All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
24:15
Full Jared Taylor Interview with National Public Radio
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tell me your name and what you do, please, and I will start recording.
All right.
My name is Jared Taylor.
I am the editor of American Renaissance.
And for your purposes, I'm Joel Rose.
I'm a correspondent at NPR.
So, I guess, where to begin?
I want to ask you some questions about you, but I think I want to start with some questions about the Stephen Miller situation and these leaked emails.
So far, it does not appear that there have been any real consequences for Stephen Miller.
I mean, you've heard a lot of calls from Democrats and their allies for him to No, it doesn't.
I think Republicans are getting tired of having Democrats tell them who they may or may not hire.
that seems like the White House has his back. Does it surprise you that this is
the way it's played out? No it doesn't. I think Republicans are getting tired of
having Democrats tell them who they may or may not hire.
And at the same time what have these leaked email messages revealed? Primarily
that Stephen Miller was reading information at sites like mine, amran.com and
also videar.com.
I don't think many Republicans are horrified or scandalized that he's reading alternative news sources.
That would be my guess.
But primarily, it's because, really, at what point will Republicans simply put their foot down and say, no, this guy does good work, and just because you don't like him doesn't mean we have to fire him.
There are other examples, and I hear a little bit of clunking around in the background.
That will not go on any further.
As long as it does not continue, it's just fine.
The clunking around will stop very shortly.
Okay, good.
There are other examples we can point to where the Trump administration has distanced itself from staff who were shown the door after they were perceived to have ties to white supremacists.
I'm thinking of Ian Smith and Darren Beatty.
We could also talk about Steve King, the congressman who defended white nationalism in an interview with the New York Times and was pretty quickly punished for it.
What's different, do you suppose, about this case from those?
Well, first of all, I'm not sure that Stephen King was defending white nationalism.
The words that were quoted in the New York Times, I think, were presented in a way to make it sound as though he was defending white nationalism, but he himself said he was doing no such thing.
What's different?
I mean, ultimately, you're asking me to tell you what President Trump thinks or what the White House thinks about something.
I have no inside knowledge.
Again, I think that it has to do with two primary things.
Why should Republicans listen to Democrats when they say, fire this guy?
And second of all, the actual revelations here are utterly un-newsworthy, in my view.
It is really... I'm sorry, could you say that again?
There was a little bit of a dropout.
Oh.
And I liked where you were going.
Could you just please repeat that?
It has to do with the fact that Republicans will eventually have to put their foot down and refuse to be told by Democrats whom they may or may not employ.
And finally, the revelations in this so-called, oh, bomb burst of exposed email are really utterly un-newsworthy.
There's no significance to the fact that someone should be reading a site like American Renaissance or V-Day.
I take your point that you can't tell me what is in the mind of President Trump or his other, you know, or folks in the White House, but is there something different about the facts of the case?
I guess you've kind of spelled it out here a little bit.
Yes, the facts of the case are very simple.
There's information that is available on alternative websites that is never available from the New York Times or from National Public Radio.
Information on interracial crime statistics, for example.
Or the fact that in hate crimes tabulations by the FBI, Hispanics are a victim category, but they're not a perpetrator category.
This is the kind of information that one would never find in conventional news sources, and inquiring minds might very well want to know.
And when inquiring minds want to know, they can't get the information they want from the mainstream sources.
Have the rules changed about what is acceptable in the public policy debate around immigration under this administration?
Have they changed in the last couple years?
Well, they certainly haven't changed for me.
I've taken the positions I've had for the last 30 years.
It is refreshing to have a president who is foursquare against illegal immigration, and a president who at least claims to be foursquare against birthright citizenship, although he hasn't really done much to end that process.
I suppose that it is true that certainly from the White House we are hearing things we never heard before, but at the same time this has provoked the left, the general mainstream left, into a kind of hysteria that I've never seen before either.
So the result has been increased polarization of a kind that I believe is unprecedented since the period leading up to the Civil War.
You wrote that the most serious accusation against Stephen Miller seems to be that he liked The Camp of the Saints, this book.
Safe to say that's not a book that would have been read much in the White House previous to this administration?
I have no idea how much it's read now.
But no, I suspect probably no one in a previous administration had ever heard of the book, much less read it.
Now, I don't know.
I don't know.
Stephen Bannon claimed to have read the book.
I would be very surprised if Donald Trump has read it.
How about you?
You've read it?
I read the book long ago, yes.
Is it important to you?
No, it's not important to me, but it is good to have a fictional representation of what is generally known as the Great Replacement.
The Great Replacement, of course, is the reference to the fact that the percentage of whites is decreasing rapidly in North America and in Europe.
When those of us who don't care for it notice it, it's called a conspiracy theory, a white supremacist conspiracy theory.
When those who approve of it and realize that it will bring political changes, then it's perfectly fine to talk about demographic change.
But it's only for that reason that I think the Temple of Saints is of any importance.
Can you sort of explain the Great Replacement Theory to me in your words?
It's not a theory at all.
It's a fact.
In 1960s, the United States was 90% white, and no more than 80 years later, sometime 2040, 2045, whites will become a minority.
That sounds like a replacement to me.
The same process is going on in Europe as well.
According to some demographers, native Frenchmen will be a minority by 2060, 2080.
This is a remarkable and unprecedented change in demography.
In the past, no dominant people has ever permitted itself to be reduced to a minority like that, except through military conquest.
And it's important to realize that it is only in white countries that this is considered either inevitable or necessary.
No one would ever expect Jews to welcome any immigration process that would reduce them to minority in Israel, nor would one expect the Japanese to welcome such a demographic replacement.
This is something exclusive to white countries, and if people in those white countries say, well, no, no, I think I'd rather remain the majority in the nation built by my ancestors, then they're accused of all kinds of viciousness, white supremacy, neo-Nazism, etc.
It's a very dangerous double standard.
Do you think that this change and this increase in diversity is helping America or hurting it?
It is certainly changing it.
And I would say that it is hurting it.
Perhaps you are familiar with Robert Putnam of Harvard.
He is one of the most prominent students of the process of diversity.
And he studied American communities all across the country and discovered that along with greater diversity comes a decrease in social trust.
People are less likely to engage in local politics, less likely to engage in charitable activities.
They're less likely even to carpool.
The thing that they're most likely to do more of is stay home and watch television.
Diversity is not a good thing for most societies.
People prefer to be around people like themselves.
They're more likely to trust them.
They're more likely to get along well with them.
At the same time, why should any majority of people wish to become a minority?
That, to me, is a very baffling idea.
And yet, in the United States, if you say, well, no, no, I kind of like the country the way it was, then you're considered a wicked, vile, loathsome person.
This is incomprehensible to me.
Well, it's true that a lot of what you're saying would get you labeled a white supremacist by a lot of people in this country.
Do you consider yourself such a thing?
Absolutely not.
I think that the term white supremacy should be retired.
A white supremacist is presumably someone who wishes to rule over people of other races.
I know of no one who has such a desire.
Most people who agree with me simply want the opportunity to be left alone so that they can pursue their own destiny in a way that is racially and culturally coherent.
It has nothing to do with any kind of hostility towards other groups, and I'm happy for other groups to pursue their own destinies as well.
But these days, people use the term white supremacy because we live in an era in which it's taken for granted, of course, that all white people are racist, only white people can be racist, so there's no point in calling someone a racist anymore, is there?
So you have to up the ante by calling him a white supremacist.
But no, the term white supremacist is a historical one that I think should be retired.
There was a time when white people did wish to rule over people of other races.
Colonization was the best example of that undertaking.
But that's very much in the past, and I don't know of any white person who wants to do anything similar at all.
In what way are... I mean, I...
I don't want to feed your words back to you in a carveled fashion here, but in what way are you prevented from just leading your life as a white person in this country?
In what way are you prevented from that?
Well, in terms of media, I cannot have a Facebook account.
I cannot have a Twitter account.
I cannot sell my books on Amazon.
It is very difficult for my website to get a payment processor.
YouTube is constantly banning my videos or putting them in a restricted mode.
There is a very, very serious and concerted effort to try to silence people like me.
I think that's a very significant development.
Would you not agree?
That's something you don't say.
That's not exactly my question.
My question was more like, you said white people just want to be left alone, or words to that effect, right?
Yes.
Who's not leaving you alone?
There is no way that white people can build an institution that is for their exclusive use.
You cannot have a neighborhood that is self-consciously white.
You cannot have a region that is self-consciously white.
Whereas, if you talk about building an institution for blacks or for Hispanics or for any other group, you may have some difficulty actually arranging it in concrete terms, but no one will consider you some sort of moral inferior for doing so.
There is no social opprobrium for a black person to say, I'm suffering from white person's fatigue.
I just have to get away from white people for a while.
If a white person were to speak in those terms, then once again, he's a neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, and basically a moral leper.
There's a huge double standard here.
There is no obstacle to non-whites building communities and institutions that reflect their aspirations and their desires.
But if a white should do such a thing, heaven help him.
Is there an actual difference between the races, do you think?
Is there a difference?
Can you detect no differences yourself?
Can you not tell a difference between, say, a pygmy and an Eskimo?
Right, but I mean beyond appearance, are there important differences?
Well, this appears to be an area that you haven't looked into, but there is an enormous amount of scholarship On the question of average IQ, and the evidence is overwhelming that the average IQ of whites is somewhat higher than blacks.
and the average IQ of East Asians is somewhat higher than that of Europeans.
There is consistent findings to this effect, and that is only in the area of average intelligence.
We have also got studies of average levels of serum testosterone.
Serum testosterone is higher in blacks than in whites, and high levels of testosterone are associated
with a greater propensity towards violence, crime.
And again, the levels of serum testosterone in Asians is lower than that of whites, and we find exactly the same
pattern.
East Asians commit crimes of all kinds at a lower rate than whites,
and blacks commit crimes of all kinds at higher rates than whites.
Yes, there are patterns of difference, but this is now something that's considered a huge, hateful taboo in the United States, and the facts don't make a difference to most people who talk about this, at least people whose position is based on the idea that there is absolute and total across-the-board equality.
I have looked at studies that suggest that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans, if you want to talk about social science.
Have you seen those studies too, and what do you make of them?
I've seen studies that arrive at a different conclusion.
However, it seems to me if we have a properly functioning immigration policy, immigrants should commit no crimes whatsoever.
Clearly, it's up to us, or should be up to us, as to who we admit.
If our immigration policy is working properly, why should we admit a single criminal?
Hello?
Hi.
Yeah, no, I'm turning that over in my head.
All right.
Sorry, give me a moment.
Well, and then, you know, the other question, why is it that it is reprehensible only for whites to wish to remain majorities in their society?
We would never expect the Turks to say, OK, fine, we'll let in Asians or we'll let in Africans and Turks will become minority and the more diversity, the better.
We wouldn't expect that of the Mexicans, for heaven's sake.
If white Americans are pouring across the border into Mexico, insisting on instruction in English rather than Spanish, And wanting voting papers in English and buying up radio stations and broadcasting in English and celebrating 4th of July rather than Cinco de Mayo and arriving in such numbers that eventually Mexicans are going to be a minority.
Do you think the Mexicans could possibly be tricked into thinking that this was a celebration of diversity, this was cultural enrichment?
No!
This is the kind of thinking that only white people have been browbeaten and intimidated into believing.
Yeah, but this country was founded by immigrants, no?
From all over the world.
This is the only country in the world where you're American by choice, not by... I mean, Ronald Reagan.
I can't quote the quote.
I don't have the quote at my fingertips, but Ronald Reagan gave a speech in which he talked about how America is the only country in the world where you're not born an American, you become one.
That's not a brand new idea, is it?
You're making a very silly, ahistorical argument.
The United States was not built by immigrants.
The United States was built by pioneers.
People who built a country where there was no country.
In fact, the very first citizenship law passed by the very first Congress.
Here we had a new Constitution, a brand new country.
Congress had to decide, what kind of country is this going to be?
The very first Naturalization Act of 1790 reserved naturalization to free, white persons of good character.
There was no notion whatsoever of the place being up for grabs.
And we had an immigration policy up until 1965 that was designed to keep the country European.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And then to go back and tell me, oh no, no, no, no.
We've been this wonderful melting pot right from the start.
That's not true at all.
All right.
Bye!
I wonder...
How do you, does the fact that we're having this interview at all, I wonder, yeah, let me try to formulate this question in an articulate way.
All right, do your best.
Give me a second here.
Yes.
Does the fact that you've been having conversations with NPR and the New York Times, is that, Something new for you?
I mean, I don't feel like this would have happened under, you know, a few years ago.
And I wonder if that's an effect of having a Stephen Miller in the White House.
Well, this all happened back during the campaign for president.
And the bright bulbs in the mainstream media discovered that people like me were supporting Donald Trump.
And at that time, I got a huge amount of publicity, more than ever before in my life.
And the objective was very, very clear.
The idea was to say, look at these horrible people who support Donald Trump.
Well, he too must be horrible.
And it didn't work out.
It didn't result in people not voting for Donald Trump.
Maybe, who knows, maybe it even added to the voter rolls in support of Donald Trump.
But that was the only reason why I became of any interest to the New York Times or National Public Radio.
The same is true on this occasion.
The whole idea of the New York Times interviewing me is to say, OK, here is this vile Jared Taylor.
And it turns out that Stephen Miller has been reading things written by this vile Jared Taylor.
He, too, must be vile, and so must the president be vile.
It's all an attempt to smear people with whom the mass media disagree.
Now, if in the meantime I can inject a few sensible ideas on the subject of race and immigration into the conversation, so much the better.
But that explains my current and past notoriety.
Do you think you are being able to inject more of your ideas into the conversation?
I mean, it seems to me that you are, but I wonder how you see it.
Oh, to the extent that I am interviewed by mainstream sources, yes.
But I've been injecting my ideas into the general conversation patiently and diligently for the last 30 years, and I can assure you that more and more people agree with me.
They agree with me because I'm right.
And the general zeitgeist, the egalitarian, anti-racist zeitgeist is wrong.
And more and more white people do not wish to become not only a minority in the United States,
but an increasingly despised and hated minority.
And they are absolutely right to feel that way.
Do you feel closer to the center of the debate now than when you started, say?
Oh, to the center of the debate?
No, it's very good that more and more people are agreeing with me, and more will continue to agree.
And of course, that is why the social media platforms are so terrified of people like me, because they find it impossible to refute what I say.
Their recourse is to silence me.
That's why it's become so difficult to get our word out in the usual ways, but we will continue to do so.
Closer to the center?
I don't know.
I suppose it's hard to measure what's the center and what's the edge.
But certainly people are talking about white nationalism, whatever they may mean by that, more than ever before.
But again, I think this is a hysterical reaction to the fact that, lo and behold, some white people, in fact, don't think it'll be wonderful to become a minority.
What's so bad about being a minority?
Well, what's so bad about being a minority?
Ask the Mexicans, ask the Japanese, ask the Turks, ask the Vietnamese, ask anyone who has a particular nation with a particular culture, and ask them, do you think it would be a good thing for your culture to be diluted?
And especially here in the United States, we have more and more people who come here, come here as immigrants, and then get on the bandwagon of explaining how straight, white males are basically the villains of history.
This is an astonishing thing.
You get someone like Sarah Jong.
I'm sure you're familiar with her, an immigrant from Korea.
She's been elevated, well she's no longer on the editorial board, but she was on the editorial board of the New York Times despite having tweeted repeatedly her hatred for white people.
Good grief!
People come to this country that they come presumably because it's a more desirable place to live than the places that they used to live in, and then they insult the people who made it this way.
This is an astonishing thing to me.
And white people put up with it because, again, they've been proudly eaten in this astonishing way.
White people love to feel good about themselves by feeling bad about being white.
This is really a unique quality that white people appear to have.
You used the word white nationalism a few moments ago, which sort of surprised me.
I would have thought that that's a term you... well, you tell me.
I don't describe myself as a white nationalist.
I call myself a race realist, and that's someone who understands that race is a biological phenomenon and not some sort of sociological optical illusion, that the races are not identical and equivalent.
And I also describe myself as a white advocate.
A white advocate is someone who recognizes that whites, just like every other group, have legitimate collective interests.
Those are the terms that I use to describe myself, and I have for the last 30 years.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for speaking with us.
▲
Export Selection