All Episodes
Previous Next
July 3, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:47
Subway Skid Row
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, we're delighted to have you for this latest edition of Radio Renaissance.
We're going to be up a little bit earlier in the week because of the 4th of July, so ahead of time, I and my indispensable co-host P.K.
are wishing you a wonderful Independence Day.
I was about to say, Mr. Taylor, there's a war on Christmas.
There's almost a war on Independence Day when people just try and break it down to July 4th.
And I was going to say, let's make sure that we tell our absolutely fantastic listening audience, wherever you might be.
We have so many people from across the country.
We've been asking our audience, Mr. Taylor, to email us in case anything happens.
And it's amazing how many people are emailing from overseas.
They're not Americans.
It's part of this global renaissance that's taking place.
And it really makes you feel that You know, we're, at this point, we're not fighting from tyranny, oppression, or persecution as the colonists did back in 1776.
We're fighting from annihilation.
And so, especially to our listeners in Great Britain, happy Independence Day!
But yes, no, it's true.
This is a worldwide phenomenon.
Now, I often talk about this world brotherhood of Europeans of which we are a part.
We are in this together.
Your struggle is our struggle.
Wherever you are, we are in this fight side by side from our foxhole to yours.
Happy Independence Day!
Now, at the end of the last episode, we gave our audience a bit of a teaser On the fact that we had devoted a substantial portion of one of our episodes to the whole question of fare evasion and the fact that so many systems all across the country, metro systems, transit systems, have decriminalized it and what the consequences are.
We, of course, suggested that yes, there'll be more crime, more people sneaking in, just general degeneration because of this broken window business.
People think they can get on for free.
Well, they maybe think they can talk a fellow transit passenger out of his wallet for free, too.
These things just lead one thing to another.
And it is true that violent crime on BART has been increasing.
And I will let you know that also there was an aspect of this that we had not anticipated that I'll get to first, but just to prove PK and I right.
The violent crime is reported just last week.
Violent crime in BART has more than doubled since 2014.
And the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury reports that robberies on the transit system increased by 128 percent.
There were 153 in 2014 and then 349.
percent, there were 153 in 2014, and then 349. These are robberies. Aggravated
assaults...
That is assault what is potentially deadly.
An aggravated assault up 83 percent from 71 to 130.
And I thought this was quite an interesting quote from one of the people who is involved in the Bark Police Union.
A lot of these crimes are people getting their phones snatched by juveniles who sneak onto the system and then ride the train to San Francisco or Oakland, where they can disappear really quickly.
I wonder how they can disappear so quickly in Oakland.
Then Officer Keith Garcia of the police union goes on to say, usually there's a team of two or three or four.
So when people fight to keep their property, the people stealing have a backup.
So all of this is, of course, made much easier by the fact that you don't even have to pay a fare to get on and find targets to rob.
And last year, an 18-year-old woman was fatally stabbed to death on a platform.
And she was among three homicide victims in just last year.
In the rail system, things are getting worse and worse.
And many transit officials leaked the rising crime rate quite explicitly to rampant fare beating.
Now, a senior manager at the transit agency suggests that an estimated 15% of riders do not pay their fares.
15%?
15%.
That is 17.7 million passengers out of 118 million.
They just waltz on for free.
And the calculation is, assuming an average fare of $4.50, The agency is losing, guess how much?
80 million dollars a year.
80 million!
Now, of course, some of these people are probably just coming on the train in order to get paid, and they wouldn't necessarily have been going from one station to another.
But still, this is a lot of money they're being cheated out of.
And the estimate was that at most 5% of riders would not pay when they decriminalized.
But no, it's thrice, it's three times as many.
And over the past three years, ridership on BART has dropped by eight percent.
And officials expect it to continue to drop.
And of course there's a correlation to why it's dropping in fare evasion as well.
Of course.
And the crime rates.
I would throw a number out at you real quick.
I just looked up something.
I want you to try and guess.
The Metropolitan Transport Authority in New York City published a story back in March that we missed.
Very important story.
What percentage Of riders' freeload on the MTA.
This is just the bus system, mind you.
Or the bus system in New York.
In New York.
Fair enough.
What percent would you guess?
Oh, well, insofar as we just heard that 15% in BART are not paying, I'd say it'd be something close to that.
15%, 18%, 20%.
21.9% which equates to fare evaders of just the bus system in 2018 cost the agency $128 million
in 2018. You know I would think that evading the fare on a bus is a little bit more personal.
You have to walk right by the driver, I think, to get on the bus.
What do you do?
Just say, sorry, fella, ain't paying, and walk on board?
I've never taken the bus in New York City, so I can't tell you.
But one more little factoid for you.
The fare evasion for the subway was just 3.4% during the same period.
You know, the New York City subway has these barriers.
It's hard to evade the failure.
I don't know how you do it.
You got to put your money in or your card or whatever it is and then these doors fly open and you jump through and they fly shut.
They do close quickly.
Yeah.
They close quickly in a lot of major cities because People will try and get their friends quickly.
Exactly.
Interesting.
So the bus is much more likely to be hit by chiselers and freeloaders.
Correct.
Very interesting.
But in any case, this is the point that PK and I had forgotten to anticipate when we first started talking about this.
And this is the fact that Once you decriminalize fare evasion, then people start living in the subway.
This I had not expected.
And this was episode 106.
We were mentioning this, but we just did not have the wit to predict.
And here is a spokesman.
There are people in the Bay Area who don't have homes, so they just ride the trains.
And because it's so easy to fare evade, they just flood the system.
Now, unlike New York, and I guess it's very important that New York not have so much in the way of fare evasion, because New York runs all night long.
You could stay there the whole time.
Live there 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
But the system, BART system, closes at night.
So what happens is, the train pulls into the last stop, and some guy goes through the train and shovels all the bums out the door.
And when the weather is nice, they go to the outside of the station and they sleep.
Out in front of the station.
And then the system opens up at 5 a.m.
All the commuters are stepping over the bodies, getting on, but they come in and they sneak back in, they evade the fare, and they get into the system again at 5 in the morning.
Finding something to do for those few hours is not open.
Well, but you know, they maybe get a little shut-eye.
But in the winter, what happens?
Well, it gets cold.
And even in San Francisco, and now San Francisco, it can be pretty chilly.
And you know what they do?
They call 911.
And they say they got some sort of medical emergency.
The ambulance shows up, takes them to a hospital.
They hop right off the gurney and walk into a warm hospital waiting room.
And they wait there until the system opens again.
Did it also include what a ride and an ambulance cost the taxpayers?
That's probably about $500 a piece or something.
You know, you got these enormous trucks with three med techs on board and all this equipment.
Who knows what a ride costs in San Francisco.
In any case, they have had as many as seven 911 calls in a single hour from a subway station after midnight when the bums get shoveled out the door.
And this is just, this is just a small look at the cost of diversity and the cost of ignoring reality that goes on.
I think we talked about, gosh, I guess it was back in March of 2019 when the podcast, but what's happening in Washington DC's transit system, which is grossly underfunded.
It's, it's, um, It's a system that is collapsing in a lot of ways because of the budget deficits that are ongoing because of so much fare evasion.
And they just recently voted to decriminalize fare evasion because, as is the thinking everywhere, it has a disparate impact on people of color.
Disproportionately arresting non-whites.
We just can't have it.
We just can't have it.
So, as I say, this is something that even cynical PK and trusting JT forgot to... It didn't occur to us that this is going to be one of the consequences of making it easy to hop on the subway and not paying.
People live in them.
Which, of course, contributes to declining ridership.
People are not going to want to have to pick their way around these foul-smelling folks who probably haven't had a shower in years.
And I'm wondering, if you're living in the subway system, well, where you do certain other bodily functions.
The true legacy of Rosa Parks is on display, on board.
But anyway, so we will leave, we will leave this underground catastrophe.
And I believe you had something to tell us about our favorite sports company, Nike.
Well, an overground catastrophe on, you know, going across the entire country, because this, this story Embodies what's happening as America's white past is erased.
And we have to go back to Colin Kaepernick.
I was going to call him a friend, but we're not even going to use that type of language anymore because we've been corrected.
This guy is an enemy of our history.
And he, as a paid spokesman for Nike, he was successful in Forcing a company to jettison a planned release of a shoe, the Air Max 1 USA in celebration of Independence Day, the July 4th holiday, it was slated to go on sale later this week.
Well, the heel of the shoe featured a U.S.
flag with 13 white stars in a circle, a design which was created during the American Revolution and is commonly known as the Betsy Ross flag.
Well, After shipping the shoes to retailers, Nike then came out and said, hey, you know what?
We're not going to let this go.
We've got to get these shoes back.
Nike, quote, this is from the company, a statement reading, quote, Nike has chosen not to release the Air Max 1 QuickStrike 4th of July as it featured the old version of the American flag.
You're probably asking yourself, dear listener, wait a second.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
What does this have to do with Colin Kaepernick?
What's going on?
How is this symbol of America, Betsy Ross, this flag?
I believe this flag, if you've ever seen that great Mel Gibson film, The Patriot, that's the flag that he picks up and he carries to encourage the American colonialists to continue to wage the battle in the face of the actual regulars of the British Army.
It's a great scene.
It's a beautiful scene.
More impactful because it's the great Mel Gibson who's carrying that flag.
But this is the reason why Colin Kaepernick gave for the company to pull this great shoe.
And if you haven't seen it, by the way, this shoe is one that Mr. Taylor, I know you wouldn't have purchased it, but I think I would have gotten a shoe.
It actually is a pretty cool looking shoe.
Have you got $140 for a pair of sneakers?
That's what the retail price was going to be.
They were retailing for that, I'm sure.
Maybe some Nike employee can found a copy on eBay or something.
Well, these may be valuable at some point.
They will be very valuable.
And this is the reasoning that Nike Who pays Colin Kaepernick.
Remember, this is a guy who was part of that campaign, the Just Do It campaign, the anniversary.
Believe in something and sacrifice everything, I think that was the... He's just some unemployed second-string quarterback.
He is now.
He's a 31-year-old former quarterback.
Well, here's what he said.
He felt, he reached out to company officials, and he said that he and others felt the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery.
Oh boy.
That's all it takes.
That's all it takes.
And anything apparently that was used by Americans during the era of slavery, I guess, is a bad thing.
Absolutely anything at all.
You know, this flag has been under attack more than once.
I believe it was 2016.
There was a Grand Rapids, Michigan high school where some of the students waved the Betsy Ross flag.
Great.
And the superintendent apologized.
He says, it is now known as a symbol of white supremacy and nationalism.
And indeed, the NAACP, the local chapter at Grand Rapids, now how they would know, I don't know.
They say that this flag has been appropriated by extremist groups.
So, it is not appropriate for high schoolers to wave this flag.
Here's a question for you, Mr. Taylor.
The flag that currently flies over our country, I'm not talking about the rainbow flag, Pride Month's over.
The flag we have has 50 stars.
Hawaii was added in 1960.
So, the flag that we all pledge allegiance to That's been flying since before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That's true.
Wouldn't that flag be just as offensive as the Betsy Ross flag?
No, because Jim Crow, even in the South, segregation was not quite as bad as slavery.
So, but no, your point is correct.
It dates back to 1960.
And as soon as you just take a few stars off of that, boy, it could be worse and worse and worse.
Exactly.
Well, basically, you know, the idea that America, to be a patriot, you sort of have to be white is the unthinking feeling, I think, of many non-whites, especially blacks.
And, oh, I remember there was a controversy some time ago of basketball players or even football players just sort of joking.
This is before the Take the Knee.
When the anthem would be played, they would just be fooling around.
They would have their hand on their chest.
They'd be talking.
I remember one black star, he was asked, well, why aren't you saluting the flags?
Eh, they're playing the national anthem.
This is a white people's thing.
Well, you know what a white people's thing is, Mr. Taylor?
Tell me.
Well, that would be celebrating Thomas Jefferson's birthday.
Yes?
You know, I'm trying to be a sultan of segues here because this goes into our Erasing America in History segment.
The city of Charlottesville has voted, Charlottesville, Virginia, for our astute listeners who might not know what we're talking about.
Which, you know, it's a location of Jefferson's birth.
He founded, I think, on his tombstone, even.
He doesn't even state that he was the president.
No.
He was the founder of the University of Virginia.
I think he says he was the author of the Virginia Charter of Rights, or something like that, and the founder of the University of Virginia.
It does not mention that he was president.
No, it does not.
So he was very proud of this wonderful university in Charlottesville.
Well, guess what?
The city councils voted to remove Thomas Jefferson's birthday from the list of paid employee holidays.
And let's find out the reasoning.
Well, obviously he was a slaveholder, but what are they going to replace it with?
What are the people who now are committed to de-whitening the erasing of white America's history, what are they going to change it with?
Well, I would not have guessed exactly what it turned out to be, except that I read this story, too.
But you tell us.
So in a separate vote, they created a new day of celebration called Liberation and Freedom Day.
Now, this reeks of something the Bolsheviks would have done.
Latter-day Bolsheviks are what these people are.
So what's this new official holiday going to be that's replacing Thomas Jefferson Day, which is going to be celebrated the exact same day, March 3rd?
Well, quote, It's going to commemorate the day in 1865 when General Philip Sheridan, Sheridan's troops, rolled through town and found a population that was majority black.
All the lights had cleared out, I'm sure.
And although emancipation for most of them probably didn't occur on that day, it was the opening salvo for a lot of Charlottesvillians' freedom.
You know, whenever they erase a so-called racist, they can't then replace him with someone that we can all admire.
They have to replace that person with what, in their view, is the very opposite.
So, Lee Park in Charlottesville, when they renamed that, it's Emancipation Park.
Correct.
And if they take down a statue of some confederate, they have to put up a statue of some black... Hurray Tubman, as we saw in Baltimore.
Yes, Harriet Tubman is the very common choice, a black woman.
No, they just want to rub our noses in it.
They can't simply say, well, we're going to cease to celebrate this.
Instead, we're going to celebrate the very opposite.
Racially triumphant over white America's dreaded past.
That's right.
Well, there's one more story that I think we can wrap up.
Regrettably ugly bow on all of this, and that is that the St.
Louis Park City Council, St.
Louis Park is in Minnesota.
It's located in a Alano Mars District.
They voted 5 to 0 to stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings.
Now, why, mind you, would they do that?
Well, here's the rationale.
We've had some racial equity initiatives going on in the city of St.
Louis Park for a while where we're trying to get more diverse communities and historically less engaged communities to come and participate in our public process.
Given the current Washington politics that are going on now, there's a lot of people that are afraid of our government and we worry about them.
You know, there again, we've had racial issues.
And so the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States, that is going to scare away non-whites.
Isn't that in effect what they're saying?
And the idea of attracting immigrants or non-whites by playing down the fact that this is the United States, It's surrender with a shrug.
It's a kind of a psychological capitulation that's hard for me to understand, but it's increasingly widespread.
It's increasingly mandated.
And to quote St.
Louis Park City Councilman Tim Brosson, who I just quoted, this encapsulates that acquiescence that's taking place by so many whites nationwide, where he says, I hope it's not too controversial.
Our community tends to be a very welcoming and increasingly diverse community, and we believe our citizens will understand.
I don't think we're going to be any less welcoming by not starting our meeting out with the standard ritual.
And that standard ritual, Mr. Taylor and dear listener, is the Pledge of Allegiance that is now an outdated relic, just as Betsy Ross's flag must go.
Well, they may be less welcoming.
Less welcoming of people who care about the flag and who are U.S.
citizens, but those are precisely the people to whom they can cock-a-snook and they don't need to care about them at all.
Those are the people that they need not be welcoming to, right?
I don't think I've ever heard the phrase cock-a-snook.
Please...
Okay.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes, they're cocking a snook at American citizens.
Look it up, ladies and gentlemen.
But moving on to south of the border here, there is a report by the Pew Research Center.
And I think their statistics, I think, are generally pretty good.
Some people might think that they are Low-balling some of the figures here, but they did a study on illegal immigrants the United States.
And they noted that, first of all, there are now, at the present time, 11.6 million immigrants from Mexico living in the United States, of whom 43% are here illegally.
Fewer than half are here illegally.
Now, in that same year, 2017, which is what we're talking about, that meant 4.9 million Mexican illegals were living here.
But that was down from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007.
There are 2 million fewer illegals.
And at this point, Mexicans now make up fewer than half of what the Pew says are the current 10.5 million illegals living in the country.
47% are Mexicans.
Now, some people might say this 10.5 million figure is low.
I would be one of those people.
Yes, it's perhaps low, but I suspect their proportions are generally correct here.
And I think Pew does a pretty good job of trying to figure things out.
But they do say that Mexico is the country's largest source of immigrants.
Fully one quarter of immigrants in the United States today are Mexicans.
Now, they're not talking about second generation, third generation, talking about people who've become U.S.
citizens.
We're talking about foreign born foreigners living in the United States today.
Now, this is quite interesting too.
The number of Mexicans who are being arrested coming across the border illegally has plummeted.
Absolutely plummeted.
In 2000, in the year 2000, 19 years ago, of the 1.6 million apprehensions at the border, 98% were Mexicans.
98%.
What they used to call OTM, other than Mexicans, was a tiny amount.
A tiny amount.
In 2017, last time around, for the last three fiscal years, OTMs have outnumbered Mexicans.
in apprehensions at the border.
I think this is really quite interesting.
For the third consecutive year, other than Mexicans, were a larger number than the Mexicans that we caught.
Now, still, there are a whole lot of them coming over.
It was maybe 45% or Mexicans that were caught at the border, and that's still 152,257 Mexicans.
That's a lot of people.
That's an awful lot of people.
And that's fewer than half of the ones they caught.
Now, something else that's interesting.
Once you're talking about expulsions, deportations, the 152,000 I just mentioned were caught at the border and sent back.
mentioned were caught at the border and sent back. Another 192,000 were caught in the interior
and deported. So that's a total of more than 300,000 Mexicans who were sent home.
And all of that contributes to the fact that the number of illegals is, in fact, dropping, at least those from Mexico, while the numbers of illegals are rising from other places.
That's more than correct.
We know that.
We'll actually be talking about that in a few minutes.
Yes, yes.
Now, something else that was interesting here.
Mexican illegals, and I found this to be a very surprising thing.
Do you know what percentage of the illegals from Mexico living in the United States in 2017 had been here for more than 10 years?
What would be your guess?
What percentage?
What percentage of the Mexican illegals, and we're talking now of a figure of about 5 million?
I'll go with 25%.
83%.
Okay.
That's what Pew says.
Wow.
I would never have guessed such a thing.
I would never have guessed that.
These people have been here a long time and they are dug in.
We're a few days away from celebrating Independence Day and here we have what you just said.
5 million people, 83% of those have been illegally living in this country for more than 10 years.
Astonishing.
Independence Day.
It's more like Occupation Day.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, and only 8% have been here for fewer than five years.
So what that means is there's been a huge wave of Mexican illegals.
And it's been here for a long time, clearly much longer than 10 years.
But the number of illegals coming across now has plummeted to the point where you get more OTMs than you get Mexicans coming across the border and being apprehended.
You have a fairly large number of illegals being sent back.
So the number is declining.
But the ones who are here are really dug in.
Were there any educated guesses in this study about how many anchor babies this population occupying our country has produced?
Oh, I sure don't know what that figure is.
But we'll talk a little bit about anchor babies in a moment.
But by comparison, When we're talking about illegals from other than Mexico, other than Mexico, and again this number astonishes me too, I would never have guessed that if we're talking about other than Mexican illegals, OTM illegals, 51% have been in the U.S.
for 10 years or more.
51%!
That's still a huge number.
This includes, for example, all these DACA illegals brought here as children.
They've been here a long time.
According to Pew, 536,000 illegals from Mexico are in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
They're DACA amnesty recipients.
Now, the next highest numbers would be 26,000 from El Salvador, 17,000 from Guatemala, 16,000 from Honduras, the very places you would expect.
But to me, I just wasn't aware of how dramatic this change has been from 2000, when 98% of the apprehensions at the border were Mexicans.
Now, fewer than half.
A big change.
But a lot of this has to do with these crazy laws we have, according to which if you show up with a child and you're not from Mexico, we've got to let you in.
Crazy.
But then just one more little item that I thought for those of you who like numbers.
I like numbers.
I know many people find them boring, but I like numbers.
In Mexico, there are 900,000 people who are born abroad.
There are 900,000 immigrants living in Mexico.
The huge majority were born in the United States.
And of that 900,000, half a million are were born in the United States and are U.S.
citizens.
So these are people who have been deported.
They've been sent back.
Now, some of them self-deported.
Where did this half a million come from?
They showed up, most of them showed up between 2000 and 2010, because during this period we had the Great Recession.
Correct.
And all of these people who love freedom and love liberty and love America, of course, when the jobs go bad, they scuttle on home.
But also, then there were a record number of U.S.
removals.
The record was in 2012.
That's well before the wicked Donald Trump.
There were 409,000 removals of Mexicans, and so a lot of U.S.
citizens went home with their parents.
Family reunification could take place in Mexico.
Yes.
Not that hard of a concept.
No, no, not that difficult a concept.
And there's a little bit of information on these U.S.
citizens who are living in Mexico in terms of whether or not they're living with their parents or not with their parents.
Their stats are almost exactly the same as people who were born in Mexico.
But there is one problem.
If they don't have Mexican citizenship, it's not easy for them to enroll in Mexican public schools.
So it doesn't look as though Mexico is making it particularly easy for these U.S.
citizens who were born of Mexican parents.
These are anchor babies who have been, you know, the family weighed anchor and went back to the home country, and here they are.
I just thought that was great.
They're half a million of them down there.
Now, of course, they can come waltzing into the United States anytime.
Correct.
Because they're U.S.
citizens.
They are citizens.
But anyway, one last little thing that we were going to talk about is having to do with citizens and non-citizens.
State lawmakers in California proposed legislation that would allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, To take part in Democratic Party politics at the state convention level and in every state function of the Democratic Party.
State law now says that non-citizens cannot participate in party politics.
But they can change the law.
Very quickly.
Yes.
California is the personification of what occupied America is going to become.
A one-party state where laws...
We can do whatever we want.
We don't need stinking laws.
We'll just change them.
That's right.
And this is State Senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco.
He says, we are going to embrace and uplift and support all American immigrant neighbors.
And he didn't say this, but legal or illegal.
He says the Trump administration policies have, quote, caused enormous fear and anxiety, and they're going to calm that by letting them participate in state politics.
Now, it's interesting to me, they're going to pass a law that is going to apply only to the Democratic Party.
Isn't that interesting?
That would have been a real jab at the Republicans to say, and you know, you can be an illegal and you can participate in Republican politics too.
Yeah, I'm sure that at some point illegals will actually outnumber Republicans so they can just have dueling parties to see who will placate the growing non-white population in California the most.
That's kind of where things are headed.
But what a reaction to Trump to say, OK, Trump's policies have made our illegal immigrants feel a little awkward.
And so we're now going to change the law so that they can take part.
And you could probably be the Democratic Party chairman and be an illegal immigrant.
Why not?
There's no legal obstacle to it.
And after all, they are superior to us.
We have to admire everything they do.
These dotty illegals are more American than you and I.
What do you think Gavin Newsom, who in my estimation will be the last white governor of California, what do you think he actually thinks as he's there in Sacramento?
Does he have any inkling of what's coming?
Because I ask you this, we saw Joe Biden, who was the presumed frontrunner, who just flatlined at the debate when he looked, he looked, he looked He looked, for lack of a better term, he looked old.
He looked archaic.
He looked incapable of putting together a coherent sentence after Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris, I like to call her Kamala Harris, questioned him on race.
He looked flustered.
What do you think these guys think though, Mr. Taylor?
You know, who was that guy?
Gosh, I'm forgetting his name.
He was a blonde, blue-eyed California rep.
And he had been talking about how the people who looked like him, blonde and blue-eyed, are going to become a minority in California.
He was an Orange County congressman.
And some Hispanic ran against him and mustered all the Hispanic vote and he lost.
Well, he was very sore about it.
He demanded a recount.
He insisted there were all kinds of fraud going on.
He did not take it like a man when the demographic change came around and bit him.
So I suspect that like all these people, you see all these college presidents saying that, you know, we need more diversity, but Somebody else gets to step down, a white man says.
And so Joe Biden, he's going to talk about how, oh, diversity is wonderful until it bites him.
I think that's the way they all feel.
They talk big and they maybe even believe it.
But when the democratic, when the demographic tidal wave actually washes them out of a job, then they'll change their tune.
But that just shows a complete lack of imagination.
They think it's great for everybody else, but just not for them.
But it's coming to them, too.
That hubris that things will stay, the status quo will remain in place as this tidal wave, the deluge, keeps coming.
You know, it's funny.
We weren't able last week to talk about the Democrat, the second debate that took place.
I think the day that this podcast went up, that was the night that Biden, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders had their opportunity to speak.
And all the candidates were asked, simply, hey, do you believe that health care plan, this universal health care plan, should also cover illegal aliens?
I think they used the term undocumented immigrants because they're too highbrow to use such pejoratives.
Yes.
To describe our illegal occupiers.
Every one of them raised their hand.
Every one of them on stage raised their hand.
All of the candidates came out in support of Universal health care covering illegal aliens, which basically is an invitation with what's going on with the asylum rules, if you can get over here, and once the Democrats take power, which could conceivably be 2020, quite easily actually, as President Trump continues to just fail in delivering anything to his base.
We just found out before we jumped on to do this podcast today that he's not even going to fight this citizenship question, and he's abandoned even pushing for that fight.
So that won't appear on the census.
But you know, who has thought through this?
I mean, this means that somebody who needs dialysis or proton therapy or any super expensive treatment, you stagger across the border into the United States, show up at a hospital, and they're certainly not going to deport them.
And we have to treat them in this completely free-for-all.
Who is really thinking about this?
No one.
No one.
I'm thinking about it.
There are a handful of people who already understand the enormous burden that illegal aliens and other segments of the American population that don't pay their health care bills, what they weigh down on all these hospitals closing nationwide.
Well, guess what Cory Booker just came out and said?
Because what we're seeing is Democrats are beginning to have to put the idea of American sovereignty into a blender and frappe if they want to look as if they are the wokest.
I know you don't like that phrase, but the wokest when it comes to obliterating American sovereignty and citizenship.
So Cory Booker comes out and he said that he would, quote, virtually illuminate, illuminate, illuminate, end quote.
Immigration detention if he is elected in 2020.
So he'll just get rid of it.
It's not going to happen.
So Booker's immigration agenda, which he would enact on day one of his presidency, would ensure that he would use executive power to direct Homeland Security to mandate detention facilities meet civil detention standards of the American Bar Association.
But why would there be detention at all?
Precisely.
He's saying, get rid of it slowly.
It wouldn't happen overnight.
On day one, they would go in, they would review, the DHS would basically be defanged, as they pretty much are now under our Twitter and Chief President Trump.
Basically, the plan would also undo the move to eliminate, illuminate, why can't I say that word today?
Eliminate.
Eliminate protections for so-called dreamers, undo the administration's Muslim travel ban, and quote, expand pathways for refugees and those seeking
asylum, end quote, by removing barriers to asylum and it would increase the cap on
refugees and up border staffing for interviewing those seeking asylum. So ICE would basically
be not just glorified daycare laborers, but they would basically be secretaries for
making American citizenship even that much more meaningless under the presumed presidency of Cory
Booker.
Well, you know, I doubt that his views on this are much different from anybody else
that he shared the stage with that day.
The nine others, I suspect, they are right behind him.
I think Elizabeth Warren came right out and said she really likes his plan.
She did?
Yes.
So Pocahontas would open the borders, too.
Yes, she would.
And of course, we know that Julian Castro Well, he called back in April for decriminalizing border crossings as part of his immigration policy.
It's basically, we're going to see this deviation to whoever can just say open borders without saying open borders.
That's where we are.
And the problem is, unfortunately, the demographic changes in so many key states have pushed Georgia, Virginia, well, we know Virginia's already gone, but Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and Arizona, those states are all Toss-ups in 2020 and the failures of Trump's domestic policies when it came to trying to help out the white working class in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, the Rust Belt, and I'd even throw Iowa in there with what's happening with the tariffs on farmers and impacting their bottom line.
I think all those states are going to be very close and I think what Trump won, Wisconsin, he won Michigan and he won Pennsylvania by a combined 75,000 votes.
Yes, just a handful of votes.
Well, no, I think the writing is on the wall.
Donald Trump appears to be deliberately blind to the writing on the wall.
But there are others who are not blind to the writing on the wall and who want it even more vividly written.
One would be A woman by the name of Kate Cronin-Furman, who just a few days ago wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times.
The title was, The Treatment of Migrants Likely Meets the Definition of a Mass Atrocity.
That's the title of it.
And what she did was liken what the Border Patrol people are doing to such things as war torturers and Nazis.
Of course, she's harping on this idea of children being detained.
When children are involved, I guess the thing is you got to put them into the San Diego Hilton right away.
Then make sure that they slink into the country and find some relative they can live with.
But in any case, all of this, she says, is like war tortures and Nazis, and this is her plan.
She says that these Border Patrol people, and I'm quoting now, they are sensitive to social pressure, which has been shown to have played a huge role in atrocity commission or desistance In the Holocaust, Rwanda, or elsewhere.
So, social pressure can be brought to bear on these criminals.
She says the campaign to stop the abuses of the border should put social pressure on those involved in enforcing the Trump administration's policies.
The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agencies are not undiscoverable.
These agents' actions should be publicized in their home communities.
Then she says, this is not an argument for doxing.
On the contrary, Kate Kronenferman, that is exactly it's an argument for doxing.
She says, it's about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about.
That's precisely what doxing is.
Then she says, the desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements.
Arguing for terrorism.
This is astonishing.
Arguing for terrorism.
Yeah.
She says we're going to expose these people.
We're going to shame these people.
And we're going to make them feel so bad that they're going to resign from their jobs.
And we're going to make it clear that if anybody takes their jobs, they're going to get the same sort of treatment.
Doxxing.
Yeah.
Now, she specifically did not call for violence.
I think in that sort of a backhanded way of anything short of it and maybe just a little, you know, a little nudge here and there would be fine too.
Now, who is this woman, this Kate Cronin-Furman?
She is a lecturer in human rights and a director of the Human Rights MA program.
At the University College London.
She is an American, by the way, but she's in the University College London.
And in her biography, she says, she writes about herself in the third person.
Whether she was fighting for justice in Cambodia or advocating for victims in Sri Lanka, Kate Cronin-Furman has always sought accountability in tragedy.
Well, accountability for her is taking these people who are trying to enforce the laws of the United States and shaming them so seriously, making their lives so difficult that they will resign and no one will dare take their place.
Now, this seems to me to be a new low in New York Times journalism.
Of course, I always think to myself, how can it get worse than this?
And then it gets worse.
Well, I mean, that actually happening and these individuals being shamed.
But I can think of one way that it can get worse, and that is our Camp of the Saints prophecy actually taking place before our eyes.
And we talked about last week on last week's podcast about how a bunch of Congolese were congregating in San Antonio.
As they prepared to head to Portland, Maine, to take advantage of that city's generous, benevolent welfare.
Well, now we learn, according to someone employed by the Center for Immigration Studies, that same organization that Mr. Taylor was quoted from earlier, that upwards to 35,000 Africans are headed to the United States.
To try and go through Mexico, to cross the border, and to get asylum.
Aren't they now in Colombia trying to get into Panama?
Isn't that the stage at which they are?
They are.
They're massing at the Darien crossing there, and they're marching to Pretoria.
They're on their way.
They are on their way.
You see this, you see the pictures of what's happening where these Africans are crossing the border and they all have suitcases.
I'm not sure if you saw that video where they've got suitcases and their luggage.
You have to ask yourself, well there's a pretty big ocean separating Africa from South America.
Who's funding this?
How is this happening?
Is there no one in Congress, is there not one Republican who can just come out and say, what's going on here guys?
Well, and I believe the Center for Immigration Studies, they interviewed one of the people who had been mixing with these folks, and they're straightforward.
They don't have the faintest claim for asylum.
They're going to make an asylum claim, but they're just looking for jobs.
They're looking for the streets paved with gold in the United States of America.
Yeah, here's one of the quotes.
They have some level of understanding of what a sanctuary city is.
If we can get to one of those, they won't mess with us.
They won't get us out.
So, as sanctuary cities dot the country, you know, we talked last week about all of the Democrat mayors, primarily of heavily black cities who've come out, Atlanta, Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, and said, we're going to protect.
We're going to protect illegal aliens.
We want to do everything we can to stop ICE from being able to deport illegal aliens from our communities.
That's right.
Because we're welcoming.
We're inviting.
When the Trump administration was talking about deporting as many as 2,000 in 10 different cities across the country.
Oh, 2,000?
Yeah, 2,000.
My gosh.
That'll put a dent in that $11 million.
But as many as 2,000.
Who, by the way, have already had deportation orders that they've ignored.
Millions have deportation orders that they've ignored.
So 2,000, that's a... But then, you know, the mayors are saying, no, no, no, no.
We're not going to cooperate one bit and buy strong locks and don't open your doors.
Yes, that's the way they feel about it.
And so I'm sure they'll be happy to have these Africans.
They're from all over the continent, as I recall.
They are from all over the continent, and we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that President Trump has once again threatened To sick ice.
To actually do their job.
And to go after some of these individuals who have deportation orders.
And by the time we convene next week, we'll find out if he's kicked the can once again.
Well, that's true.
He had given Congress, what was it, two weeks?
Two weeks.
To come up with the new laws.
We're getting close to that date.
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.
I don't hear the wheels of legislation turning very loudly.
I don't know.
Nope, nope, nope.
But yeah, Africans are coming to a neighborhood near you.
You can count on it.
They have a bit of a ways to go.
They've got to make it through Central America and then through Mexico.
But many have done it before and they've got their children lined up too.
They've got their families so they can't be turned back because they're family units and that would be cruel.
But, you know, there is one guy who's on our side and I have increasing respect for him.
He's 83 years old and he is the 14th Dalai Lama.
You know, the way the Dalai Lamas are chosen, they're thought to be the latest reincarnation of the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama.
And they've been doing this for 14 years.
It's pretty much a lifetime.
A Dalai Lama dies.
And then the high priests of the Tibetan Buddhism look through the population.
They find the person who seems to embody all that.
A child who embodies all the right traits.
They've done this for more than 500 years.
14th Dalai Lama.
You know, he had to leave Tibet when the Chinese absorbed Tibet.
And he's been fighting for six decades now, living in exile in India, with an entourage of 10,000 Tibetans, by the way.
And he's fighting for an autonomous Tibet.
And I think it's this notion of Tibet for the Tibetans.
Perhaps that is what puts a little spine in here.
A little backbone.
Because we live here.
That's right.
Well, he doesn't anymore.
But he'd like to live here.
He wants to.
He wants to.
And you know, this is the first time he made this point that I recall.
Back in September of 2018, he was at a conference in Sweden's third largest city, which is Malmö.
Now, Malmo is a home, as probably our listeners know, to a large, vibrant population, which makes it unpleasant for the Swedes.
It's got all these no-go zones.
And he said at this conference, quote, I think Europe belongs to the Europeans.
He said that the idea of dealing with refugees should be, quote, that they ultimately rebuild their own country.
He wants them to, you know, it's fine to take them in for a little while.
And then also, even before that, speaking to German reporters in 2016, I wasn't aware of this at the time.
I was aware of what he did in September 2018.
But in 2016, he said there are too many refugees in Europe.
He says, Europe, for example, Germany, must not become an Arab country.
He did say that.
Wow.
And he also said, Germany is Germany and should stay that way.
Well, now, just recently, there was a BBC interview of the Dalai Lama, television interview, from one of these aggressive liberal women who's a person of color, mind you.
Yes, she was sort of Asian looking.
But boy, she was really going after him.
In a way, I thought that was really rather disrespectful.
And he continued to say, well, she brought this up.
What is this Europe for the European stuff?
He says, European countries should take these refugees, give them education and training, and the aim is to return them to their own land with certain skills.
He says, unlimited numbers okay, but the whole of Europe will eventually become Muslim country,
African country. Impossible. Wow. He's almost right up there with Viktor Orban in my book.
When was the last time you sold a free Tibet sticker on a car?
I'm not sure I've ever seen one.
But, Tibet is one of those countries that liberals can actually work up a certain feeble emotion for the idea of preserving its Tibetan-ness, unlike any white country.
When you point out, and some of them actually know, that the Han Chinese are pouring into Tibet, trying to sinify the place, making it as Chinese as possible, and they say, well, yeah, that's just not right.
For Tibetans, it's okay to want to have a country of their own, but not for any white guy.
I wonder if any listener has ever seen a Prius or one of these cars driving around with a free Tibet and it co-exists.
Yes, yes.
Well, I think liberals are entirely capable of maintaining wholly contradictory ideas in different parts of their mind at the same time.
They can be all for diversity except for when it affects their neighborhood.
I think that's the primary qualification to being a white woman.
Yeah, I think you're right.
But, you know, the BBC lady apparently chased after him on something else.
This is really not our ordinary beat, but this is going to show you the independent thinking of the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism.
She says, and she wrote a little account of this, I challenged him.
on another remark he made in 2015, when he said that if a woman would succeed him as Dalai Lama,
that female must be attractive. Otherwise, it's not much use. That's what the Dalai Lama said.
But he reaffirmed, if a female Dalai Lama comes, she must be more attractive, says the Dalai Lama.
And he pointed out that in Buddhist literature, both inner and outer beauty are important.
He explained to this BBC lady.
Well, the BBC lady was really upset by that poor girl.
But yeah, no, the Dalai Lama, based Lama.
Based Lama.
Based Lama.
I like that.
Yes.
Based Lama.
Based Lama.
Okay, now there's one last story we got here and that is, this is, this is, you know, as I say, I read some, some, an article or some essay and I think, how can it get worse than this?
And it always does.
And here's one of those.
This is something by a fellow named Nebal Mesud.
He's 24 years old and he calls himself a queer Lebanese composer based in the Washington DC metro area.
And he wrote an essay about how much he hates classical music.
He's trained in classical music.
He's a composer.
He says, Western classical music is not about culture.
It's about whiteness.
It's a combination of European traditions which serve the specious belief that whiteness has a culture.
In other words, whiteness has no culture.
One that is superior to all others.
Its main purpose is to be a cultural anchor for the myth of white supremacy.
Classical music, we're talking about.
Yes.
In that regard, people of color can never truly be pioneers of Western classical music.
The best we can be are exotic guests.
Well, I think there's some truth to that.
There's a lot of truth to it.
Yes.
But then he goes on to say, Western classical music depends on people of color to uphold its facade as a modern progressive institution.
In other words, it can't stay all white.
He's got that right.
The people running white classical music are always begging for people of color to play the violin or to compose a ditty.
But to uphold its facade as a modern progressive institution so that it can remain powerful.
For it to remain powerful, it has to pretend to be progressive, you see.
Then he says, by controlling the ways in which composers are financed, it can feel like our only opportunities for financial success as composers are by playing the game of these institutions.
Well, yes, if they're institutions giving grants to composers, you expect them to compose classical music.
That's kind of a prerequisite.
Now, what he says, it's time for us to recognize that engaging with these institutions, contributing to the belief that our participation in composer diversity initiatives is doing anything to reshape the institution, is wrong.
And that classical music is an agent of cultural change, but instead of that, it prevents composers of color from forming our own cultures.
He says, what he's saying is, these composer diversity initiatives, these people who want to slobber over some person who's non-Hawaiian who can play the violin, its purpose is to prevent composers of color from forming their own cultures.
Correct.
Good grief.
He says, it is ultimately furthering colonization and prevents us from creating artwork capable of real, genuine expression.
Well, it didn't stop Aretha Franklin for doing her black thing, or Sammy Davis.
He says, as long as people of color are making art, culture stays alive.
I guess white people can't do that.
Then he says, his mission is against the nature of white supremacy, which seeks to replace non-white cultures with their own fantasies.
Then he goes on to say, while I wish to break away completely from this system that I've poured my soul into only to be diagnosed with PTSD, I admit we can never fully break from classical music as long as capitalism exists.
What the heck?
He's hit every key buzzword.
Necessary in this piece.
Then he says, but while we're getting our funding, we need to create our own communities and ally ourselves with artists to create the culture that whiteness has tried to take from us.
This is just incredible to me.
Here you have these classical music institutions with what he calls composer diversity initiatives, finding these people, giving them money, Begging them to compose something in a classical style.
And he thinks that their attitude, their reason for doing this, is to take non-white culture away from them.
Good grief.
Anyway, he says, I will still accept commissions, but he's going to do it in a revolutionary manner.
Now, I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting to this, but the idea of this guy who is being begged by these institutions to take some role in classical music says classical music is nothing but a facade for maintaining white supremacy and a way to steal our own culture from us.
It's funny, we're not going to be able to talk about it today, but the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra is not playing for the rest of the year because of budgetary cuts and the fact that, well, the Baltimore Orioles, the baseball team, also has horrible attendance because guess what?
White people in the suburbs don't want to go to Baltimore.
It's a terrifying proposition to hop in the car and potentially undergo, whether it's the squeegee boys harassing you, or that fear of being a victim of violent crime.
Well, and you know, during the riots, or shortly after the riots, did you know that the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra had a free concert in the memory of Freddie Gray?
They did.
I think that's where some of their money went.
The conductor, Maren Alsop, she's a female, she actually came out and she was very open about her support of Freddie Gray and openly sided with what she called misunderstood rioters.
I remember when that piece came out, I think that was in December of 2015, and they wanted to have a concert for the rioters.
Misunderstood!
Now she has no symphony to conduct because white people have abandoned going to the orchestra.
the black residents of 70% black Baltimore also are averse to showing up for a...
I think what she's misunderstood is white people.
I think you might be right.
I think you might be right.
But, you know, we have just a moment left.
I think we've got time to fit.
This is a question and the question without really a good answer.
But this is a point a listener says that your recent podcast about President Trump's disappointing performance in immigration makes me feel like running for president in 2024.
Well, I will be 44 years old.
I would be truly hardline.
I would stand for rapid construction of a full southern border wall, fully armed and enabled border patrol, deportation of any illegal immigrant discovered within our borders, ending asylum and refugee laws, strict requirements for legal immigration that take IQ into account, and eliminate birthright citizenship.
He says, however, by 2024 I may be too late.
At present, do we voters get to cast a ballot in favor of anyone who's proposing these things?
And the answer is no.
Not only is it no, look at Oregon.
Oregon voters in 2015 voted to not allow the state to grant illegal aliens driver's license and the state legislature came in and they said we're going to give them to them anyway.
The governor's going to sign it and the voters of that state have no independence to stop it.
But guess what?
For Mr. Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Our podcast time is up.
▲
Export Selection