No.
Compared to the number of people who are shot to death in Baltimore and Chicago, Those two cities combine for more deaths in a year than mothers when they're giving childbirth.
And again, this is out of 3.8 million births.
We're talking about 700 deaths here.
After all of this hand-wringing about the potential bias in the medical system, by the time you got to the 26th paragraph of the New York Times, we discovered that Hispanics, in fact, have a lower pregnancy-related death rate than whites.
Hispanics, yes.
And furthermore, Asians have a very low death rate as well.
Slightly higher than whites.
And in the New York Times article, they referred to the Center for Disease Control report that had the actual numbers, but the New York Times, as I say, they got to the Hispanic rate in the 26th paragraph.
They never mentioned Asians at all.
And if you bother to go to the CDC report, you will find the following figures.
Blacks have pregnancy-related deaths of 42.8 per 100,000 births.
Okay.
American Indians and Alaska Natives, 32.5.
So that's a considerable difference there.
Blacks are really at the top.
Then, followed by American Indians.
Then whites are at 13.
Asians are at 14.
This includes Asian and Pacific Islanders.
That includes Samoans and Guamanians.
I bet if you just had pure Asians, it would probably be at the white rate or lower.
And then Hispanics are 11.4.
Now, the obvious question which the New York Times certainly failed to raise was, how come we have a viciously racist system against blacks and against American Indians and Alaska Natives that seems to be favoring Hispanics?
Well, there you go.
This is yet another example of the kinds of things about which we're supposed to be wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth and tearing out our hair.
But I believe you had a story about the fellow that you think might very well be the Democratic candidate, or at least I think he might well be.
You think Kamala's got the inside track.
I think Bernie Camilla Kamala.
I like Conor Kamala because that was a character in professional wrestling.
I think it's a more apt analogy for the senator from California, the junior senator from California.
But she's not doing that well in the polls.
But somebody who is consistently second in the polls and now who has to pander to the largely African-American, largely black electorate that he's going to be facing in the South when it comes to the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders.
He's been talking about how we need to give the franchise back to prisoners.
He says, hey, you know, even if you're a terrorist, the guy who did the Boston bombing five, six years ago, he deserves a vote from jail.
Now, have you followed this to the point where you know that he wants them to have the vote while they are in jail?
Yes.
No, it's not while they are.
It's not after they've served their time.
Now, I'm going to adhere, if you commit a felony, you should never be able to vote again.
I agree.
If you're a criminal and you harm someone, whether it was rape or it was murder, attempted robbery, hey, You lose the franchise.
That's over.
I'm an adherent of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
That book is my philosophy to a T. But what we're seeing from Bernie Sanders is, as he was down in South Carolina, he sent out this tweet.
He was defending his controversial position of, like I said, re-enfranchising felons, which are largely black.
And again, while they are serving, in other words, you would never lose the right to vote, no matter how black your crime, if you're on death row, you could still be voting.
So some people could be courting the death row vote.
Exactly.
Because again, it goes back to that whole concept that Michelle Alexander popularized in her book in 2012, The New Jim Crow.
The justice system is inherently racist because too many blacks are locked up, and brown people.
Bernie tweeted out, South Carolina has a higher incarceration rate than any country on earth.
African-Americans are 27% of the state population, but 60% of the prison population.
Our racist criminal justice system disenfranchises millions.
This is quite simply voter suppression.
End quote.
Now I can't do a Woody Allen voice, which I think is what he Sounds kind of like Bernie.
But again, it's this whole idea that a state that is 27% black
and yet blacks are 60% of the population, they're that way for a reason.
The incarceration rates for blacks is that way for a reason.
Our audience doesn't need to hear the reason.
They know the reason, because they're the individuals who combined commit the most crime.
When aggregated together, it's not difficult.
It's simple arithmetic.
It's not that there are cops going out of their way to say, we've got to find a quota of blacks to arrest today in Columbia or in Greenville or in Clemson or in Charleston.
It's cops are being called because there is a business or there's someone who's in trouble because of a black assailant, a black suspect.
You know, the way Bernie talks about these things, it's as if, it's almost as if you could have a cop and somebody shows up and says he's been mugged.
And he says, police, this guy beat me up, took my watch, took my wallet.
And as soon as the police says, well, gosh, describe, describe the perp.
And he said, well, he was a white guy.
And he was about six feet tall.
A white guy?
Get out of here.
We're not interested.
Really, the idea is the police are deliberately going running out and arresting innocent blacks and letting white people and presumably Asians walk free.
A white guy?
We're not interested.
It's just such incredible nonsense.
Well, that's the same logic behind what we saw in Grand Rapids where they're going to vote to see if they'll actually make it a misdemeanor to call the cops on people of color.
I mean, this is not just isolated in certain municipalities.
You're seeing this increasingly in city after city after city, where the elected officials, they've read Michelle Alexander's book.
It's amazing.
If you just type in her name into Google, all sorts of DAs are influenced by her.
All sorts of politicians.
We're seeing this is going to be the campaign.
I mean, Mr. Taylor, this is not Bernie Sanders' idea of trying to re-enfranchise criminals, it's increasingly something that these Democratic candidates are talking about.
This is going to be a major talking point in the 2020 Democrat primaries.
Well, I wonder how many Democrat voters really want jailbirds to be voting.
What, are they going to set up polling stations in the prison yard?
Well, think about how often there'll be a black criminal A suspect who is arrested, allegedly for a crime they commit, and then a GoFundMe account is created on their behalf by family members.
I mean, this is... Well, that's not the same thing.
Well, no, it's not the same thing, but the black community has no problem protecting black criminals.
Okay, but I think Democratic voters in general... I mean, I bet there are plenty of black people who don't want these... Anybody who's ever spent time in prison or been around prison They've seen some of these characters.
I bet even a lot of black people don't want them voting.
That's the idea.
You're right.
See, the one that I can perhaps see an argument for is if you've done your time, and you've come out, and your nose has been kept clean, then, well, maybe.
I can see an argument for that.
But while they are inside, I don't know, but we'll see how that goes.
No, and you're right though.
I mean, think about what's happening across the country.
You're seeing more and more black intellectuals attacking the black leaders of the past who participated in the major crackdown in the early 90s.
That's going to be one of Joe Biden's Achilles heel in this upcoming Democrat primary because he was a vociferous proponent of throwing the book at criminals and trying to help make the black community safer That's right.
And guess what?
It worked!
It did.
He was one of the big supporters of Three Strikes and You're Out.
It worked!
It worked in Los Angeles.
It worked in Chicago.
You look at New York City where there were 1,500 murders per year.
And now New York City has less murders than Baltimore.
I'm not talking about per capita.
I'm talking about less actual murders.
Well, New York City is becoming a whole lot whiter, too.
That helps.
It does help.
It does help.
But, well, we'll see how this plays out.
I can just... I think most people, if they're... I can imagine the debate between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and Bernie is saying, yes, even people on death row, they should not be disfranchised.
But we'll see how that turns out.
But we do have a spot of good news.
And the good news has to do with a court ruling.
We do live under a dictatorship of judges, as our listeners probably know.
Everything of importance gets decided by judges.
And this has to do with the Trump policy that was to make Central American asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their claims were processed.
He introduced this, of course, for obvious reasons.
One, because there was this huge wave of asylum-seeking families from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
They show up at the southern border with Mexico.
And under this court order, again, dictatorship by judges, Families cannot be detained for more than 20 days and therefore they'd be released and they'd disappear into the crevices, the nooks and crannies of the United States, never to be seen again after having pronounced the magic word asylum.
Now, what Donald Trump got the Mexicans to agree to was that these so-called asylum seekers, a huge proportion of which are obviously phony claims and get rejected, that they were to stay in Mexico.
Now, there was a suit that challenged this in the name of 11 Central Americans claiming that making them stay in Mexico was dangerous.
Unconstitutionally dangerous!
Because of the crime and drug violence in Mexico.
Now, the people who brought this suit on behalf of these 11 noble asylum seekers was the American Civil Liberties Union, no surprise, the Southern Poverty Law Center, no surprise, and something called the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.
Boy, oh boy, isn't that an interesting mix.
I'm a little surprised.
I'm not.
Gender and refugee studies.
Well, whatever they do, I guess they'd be bringing suits like this.
They resettle non-whites all across the country in largely white areas.
That's what they do.
What's gender got to do with that?
I mean, who knows?
Anyway.
Now, a San Francisco judge, a white man by the name of Richard Seaborg, ruled on April 8th.
That you had to halt this policy of keeping them in Mexico while the thing went to trial.
But, fortunately, the Court of Appeals has said, no, no, no, no, you can keep them in Mexico while the thing gets litigated.
So it's going to go back to a lower court judge, not Richard Seaborg.
It'll go back to somebody else, then there'll be some sort of decision, then it'll probably be appealed, it might even go to the Supreme Court.
But the point is, at least we can keep them in Mexico while their asylum cases are being considered.
This is a hugely important ruling.
Every day that we can keep them in Mexico is one day in which countless phony asylum seekers are not let loose in the United States.
Now, it's interesting, one of the bases for the argument here, the three-judge panel cited Mexico's position.
Mexico is saying, hold on, we're not as dangerous as you say we are.
This is an insult to Mexico.
And of course it is.
If you're saying asylum seekers can't even stay in Mexico while their case is being heard, aren't you in effect saying everybody in Mexico has a right to seek asylum because it's so dangerous.
Shouldn't they all have a right to come?
The other thing is, you know, there are rules about asylum seeking and there's something called the Dublin Regulation that applies to asylum seeking in Europe.
In other words, it's the first safe country that you arrive.
That's where you're supposed to apply for asylum.
And that is what the UN Convention on Asylum requires.
And so all of these Central Americans Well, if you're coming from, let's see, Honduras, I guess the theory is if you get to Guatemala, that's still not safe.
In any case, Mexico is considered relatively safe.
Relatively?
Yes.
Well, as soon as they're in Mexico, they're supposed to apply.
That's where they're supposed to apply.
They can't keep marching all the way up through North America and apply in Canada.
You're talking about Mexico being safe, relatively safe.
I'd like to pose a question to you, Mr. Taylor.
How many murders occurred in Mexico in 2018?
Oh gosh, an awful lot.
It's murder rate's pretty doggone high.
It recorded a record 33,000 homicides in 2018.
Do you know the number per 100,000?
We're at about 5.
I think they're close to 10?
Aren't they double or triple the murder rate in the United States?
Let's see here.
21.5 per 100,000 in 2012.
So that's 2012.
That's four times our rate.
That is four times our rate.
in 2012.
OK, 21.5.
So that's 2012.
That's four times our rate.
That is four times our rate.
Between 2000 and 2013, 215,000 people were murdered in Mexico.
Now, obviously we won't get on the tangent here, but one of the things that's interesting, you're starting to see more and more stories.
A lot of Americans still like to go to Mexico, to some of these tourist hubs, but you're seeing more and more stories about how these border towns and these tourist hubs, they're grappling with thousands of murders.
Even in the areas that the nation, that the government of Mexico, they have to keep Cancun, they have to keep these areas as safe as possible, and yet, The murders, the homicides are just extraordinary.
They make what you see in Los Angeles.
Going back to what we were saying, I do want to point out one more statistic because I know our audience loves stats.
So, talking about how crime initiatives and the crime bill that Senator, former Vice President Biden helped push.
Mr. Taylor, back in 1992 there were 1,092 homicides in Los Angeles.
were 1,092 homicides in Los Angeles in 1992.
Yes.
In 2018, there were only 2.
Though the population has grown to an extraordinary level.
That is a remarkable decrease.
You're talking about homicides.
It's just extraordinary.
It's just extraordinary.
With all this talk about crime rates in Mexico, you're beginning to sound like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.
Oh, no, I see.
Well, they're coming here, and as we know, there is extraordinary data that shows first generation Mexican immigrants, they don't commit the amount of crime that second, third, fourth generation Hispanic immigrants do.
Well, the point is, I am, as I say, delighted that we can keep them in Mexico.
And they shouldn't even, well, some of them shouldn't even be in Mexico to begin with, because they're obvious phonies, and One theory is that if they are going to stay in Mexico, the Mexicans get very tired of them, and the Mexicans will start guarding their southern border with a little bit more diligence.
Let me clarify my statement so I don't... I'm not confused with a employee of the ACLU, the SPLC, or the gender... whatever... Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.
I need to look into them.
You know, they just sound like an exotic bunch.
I am for the repatriation of every illegal alien in the United States.
I don't care if they're from Ireland.
I don't care if they're from South Africa.
Every illegal alien.
Because just one illegal alien in the United States undermines the whole concept of law and order.
And it flies in the face of those who say that we're a nation of laws.
No, we're not.
I agree.
But just arguing that Mexico is so dangerous we can't send the poor deers back there.
No, I understand the argument you're making.
But then this leads us to yet another piece of good news, I think.
And this is a study that is being undertaken by the Department of Justice.
And it has to do with the fact that legal permanent residents, these are legal permanent residents, they can be declared a public charge.
If it turns out that they are primarily dependent on the government for subsistence and as public charges, they can be deported.
Now, no one can remember the last time this happened.
This is on the books, but not in reality.
And apparently there's some sort of complicated details in here.
You can be deported if you've become a public charge within five years of showing up.
Now apparently, once you've been here long enough, then you can go on all the welfare you like, and you have to have a reason, the reason that you're seeking help preceded your entry into the United States.
I mean, I don't like all these qualifications here.
I think if you're not American citizen, if you show up and you're a foreigner, and you got your snout in the public trough, out!
Out, out, out!
Now it says this idea of you're seeking help for a condition that preceded entry.
Now the example that is frequently given if you've got a chronic health problem that had not been disclosed and then you show up and you're costing millions of dollars a year for dialysis and heart-lung transplants and things like that.
To me, what if the pre-existing condition is the fact that you are illiterate and have an IQ of 75 and have no job skills?
That seems to me is a very important pre-existing condition that could very well put you on the dole, and I want you out for that too, in any case.
As I say, theoretically we can kick out these freeloaders, but we never do.
But the draft regulation is expanding the definition of people on the public charge to include immigrants who have used cash welfare, food stamps, housing aid, and Medicaid.
For this plan to go into effect, it has to be subject to public comment.
You know, that's the rule-making procedure we have in the United States.
It goes in the Federal Register.
People can jabber about it.
Then it could be revised.
Then Attorney General William Barr would have to sign off on it.
I think he probably would.
I think not only would he sign off on it, but if we actually get a good head of the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, I think you actually might see That secretary immediately say, what are the tools at my
disposal to make an immediate impact?
And what was it that you said the moment Donald Trump was elected?
Go back to 2017.
Gosh, those are different days.
January of 2017, you said the appearance of resolve was all that we needed to see with Trump on the border.
Right now, we're seeing the border crisis reach levels of magnitude that I don't even think you or I could have thought.
I mean, this is terrifying what's going on.
It's terrible.
No, as soon as he was elected, there was this automatic reverse course of the tsunami.
The tsunami suddenly stopped in midstream and went the other way.
Just the fact that he was elected sent them all scurrying back to these absolutely unlivable, dangerous, oppressive, terrible countries.
They turned out to be not so dangerous and oppressive after all.
They were just devoid of white people.
Well, that makes them pretty disagreeable.
But so anyway, yes, and at the same time, DOJ is looking at requiring any foreigner who's seeking permanent residency status to submit a declaration to an immigration judge demonstrating self-sufficiency.
And this would be a list, a detailed listing of assets, income, and debts, among other information.
The idea being that you would not let them in if they looked like they're going to become indigent.
And apparently, that has been a change of heart in our consulates all around the world.
The number of visa seekers who are being turned down because they don't have enough dough is double that of the time when President Obama was running the show.
That's all very good.
Now, this story of this public charge really applying these books, this is a brainchild of Stephen Miller.
And as I often say, the most influential and effective white man these days is a Jew.
And I'm glad he's there.
He's got the president's ear, and he's doing more good than you and me put together.
He needs a couple allies, and there are plenty of people that Trump could have immediately within prominent, important, and powerful positions who could then say, all right, I have this weapon.
It's time to unsheath it.
It's time to utilize the tricks.
The legal tricks and the... It's simple.
There's not much of America left to defend right now and it's not that hard to take back a lot of America with just the stroke of a pen.
And, you know, there are certainly going to be some diehard lunatics who are going to say, it doesn't matter if they're here illegally.
It doesn't matter if they're foreigners.
They should be sucking at the public teat because they're poor, and the reason we're rich is because they're poor, and it's our fault, no matter where they came from.
There will be such people, but I think, ultimately, if you put it to a one-man-one-vote here in the United States, and you said, should we kick out foreigners who are living on the dole?
I bet you'd get a fairly solid majority that said, yeah, out with them.
What do you think?
I think you'd be surprised by how big that majority would be.
It'd be a good size.
People don't like this.
Even Democrats don't like it.
But anyway, thank you Stephen Miller and I wish you every success.
I hope DOJ just goes like gangbusters on this.
And the DHS is weaponized.
Yes.
Now, I understand though that there's a change going on in D.C.
Let's put DC in perspective before we get to what's happening.
So, back in 1920, we're talking about 100 years ago, Washington DC was a city of 437,000 people.
when we get to what's happening.
So, back in 1920, we're talking about 100 years ago, Washington, D.C. was a city of 437,000 people.
Mr. Taylor, what percentage of that do you think was white?
Well, I got a sneak preview of the facts.
Oh, about 60%?
70%?
65%?
What was the number?
In 1920, Washington D.C.
was 75% white.
So, we're talking about a hundred years ago, D.C.
was not a chocolate city at all.
So, let's go to 1950.
The population of Washington D.C.
in 1950 had reached the highest actual number.
So we're talking about 100 years ago, DC was not a chocolate city at all.
So let's go to 1950.
The population of Washington, DC in 1950 had reached the highest actual number, 802,000
people.
Of that population in 1950, what percentage do you think was Caucasian, was white?
It was probably still a majority.
65%!
So in 30 years, the number of whites had actually increased From 326,000 to 517,000.
But the number of non-whites had increased more rapidly, primarily blacks.
It had, but still steady 65%.
Now, of course, it wasn't until 1960 that we see whites drop down.
Basically, you're talking about almost 200,000 whites left between 1950 and 1960.
Well, I bet a lot of them about... 1960 was the year of the big riots in D.C.
Yeah, but when you look at it by decade, whites were already beginning to go on white flight.
I guess as the suburbs opened up in Maryland and what is now Northern Virginia.
But by 1970, Blacks represented, there were 537,000 blacks out of 756,000.
So whites were down to 209,000, which again, they were 236,000 in 1910.
So whites had begun to flee as the riots really took off in the 1960s.
So what was the high watermark of black percentage?
209,000 which again they were 236,000 in 1910.
So the whites had begun to flee as the riots really took off in the 1960s.
So what was the high watermark of black percentage?
The high watermark of black percentage appears to be in 1970,
between 1970 and 1980 it got above.
So it did become the blackest city in the country.
A large city, I should say.
Now, of course, the opposite is happening.
D.C.
is going through massive changes.
It's one of the most expensive places to live now.
The cost per square foot for a Class A property is extraordinary.
You're seeing cranes.
If you've ever seen pictures of DC, there are cranes everywhere, new office buildings, state-of-the-art facilities being built, mixed-use developments, people moving in, and they're whiting.
Whities are moving into areas that blacks took by force.
I'm not saying that loosely.
In the 1960s, there were horrible riots.
Whites left.
They just left.
Back in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, which is a great Hunter S. Thompson book, he writes about how whites were sort of holed up in Georgetown.
And he writes about how he was shocked when he lived out in Colorado, he could leave his car unlocked and a gun in the car.
When he came to D.C., white people would be working in Congress and they would run.
They would literally run to the subways or to their cars to get out of D.C.
because it was that dangerous.
Yeah, you know, in the early days of American Renaissance, I wrote an article about Washington, D.C., and I titled it, Kinshasa on the Potomac.
That's not what Pat Buchanan called it, but let's not go there.
Anyways, I've read that piece.
It's good.
So what's the white percentage?
Are whites a majority?
They are now a majority.
Whites are, I believe, a majority.
And it's only going to get whiter and whiter as we go on.
Well, I guess it's white chocolate now.
Well, it's going back.
I think it will get back to the population like it was in the I think it will go back to the population like it was in 1950.
I think we will see whites become closer to 60-65% of the population.
Of course, they're largely whites who vote heavily Democrat.
Anacostia will probably stay pretty heavily black for some time.
Have you ever visited Anacostia?
I mean, you're a long way away from Washington, D.C.
It's probably not on anybody's tourist list.
I've never been to Anacostia.
I've read about Anacostia.
I've read stories about how there are signs that say no gentrification on actual doors.
Anacostia is very vibrant.
It's so vibrant, I think it's going to continue to vibrate for quite a long time.
It's so vibrant that even the Even the bravest urban pioneers would be a little bit intimidated by it.
And it's across the river, you know, it's in a sort of different, but anyway.
You think it might get up to 75%?
I think we'll get up to about 65 to 70%.
I do, especially as the empire continues to grow.
But my point about why we're talking about this, and it's important to have the context, because context is king to understand this, the egregious nature of this chocolate city claim.
No.
Whites were driven out by extreme violence.
Extreme violence and horrible riots.
So gentrification is happening rapidly and there's a website called newsone.com that has been calling these people colonizers.
That's a term that was used in Black Panther to derisively label whites as colonizers as they visited Wakanda for the first time.
Wakanda Black D.C.
Ain't.
Black folks in D.C.
are fighting back against gentrification.
my poor grammar there.
But so what's happening, according to this story, the title of this piece at News One is,
Black Folks in DC are Fighting Back Against Gentrification.
And I'm just gonna read real quickly.
Gentrifiers have been trying to whitewash black communities all over the country for decades now.
However, one store in Washington, DC.
has unwittingly caused an uprising, and now residents in the nation's capital are fighting back in the best way ever.
The Save Chocolate City protest took place at the historic Northwest Washington intersection of 14th and U Streets this past Tuesday night.
It reportedly had more than 3,000 people in attendance.
Dubbed Mochella, a name that combines Coachella, Music Fest, with Mo, a pronoun for a friend exclusively used in DC,
the gathering invited people to demonstrate against gentrifiers, against white people,
who had been fighting the city's native go-go music.
DC's paling population was most recently exemplified by a tone-deaf white man
who wondered aloud on live TV why Howard University couldn't just relocate
to make room for other people who look like him.
Now, I wonder if there really was such a person.
I doubt it, but here's the point.
News One is a publication of a publicly traded corporation.
I don't remember the name, but they have a massive market cap.
They get lots of advertisement from Fortune 100 companies.
I've challenged Robert Hampton to write a big piece on this company because it's astonishing.
Their stories are so...
Dripping an anti-white venom.
And you talk about how Facebook is this platform that is supposed to be against hate.
A lot of the stuff you see on News One is the type of stuff that you see with the Nation of Islam.
Now, of course, I don't believe anyone should be the platform from these sites.
I have no problem with the Nation of Islam.
I have no problem with the News One.
But, if you're going to have an actual debate about Alex Jones being kicked off, I think a site that is that is promoting this type of anti-white vitriol to its almost exclusively black audience, they should also be forced to defend their position of such anti-white articles.
Well, it's unquestionably the case.
If you had a group of whites organizing to keep anybody else out, they'd be out in no time.
But blacks, that's fine.
Of course, white just never get it right.
When blacks move in, if they go out, that's no good.
That's white flight.
If they come back, that's gentrification.
That's no good either.
What are we supposed to do?
Slit our throats?
I think a lot of them actually do believe that.
That's probably what they would think.
Well, Atlanta is going through the same process.
When you go to Washington, D.C.
now, you walk around downtown, it is not at all the way it was in 1973 when I first lived in Washington, D.C.
I lived there in Southeast Washington, D.C.
at a time when that was real urban pioneering.
That's just luxury dwellings now.
I got a very cheap rent because I didn't have to go too far.
But now that stuff is all very, very high tone stuff.
But moving on, moving on to beauty pageants.
Beauty pageants.
You'll be delighted to know, and so will all our listeners, that in 2019, the winners of America's three biggest beauty pageants were all black.
And as far as I can tell, not one transgender.
What about their character?
I thought it was not judging by the color of their skin, but character.
Oh, I'm sure their character is absolutely sterling.
Unimpeachable.
Well, this was really a great achievement.
I was looking up some of the history on some of these pageants.
Vanessa Williams was the first black woman to win a top pageant.
That was back in 1983.
in 1983 and she became Miss America. Now she lost her crown.
According to Wikipedia, it's because Penthouse Magazine bought and published unauthorized nude photographs of her.
Now, this sounds like some paparazzi took photographs of her while she was sunbathing in the nude.
Well, it wasn't really that way.
This is a whole series of posed pieces.
It was lesbian porn.
Really quite explicit stuff.
And back in the 80s when you had to buy that stuff in plastic-wrapped magazines, it was really quite shocking.
And so she was forced to relinquish the crown.
32 years later, in September of 2015, when she herself was appointed the head judge of Miss America 2016, she'd made a remarkable comeback.
As you can see, from once having been crowned, being decrowned, from frolicking in this lesbo-porn, then CEO of the Miss America pageant made a public apology to her for the fact that she'd lost her crown.
Did she ever get the crown back?
No, no, no.
I don't think she's been awarded an honorary crown.
I'm sure she will at some point.
She never got it back.
No, she never got it back.
But in any case, this was a great disappointment for all boosters of vibrancy in the beauty pageants that the first Miss America lost her crown.
But in any case, back to this year's events.
There is one, a Chesley Christ, age 28.
She's Miss USA.
And you were asking about character.
Well, she is a civil litigation lawyer from North Carolina and works pro bono to reduce unfair sentences for prisoners.
I suspect there is a certain hue that characterizes the people for whom she works, but I should not leave to conclusions.
Well, if she works in North Carolina, I'm sure it's the same racial hue as Bernie Sanders lamenting is imprisoned in South Carolina.
Very likely.
Unfair sentences.
And in her acceptance speech, she said, mine is the first generation to have that forward-looking mindset that has inclusivity, diversity, strength, and empowered women.
And none other than your favorite 2020 candidate Kamala Harris said, what a tremendous moment for these young successful women making their own path on their own terms of the three beauty queen victors.
On their own terms?
Well, you know, I think there's probably a certain amount of affirmative action going on.
Whitey need not apply to be in the frontrunner or to win and wear the crown anymore, it seems.
Well, but a triple crown, this is pretty remarkable.
And of course, I must add that two out of the three, they wear their hair au naturel.
So this is yet another great triumph for the beauty of blackness.
Only one of them straightens your hair.
So, I'm sure this is all of America's young black girls all around are happy and they're not going to be buying their relaxers anymore, so they can be beautiful like Chesley Crist.
Now, gosh, we're really running out of time.
I was about to say, we flew!
We flew through this episode.
I hope our audience, who we appreciate more than you can imagine, enjoyed this episode.
I'd like to throw out two things real quick.
One, if you haven't subscribed to the YouTube channel, please do.
Amaran Podcast, go in and subscribe.
And we appreciate you listening.
And the other thing is we do want your questions.
Please send them over to sbpdl1 at gmail.com.
comments, suggestions, what to talk about, send them over to sbpdl1 at gmail.com.
Once again, that's sbpdl1, the numeral, at gmail.com.
Or you can come to the Contact Us page at amren.com.
And we had a couple of excellent questions here that we got teed up here to talk about today.
But I'm afraid we are running out of time.
So maybe I'll end with a shameless bit of self-promotion.
That is to say, the American Renaissance Conference.
We do have a couple of seats left.
We are probably going to bump up against the fire code limits on the number of people that we can have in the conference room, but there's still a few seats left and please register and you will find that you're in for a wonderful experience.
Well, for Jared Taylor, this is PK.
Our podcast time is up.
▲
Export Selection