All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
57:47
‘Fire Only the Whites’
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the latest episode of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
The date today is July 22nd, and increasingly on these podcasts, it seems that I've become your guide through a chamber of horrors.
One act of capitulation after another that sweeps the globe.
I'm sorry that I have to be a bearer frequently of bad news, but we do have one good news story in this episode, and I'm sure you'll recognize it when it comes along.
I believe I will begin, though, with something out in California.
Alas, I'm afraid this does have to stand as a bad news story, as so many of our stories always are.
But I am confident that there will be better times to come.
They can't get much worse, can they?
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the cutoff score for the California Bar Exam must be reduced from 144 to 139.
The law school deans all over the state had been asking for a lowered pass score.
Now, why do you think that might be?
Well, we'll get into that a little bit later.
One of the reasons is that if they have a lower passing score, that means more of their graduates will pass the bar.
That makes their schools look a little bit better, doesn't it?
And they were clamoring for a rate of 133 to 136, a cut rate of 133 to 136.
But the California Supreme Court settled on 139.
Now, they will admit more students, of course, because they can claim that more of their
students are making it into the ranks of lawyers by passing the bar exam.
So, they will admit more applicants.
But, they will probably admit a certain number of applicants that are BIPOCs, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, because A test of what the result would be after having examined the kind of passing scores for different racial groups is the pass rate will probably increase from an estimated 43.3% to 52.1%.
That will add almost 800 new people who pass.
to 52.1%.
That will add almost 800 new people who pass.
Many of these are people who are trying for more than the first time.
Now, the black passing rate, note this, will increase by 45%.
This is clearly an important objective.
The Hispanic passing rate will increase by 26.1%, the Asian passing rate by 23.5%, and the white rate only by 17.6%.
That is, of course, because the whites are clustered at the top and the blacks are clustered at the bottom.
You have more blacks who have failing grades at the current passing rate, but they will now pass.
Another thing that will happen is that the more competent blacks and Hispanics will be sucked up into the elite law schools because the people who run them, they do their admissions after calculating things with a pretty sharp pencil and they have a pretty good idea of who can pass the bar exam at a certain rate and so they will attract all the relatively capable blacks and Hispanics And the less capable ones will not be available for the lesser-tiered schools, which will, unless they are prepared to have a 0% black or Hispanic bar passage rate, they will have to content themselves with whites for the most part.
And I'm sure they'll find that very, very unfortunate and sad.
They won't like that one bit.
There's something else that will change because of having lowered the bar rate.
The pass rate, I mean to say.
What it means is that because there is a very, very close correlation between score rates, passing rates, and scores on the bar exam, and competence as a lawyer, What is likely is that this group, this group of 800 new people who pass the bar exam, are probably going to be disciplined at a rate of about 10%.
That's what you can calculate based on the correlation between Bar exam scores and incompetence and malfeasance as a lawyer.
10%.
These new 800 new additional lawyers will probably be disciplined at a rate of 10% which is much higher than current rates of discipline.
Now, there are, as one would expect, racial differences in discipline rates as well.
A study in 2019 examined all the probations, disbarments, and discipline-related resignations for the last 28 years.
This covered approximately 116,000 lawyers who were admitted to the California bar between 1990 and 2009.
During that period, black men lawyers had a probation rate of 3.2% compared to 0.9% for lawyers who were white men.
Lawyers who were black men had a disbarment or resignation under pressure rate of 3.9% compared to 1% for white men.
So, here we see approximately three or four-fold discipline or disbarment rate for black lawyers.
And as you know, the high rates for blacks are in the order of 3.2%, 3.9%, whereas this 800 new people who are going to pass the bar in California because the score has been lowered, it can be expected that they will be disciplined at a rate of about 10%.
So, you're going to have more incompetent, corner-cutting lawyers.
This study about discipline in the field found much smaller differences for black and white women lawyers.
They didn't give the actual figures, but interestingly enough, the discipline rates for black women were not that much higher than white women.
There's also a different matter that they discovered, and that is that black men who become lawyers are much likely to have a higher volume of complaints.
Complaints are almost always from clients.
And so the clients themselves are discovering that their case was either handled incompetently or that they were snickered.
Another interesting discrepancy along racial lines was found in the number of banks that reported there was insufficient funds in client trust accounts.
These are accounts that lawyers open up with banks to hold their money in trust, and blank banks have to report it when the money has been run dry in a suspicious way.
And blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to have a report by a bank saying that their account had been depleted.
Well, well.
So we have differences in behavior, but now we're going to have more black lawyers Thanks to this change in the cutoff score for the California bar exam.
And leaping from California this time to New York, at least to the New York Times.
The New York Times principal classical music critic by the name of Anthony Tomasini is distressed when he goes to a concert and he finds so few black classical musicians.
This is a dreadful and terrible thing.
This is something that must be corrected right away.
And how is he going to do that?
Well, the problem is that it is impossible to discriminate against black people who want to be classical musicians because auditions always take place behind a screen.
Yes, that's right.
It's called blind auditions.
You don't know the sex of the person, the age of the person, the race of the person.
All you know is what you hear, and what you know is how well that person plays.
But the New York Times chief classical music critic says, and I quote, the status quo is not working.
If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks.
Blind auditions are no longer tenable.
So here you have the mighty New York Times saying, to heck with simply listening to the quality of the playing.
You have got to hire people by race.
Now they go on to say this.
Don't worry, says the principal music cleric.
Don't worry that the result is going to be less competent fiddle players.
He says this.
Blind auditions are based on an appealing premise of pure meristocracy.
An orchestra should be built from the very best players, period.
But ask anyone in the field.
And you will learn that over the past century of increasingly professionalized training, there's come to be remarkably little difference between players at the top tier.
So what he's saying is, don't worry, you can hire the blacks rather than the whites or the Asians, mind you, because everybody who is coming out for an audition at the Chicago Symphony, for example, is going to be a crackerjack player anyway.
Well, under those circumstances, you wonder why bother to have auditions at all.
But, in any case, now, this was something that prompted the following result from an actual professional musician who posted interesting comments to a website that is of particular interest to professional classical musicians.
He wrote, ask anyone in the field.
Because remember, that's the New York Times guy.
Ask anybody in the field.
They're all great.
They're all so good.
It doesn't make any difference if you'd hire the, you know, top five or six rather than the top one or two.
Just ask anyone in the field.
No one asked me.
I play viola in the Chicago Symphony.
A significant percentage, very possibly a majority of our auditions end up with us failing to hire a musician.
He says, we are looking for a principal viola player.
We have heard well over 100 candidates.
None of the candidates so far meet our standards.
So yes, quality matters.
But here you've got the New York Times telling us that they're all so, so wonderfully good that there's a terrible situation.
Not enough black faces in the orchestra.
That's got to be corrected, and we're going to outright hire the less capable musicians because this is a shameful state of affairs.
For some reason, he's not at all motivated by what he might call the appalling racial imbalance of the NBA.
No, no, no.
They can all be black.
Who cares?
But if there are not enough blacks, In the orchestra on stage, well then, you've got to absolutely hire by skin color and not by talent.
Now, this website for classical musicians also pointed out something that I think is worth knowing.
I certainly didn't know it.
All four of the classical music writers at the Times are not just white, but also men.
Anthony Tomasini, who we met earlier, chief music critic.
Zachary Wolfe, classical music editor.
Joshua Barone, culture desk, who has a focus on classical music.
And Michael Cooper, a reporter for classical music and dance.
As usual, the New York Times prepared to scream at people and to say, outright lower your standards just so we can have the delightful pleasure of seeing black faces in the orchestra and then look at their own coverage of classical music.
So once again, to me this is significant, especially because they are making no pretense of being objective about ability.
They say integration or having blacks where we want to see blacks is so, so, so, so, so important that we aren't even going to pretend we're hiring the best player.
What the Times, of course, never mentions at all is the extent to which Asians are in some cases dominating the string sections in orchestras.
That seems to be neither interesting, not even worth writing about.
But it certainly does suggest that racial imbalance of the kind that they're worried about, namely a lack of blacks, doesn't seem to be a problem if you get lots and lots of Asians.
Diversity is fine so long as it goes in particular directions, but not in another.
Now, let us move to yet another blatant attempt to get rid of obvious qualifications, and that has to do with the Seattle Police Department.
As you have probably heard, the Seattle City Council has voted to cut funding for the Seattle Police Department by 50%.
This has not yet happened.
There is, in fact, a certain amount of discussion going on And this despite the fact that riots have returned to the city.
A massive riot in the middle of riots would of course require having to fire many Seattle Police Department officers.
Just what they need, isn't it?
Well, the people of Seattle City Council and the people of the City Council are fool enough to think that this is a great idea.
As it turns out, as in so many cities, the police department has a certain procedure.
If you are going to fire people, you have terminations based on seniority.
So, the last hired are the first fired.
So, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, of course they have a lady police chief, she released a statement noting that many of the officers who would be fired under these circumstances would, oh my gosh, they would be minorities.
This SPD, the Seattle Police Department, has spent years becoming one of the most progressive, liberal police departments in the country.
It has made great strides over the years in recruiting more minorities, despite the fact the recruiting pool in Seattle, as you can imagine, is overwhelmingly white, but they have really beat the bushes for all the non-whites they can possibly handle.
The Seattle Police Department hired 108 officers in 2019, which is the highest number of officers ever hired for a year in over a decade.
And of these 108, 39% were people of color, and they were very, very proud of that.
But, as I just pointed out, under this system of last in, first out, if police officers have to be fired, alas, alas, many of those who would have to go would be non-whites.
As a matter of fact, though, many of the whites are clearing out on their own.
Officers are transferring to other departments, they're retiring, they're quitting, and in their exit views, over the last few months, over two-thirds of the officers have said that the reason they are leaving is because of the anti-police attitudes of the Seattle City Council and other politicians.
So they're certainly losing police officers, and my guess is they're losing some of the very best.
Well, as it turns out, there is a Seattle City Council member by the name of Lisa Herbold.
She's very melanin-deprived.
I'd say she might even be a blonde.
And she has suggested that, well, this won't be a problem with all these firings.
What they'll have the Seattle Police Department do Is fire people based on race.
Fire the white guys.
Fire them even though they may be in more senior positions, they have more experience, maybe more capable.
Fire the white guys so that they can save the non-whites.
So she's got the solution, hasn't she?
She's undaunted by the fact that if you fire officers based on race, you are in violation of Title VII of Holy Writ, that is to say, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And it says, and let me quote, a key sentence.
It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race or color in regard to hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
Of course, if you've been paying attention, you know that that line of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is probably violated, oh, 100, 200, 1,000 times every single day.
There's employment discrimination right, left, and center in the United States.
And so we'll see whether or not some local court or some even a superior court will permit the Seattle Police Department, if it in fact does decide to fire half its officers, will they permit them to violate the union rules, to violate the rules that are enforced practically across the entire country, and simply fire the white guys.
We'll see.
That's certainly the direction in which the United States is moving, but at least it'll be out in the open.
Nice to see, nice to see this wonderful expression of white privilege.
Our next story has to do with the Associated Press.
The Associated Press has joined the Columbia Journalism School, yet another prestigious institution, in making a very important decision on capitalization.
And let me quote.
From a press release that was put together by John Daniszewski.
He is Vice President for Standards at the Associated Press.
And the Associated Press Style Manual, by the way, is one that is used by many, many institutions.
And the AP is simply following the New York Times in deciding the following.
And let me quote.
There was clear desire and reason to capitalize Black As in when you're talking about black people.
Most notably, people who are black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world.
That includes the shared experience of discrimination due solely to the color of one's skin.
Are they really serious about this?
So every black person, every Haitian, Congolese, Nigerian, Burundian, Wherever they live, whoever they are, every one of them, every day, suffers from racial discrimination so they have that commonality.
Despite the fact they may speak completely different languages.
Some of them have never lived on the continent of Africa.
But they, they have a strong historical cultural commonalities.
I mean, ask an East African and a West African just how strong their cultural commonalities are.
Different tribes, different languages, different religions, but they're black, you see, and blackity black black, capital B for them.
On the other hand, and I continue to quote from John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards, white people Generally do not share the same history and culture or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.
So, white people are going to stay lowercase.
White people, lowercase white.
But I would say to white people, if you haven't had that experience of being discriminated against because of skin color, just stick around.
Just stick around.
You'll see what it's like.
White privilege, white privilege is dwindling fast.
Enjoy it while you can.
Now the AP went on to cite another reason why they must not capitalize white, even if black is capitalized.
They said, yes, some people might think that a certain parallelism, a certain commonality would be appropriate, but they said that this is done by white supremacists.
And so if we capitalize white, that subtly conveys legitimacy to such beliefs.
Now, as a matter of fact, I don't know of any site on the internet, and there may be some, that capitalize white but don't capitalize black.
I know of some racially-oriented sites that capitalize both.
But somehow, if you capitalize white with a capital W, then you are going to subtly convey legitimacy to the beliefs of white supremacists.
And in this day and age, in this climate of political thought control, anything No matter how subtly that would convey legitimacy to such beliefs, must be nipped right at the butt.
They say, we will continue to avoid the broad and imprecise term brown, ethnic or cultural, the imprecise term brown in racial, ethnic, or cultural references.
So, they will never talk about brown people.
But, if they're absolutely forced to use the word, because they have to quote somebody who used the term, black and brown.
You know, that happens a lot.
People talking about black and brown people, black and brown oppression.
Well, if using the term is necessary as part of a direct quotation, we will continue to use the lowercase.
So, there you've got it.
There you've got it.
Brown is still lowercase.
So, it'll be interesting when they have to quote somebody saying, we stand for the rights of black and brown people.
Black will be capitalized, but brown not.
There you go.
Now, racism, believe it or not, Well, I can't believe anything in these crazy times.
Has reared its hoary head at the National Museum of African American Art.
Wouldn't you expect that to be at the last place?
To be afflicted by racism?
Well, it's not.
There is a huge article in the New York Times of July 15th.
And let me read a few select passages from it.
It points out that Lonnie G. Bunch III Who last year became the first black secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
That means he's the top guy.
First time they've had a black man running the entire show.
Said in an interview on Wednesday that he is reviewing complaints in a letter sent by former employees and board members of the National Museum of African Art.
That described it as a bad place for black employees.
Now, this being the New York Times, black was spelled with a capital B. Now, Mr. Bunch, Lonnie Bunch, who runs the whole show, he was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Did you know that there are two African-American histories that are part of the Smithsonian?
One, well I guess one is African art, so it's not necessarily African-American art.
We have one for African art and then we have a National Museum of African-American History and Culture.
The History and Culture Museum is the newer one that opened a much great fanfare built in a building that looks like a sort of a funny brown pagoda.
In any case, as Mr. Bunch said, there's no room for racism at the Smithsonian.
Too many times, I was the only black person, capital B, in the room, and I want to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.
So, being the only black person in the room, what if there are only One or two other people.
In any case, you better not be the only black person in the room.
What if there's nobody else in the room?
Are black people supposed to walk around in pairs and couples all the time?
In any case, I guess being the only black person in the room, that is a terrifying work environment.
Proof of institutional racism.
But let's get to the bottom of these accusations of racism.
They were made in an unsigned letter that was sent last Friday, unsigned, anonymous letter, by people who identified themselves as former employees and trustees of the African Art Museum.
They expressed outrage that it, quote, has recruited, retained, and promoted a predominantly white staff.
Now they capitalized white.
They haven't gotten the word from the AP and the New York Times.
White staff.
Now, let's think about this for a moment.
You have a letter, an anonymous letter, from people who claim to work at a museum.
Were they even able to verify that?
And they are complaining about racism, and this becomes a front page story at the New York Times.
Well, after the New York Times started rooting about, they did find a person who said he was one of those who sent the letter, Milton Jackson.
He is a former educator at the museum, whatever that means.
He said he filed a complaint with the USCEO Commission in 2016 about his experiences of discrimination in a hostile work environment.
Well, that case remains unsettled, apparently.
Now, one of the other signatories, whom the New York Times was able to track down, but he was afraid he wouldn't want his name known for fear of retribution.
There were a total of five people behind the letter.
So five people sent an anonymous letter becomes a big deal news story, and the head of the Smithsonian Institute is going to move heaven and earth to make sure that racism is stamped out.
I'd kind of like to try a trick like that, you know?
Maybe claim to be a black who is working at the New York Times, and I will tell, I will write in this letter that I represent, you know, half a dozen New York Times people.
We're going to keep our names anonymous, but this is a terrible degrading environment, and maybe I'd send the letter to National Public Radio or the Washington Post or someplace like that.
I just think it'd be very jolly to see what the consequences would be, but Excuse me.
But the letter did note that for more than a decade, the museum's curatorial team has been exclusively white.
And over the past years, the letter added that 10 former and current black employees have reported or experienced incidents of racial bias, hostile verbal attacks, retaliation, terminations, microaggressions, and degrading comments.
Well, okay.
As far as I can tell, this is not a huge museum.
It's got maybe 40, 50 employees, and apparently at least five of them are black, so at least 10% of the employees are black, but they are very unhappy.
The letter said that White employees were unfairly promoted over Black ones, and when Black employees complained, they were bullied.
And the letter calls the resignation of the museum's chief curator and deputy director, Christine Muller-Kramer, who's been at the museum for 20 years, and she's been the chief curator for 2009.
She's the only one person who has got a finger pointed at her.
So, what's going on here?
I guess she must be an absolute kluxer, right?
Well, but as far as I can tell, it looks as though the museum has had a person at the very top, ever since 1983, who was black.
So, why aren't they complaining to the person who is in charge, who is black, who is there?
From 2009 to 2017, that's a very important part of this last 10 year period about which they're complaining, the director was Johnetta B. Cole.
She retired in 2017 after eight years.
She is black, and she is a former president of Spelman College, a black school in Atlanta.
She was succeeded, after she retired, by someone named Augustus Casely Heiford.
He is Ghanaian, for heaven's sake.
He's from Ghana, but apparently he permitted this toxic environment to persist.
What's wrong with these black people?
Why aren't they doing their job?
And since April of this year, after the Ghanaian went off to greener pastures, the museum has been led by Interim Director Deborah L. Mack.
Well, of course, she too is black.
She previously was the Associate Director of Strategic Partnerships for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the great big one of them all.
And she, of course, is black.
But so you get five unhappy black employees, presumably, or presumably five, they send an anonymous letter.
This is front page news.
There you go.
Well, maybe things will be better if all across America, People do as is going to happen at Rutgers in the English department.
The English department at Rutgers recently announced a list of anti-racist directives and initiatives for the upcoming fall semester.
And they're going to find ways to contribute to the eradication of systemic inequities facing blacks and indigenous and people of color.
They didn't use the abbreviation BIPOC.
They spelled it all out.
And one of the initiatives is described as incorporating critical grammar into our pedagogy.
Now what could that possibly be?
This is so as not to put students from multilingual, non-standard academic English backgrounds at a disadvantage.
So if you look into this carefully, what they mean by critical grammar actually means non-critical grammar.
They're letting black vernacular, What we used to refer to as Ebonics.
They're going to stop correcting and make sure that people actually use standard English.
They will encourage students to develop a critical awareness of the varieties of choices available to them with regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them.
In other words, let them speak or write in non-standard English.
Now, it seems to me this is a great way to make blacks unemployable.
If a company still dares have standards and expects people to write in comprehensible English, and they start writing things like, he be sick, and they think that's okay, that might be an obstacle.
And then, think of all the foreign students.
Universities love foreign students because they pay full tariff.
They pay full tariff.
Are they going to be going back to their own countries thinking it's okay to write, he be sick, or I ask you a question?
I guess you never can tell, but this is the sort of thing that's going to solve systemic racism.
And now, we have another story for you.
The maker of Red Bull energy drinks, There's been a little housecleaning at the top U.S.
executives.
It's a multinational firm, by the way.
Red Bull GmbH is an Austrian company that makes the drink Red Bull.
And apparently, its chief executive of the North American division, Stephen Kozak, and its North American chief marketing officer, Amy Taylor, have left the company.
Why is that?
It turns out Amy Taylor has been working on diversity and inclusion efforts within the company with Mr. Kozak, the president, and they've tried very hard and they want to be much more active when it comes to supporting so-called racial justice.
In fact, some U.S.
employees had recently raised concerns about why the company has not been sufficiently hysterical in support of Black Lives Matter.
A letter signed by 300 employees criticized Red Bull's public silence on Black Lives Matter.
And, this is the good news story I was telling you about, Amy Taylor and Stefan Kozak wanted to really ratchet up the noise about Black Lives Matter.
But the people who run the company back in Austria, they said, no dice.
We ain't doing that.
We're not going to get involved in that.
We're in the business of selling drinks.
We are not in the business of whooping up some political outfit, Black Lives Matter.
So there you go.
They are not going to join everybody with this obligatory hand ring.
Now we'll see how long that lasts.
But I suppose if you are a billionaire, and the fellow who founded the company, Black Red Bull, Dietrich Matschitz, is a billionaire.
He founded the company in 1987, and it has 12,000 employees worldwide, nearly $7 billion in sales in 2019, but 300 employees in America.
I don't know out of how many American employees said that they wanted to hoop and holler about Black Lives Matter.
The president and the marketing director also wanted a whoop and holler, but the big boss said no, and they're out.
So, there you go.
Let's see what happens to Red Bull, and let's see what happens to Dietrich Matzschitz, but for the time being, he is holding firm.
Good man.
Now, back to the New York Times.
There's an article about Margaret Sanger.
It's written by a black woman named Nikita Stewart.
Now, when I hear the name Nikita, I can't help but think of Nikita Khrushchev.
So, I don't know the answer to this question, but was Nikita Steward, was she named by an admirer of the Soviet regime?
Or does it just turn out that Nikita is one of those fancy black girls' names, like Lakeshia or Shaniqua?
That's an interesting question, isn't it?
I wish I had the answer for you.
Well, in any case, this article about Margaret Sanger explains that Planned Parenthood of Greater New York will remove the name of Margaret Sanger, founder of the national organization, from its Manhattan Health Clinic because of her, quote, harmful connections to the eugenics movement.
Well, can you ever have helpful connections to the eugenics movement?
No, she was a great believer That people who were better able to afford to raise children, who had better physical qualities, better mental qualities, they are the ones who should have children and not people who suffer defects of one sort or another.
And that is the reason why we must distance ourselves from her.
She was a public health nurse, and she opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in Brooklyn in 1916.
She has long been lauded as a feminist icon and reproductive rights pioneer, but boy oh boy, ever since George Floyd, ever since riots, and ever since looting, any kind of connection to eugenics is absolutely discrediting, even though eugenics does not necessarily have anything to do with race.
But, the group is also going to talk to the city fathers and replace Mrs. Sanger's name on a street sign that has hung near its offices on Bleeker Street for more than two decades.
Well, this is a bit of a turnaround, as recently as 2016.
Planned Parenthood was issuing a fact sheet saying that it condemned some of her beliefs, but they say she was mostly well-intentioned in trying to make birth control accessible to poor and immigrant communities.
But this time around in a statement, the national organization said it supported the New York chapter's decision to erase Margaret Sanger's name from the clinic.
It'll now be known simply as the Manhattan Health Center.
The fact is, there has been a little bit of turmoil in Planned Parenthood, including the recent ouster of its executive director, Laura McQuaid, reportedly in part because of complaints that she mistreated black employees.
Oh boy, oh boy.
You know, it's just hard to imagine these white people running organizations like that, really riding roughshod over black employees.
But that's what they're claiming, just like the people at the African Art Museum.
Ah, they've been badly mistreated.
As it turns out, the former clinic, the one where it started on West 16th, is a National Historic Landmark.
It was established as that in 1993, and that's the year when the City Council voted to name the corner of Mott and Bleeker Streets Margaret Sanger Square.
And Planned Parenthood pushed for the change.
They were proud of Margaret Sanger, but it's now 2020 and everything is different.
So we've got to turn our backs on the founder of the organization.
Yep.
Yep.
There you go.
She's going to be just rubbed off the door.
Her name's rubbed off the place, rubbed out of our minds.
And there have been complaints that she was a racist.
And there is a letter from her that is cited by people who describe her as racist, and it's about the importance of getting a black minister to promote the importance of contraception.
And she wrote the letter that contains the following words.
The minister's work is also important, and he should be trained, perhaps, by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach.
We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.
And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Now, to say the idea that we want to exterminate the Negro population, some people have quoted this line and said, oh, that's what she wanted to do and that's why she was pushing contraception among blacks.
That's not the case at all.
She says nobody had better get that idea because that's not our idea.
She wanted the benefits of contraception and the benefits of superior breeding to apply to all races, not just whites.
And it's always been the case that people who look at racial differences in abortion rates will shriek and holler about how abortion is a form of black genocide because of the simple fact, and it is a fact, that blacks are more likely to get abortions than whites.
They are 13% of the population but have 40% of the abortions.
There's a substantial number of the black population, people who would tell you that the reason that any abortion clinics or birth control installations are in black communities is because white people deliberately put them there to cut down on the number of blacks.
Certainly not the case from anybody I've ever, ever heard of, and apparently it was not the case with Margaret Sanger either.
Now just yesterday, there was an astonishing story out of Portland, Oregon.
As you probably know, every day, ever since the George Floyd riots began, there have been riots, demonstrations, and in some cases, pretty nasty business in Portland.
Every night!
I should say every night rather than every day.
And lately, Mothers, or those who claim to be mothers, they form what they call a wall of mom, and they stand in front of the groups of demonstrators in a bid to protect the as many as 2,000 demonstrators from the police.
The idea is that if they have a wall of moms, then the police are going to be nice to them and not shoot rubber bullets, not shoot tear gas.
Well, they don't get shot with tear gas and rubber bullets because this wall of moms, almost all white people of course, because they're not doing anything that deserves that.
They are not the people who have been trying to set fire to police precincts, breaking into local law enforcement buildings, Destroying federal property, which is what some of them do.
But when people do that, then the police react as police always do.
And then there are cries of awfulness, awfulness, bad, bad.
These wicked police, they're doing their jobs.
Now, what is particularly interesting about this wall of moms is what they sang, what they did.
They held their hands up in the air and they sang, please don't shoot me.
And they sang it to the tune of Ring Around the Rosie.
And so it went something like this.
Please don't shoot me.
Well, are they really?
Such fools and idiots that this hands-up-don't-shoot business, as they wave their hand in the air, please don't shoot me, that goes back to the Michael Brown business in Ferguson.
Haven't they heard that this was debunked as a complete pack of lies?
But here they've got their hands up in the air.
Please don't shoot me.
Please don't shoot me.
Idiots, idiots, we all fall down.
Well, I added that line.
That's apparently not part of the song they sing.
But no, as soon as the moms, this wall of moms, decides they've had enough and goes home, the real hardcore, they then tore open the doors on the federal courthouse and beat back the agents inside.
Yes, it's always the case that smaller groups of up to several hundred people, once the nice people have all gone home, they're smashing windows and clashing violently.
But my real question is, When they're out there demonstrating every night, every night, all of these white people, and they're raving about Black Lives Matter, what is it they really want?
I don't know.
I'm not sure they want.
I think they are just raising hell.
But when they get these people who claim to be mothers, who do, you know, from their photographs, they don't look like absolutely wild people.
What do these middle-aged and some younger, what do these white ladies want?
I'd really just love to hear some sort of attempt at a coherent explanation of why they're out there.
But moving along to Chicago.
Just yesterday, 15 people were injured in a shooting at a funeral home.
Now, there was an exchange of gunfire between the people attending the funeral and assailants.
Assailants drove up, hopped out of a car, and started blazing away.
Blazing away!
And the people who were attending the funeral, they returned fire.
And there was a total of 15 serious critical injuries.
All 15 of those people were apparently in the hospital.
I don't know about more minor injuries, and apparently there were no deaths.
Rather bad shooting.
Their aim was poor, but they managed to hit some people.
There was a reporter on the scene.
There were dozens and dozens of shell casings visible on the ground.
And there is an article by RT, the Russian news outfit, that includes some surveillance video.
That's a pretty vivid video, too.
You can hear the guns going bang, bang, bangety, bang, bang, bang.
People are running, people are running, sprinting, trying to get away.
So, it was very, very exciting, and it turns out it was not!
A couple of those Amish gangs that have vicious feuds.
No, it was not the problem.
Yes, it was entirely, as far as I could tell, melanin-enhanced encounter between mourners and anti-mourners.
And as it turns out, the person whose death they were mourning had likewise been shot to death.
So, what goes around comes around, I suppose.
Now, what's the solution?
What's the solution?
Mayor Lori Lightfoot, she's absolutely opposed the idea of the feds coming in and trying to stop the violence.
She thinks that's an absolutely terrible, terrible idea.
But one guy does have an idea.
Several weeks ago in response to violence, and in one case it was a one-year-old child had been shot to death, Pastor Edgar Rodriguez of New City Fellowship, he started organizing evening prayer walks through the affected neighborhoods in Chicago.
They go to places where there are large homeless populations, and they share hope, and they share prayer.
They go into the black part of town, the Hispanic part of town, and they think that this is going to be a way to cut down on gun violence.
Now, Pastor Rodriguez, he says, we just really want God to invade certain parts of the city.
He's going to continue with his prayer marches through September, focusing on different neighborhoods, those most likely To let fly.
And I was intrigued that an article about this undertaking has a photograph of a statue.
It's a statue of Jesus praying over a dead body.
And the words, Thou shalt not kill, are emblazoned in large letters all around the base.
The photograph was identified only as a Chicago neighborhood.
And I thought to myself, I wonder if there is a statue like that, Jesus praying over a dead body with the words, Thou shalt not kill.
Is there any place in the world that has a similar statue?
I suspect perhaps not.
But moving from Chicago to Las Vegas, a Las Vegas man is facing murder charges after Recording video of his thrill-killing of a homeless person.
He just walked up to this guy who was sleeping, a bum, and he shot him in the head.
And he had a cell phone with him and he recorded this atrocity.
And then just a few days later, he walked up to a man walking his dog in a park and shot him in the chest at point-blank range.
This is someone who had absolutely no contact with these people, but the police tracked him down.
The news stories about this go into some interesting detail about the detective methods that went into finding this guy, which are pretty clever.
But they end up with a certain Noah Green, melanin enhanced.
Now, the videos of the killing and of the attempt on the life of the man walking his dog were on his cell phone.
He hadn't broadcast these, and so the police say that he probably was just taking these videos with the intention of enjoying them in the privacy of his home and, who knows, perhaps showing them to his intimate friends.
What I wonder about And what has remained unspecified in all the news coverage I could see is race of suspect.
But apparently that's not something that the news is at all interested in.
But I am interested, and I suspect our listeners are interested too.
If this guy was just tracking down people who he wanted to kill, my suspicion is the people he shot were white.
I imagine the guy walking the dog was white.
But we'll just have to see.
Or maybe we will never see.
Maybe we will never know.
This is the kind of thing that sometimes just never comes to light.
Now, I do have a story about a Michigan high school teacher.
Maybe some of you have heard of Justin Kucera.
He was a high school teacher and athletic coach in Michigan who decided to tweet the following, I'm done being silence.
At real Donald Trump is our president.
Well, having tweeted, These sentiments.
He was fired.
He was fired from Walled Lake Consolidated School District.
Apparently, that was a sentiment that must not be expressed within that school district.
And the communications representative of the district said, When issues arise, there is a temptation to view items through the lens of our fractured political discourse.
Walled Lake encourages students and staff members to engage each other with mutual respect and civility.
Well, it doesn't seem to me that they engaged with Justin Kusera with mutual respect and civility simply for firing him because he thinks that real Donald Trump is our president.
Apparently, Justin Cussera was a great favorite, both among students and the people that he coached in the athletic department.
And it is worth pointing out that other teachers within the same district have had political tweets of one sort or another without any kind of professional repercussions.
Paulette Lowe, that's spelled L-O-E, she encouraged her students to read an article from The Atlantic about how to beat Trump.
Is that any more partisan than saying real Donald Trump is our president?
No, I suspect not.
And Nicole Estes, a kindergarten teacher in the district, called Trump a narcissist and a sociopath and put that on her Facebook page.
She too had no consequences, but simply saying, I'm done being silent at real Donald Trump is our president, Out you go.
Out you go.
Now, I've not yet heard whether Justin Cruzeiro will sue.
I certainly hope he does.
But this is yet another blatant example of the kind of double standard we must deal with.
And finally, a story about the U.S.
Census.
On Tuesday, that is to say, yesterday, President Trump signed an order directing the U.S.
Census Bureau not to count illegal immigrants When they are calculating how many seats in the House of Representatives to allocate to each state based on the state's population.
As you know, every House seat represents a certain number of people.
And if a state, for example, has lots and lots of people, it gets more representatives.
Well, what happens if, say, half the residents of a state are illegal immigrants?
That means that they get, according to the current system whereby illegal immigrants are counted for the purpose of allocating house seats, that means they get twice as many seats as they would otherwise, despite the fact that half the population of that state doesn't even belong there, shouldn't even be there.
And it certainly makes sense to me to allegate seats, at the very least, based on people who are in the country legally.
I would say it would make sense to allegate seats based on the number of citizens living in those seats.
But, at the very least, what he's going to do, or what he wants to do, is not allegate them based on the presence of people who broke the law, who shouldn't be in here anyway.
And what's going to happen is, of course, Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi.
She says the House of Representatives will vigorously contest the president's unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to impair the sentence.
Well, there you go.
Impairing the sentence by not using illegals when allocating house seats.
And the President's order will, of course, get legal challenges.
The American Civil Liberties Union is already sharpening up its knives and they're going to get right to work and try to make sure that the illegals are counted and recognized just like everybody else in the country, just like people who belong here.
Now, I'm going to end the program.
With a question, a question from a reader.
It is a question that we get fairly often, and it's not one that has an easy, it doesn't have a single answer, and it doesn't have an easy answer.
And the question is the following.
I am a blue-collar worker, and my wife is a nurse.
We just had our first baby.
My question is this.
What advice do you have for young, white, newlywed couples with white infants, particularly How do we spur a sense of racial consciousness and European identity in them in a society that seems dead set on pulling it out of us and our child, up by the roots, and depriving them of a sense of European identity?
You're going to say, how do I instill these values in my children in a way that they will not actively rebel against Just because children like to rebel.
He says, we are very concerned about our baby's future, and we seek your advice.
We are afraid for our children.
It's a very tough thing.
It's a very, very tough thing.
Because, as the writer says, all of society is set up to try to make people, white people, think that they have no European identity.
No racial identity.
Now, I have two children.
And I have faced this very question and there are many setbacks, many difficulties along the way, but I think by and large things have worked out successfully.
I will tell you one of the most important things.
The most important thing, I believe, is to have the most thoroughly loving relationship possible with your children.
That will mean... I mean, I know that children rebel even against loving parents, and this is probably superfluous advice for people who are asking the question the kind that you asked, but if you have the best possible relationship with your children, then your values will be seen as ones that they will find acceptable.
I would also say this, and I believe you're already on to this in your question, do not try to be overboard about this.
Don't try constantly to be telling people, telling your children about whiteness and the importance of this.
I used to say things simply like, well, you know, we're white, and we've been white for thousands of years, and you know, we like being white.
And my children would nod their heads.
Yeah, yeah, we like being white.
And once or twice, I would take a child.
If we're on our way someplace, I would, by mistake, get off at the wrong exit and drive through the most tawdry of ghettos.
And do it in the summertime.
When the inhabitants are out on their porches, shouting at each other, having a good time.
And I remember doing that once with one of my daughters.
And I drove slowly, got lost, and got lost again, and drove slowly through the area.
And she looked around and she says to me, Daddy, why don't I like this place?
Well, that was a very important question, and I had an answer for it.
But, to go into other aspects, if you can, you should homeschool your children.
Now, not every parent and child is temperamentally suited to homeschooling, but that's a very important way to try to instill a sense of racial identity, and at the same time, it avoids going to a public school or even a private school where you can be absolutely certain that racial identity will be stamped out For white people.
It's encouraged for everyone else, but not for whites.
Another important thing, to the extent possible, is to live in an area where there are other white people who share your views, who also have children.
It's vitally important for white people to have community.
I would love someday for us to build communities to the point where we would be running the local school, and then we wouldn't have to worry so much about it.
But if you have friends, friends with children, children your age, who share your views, and they can play together, and it does not have to be any kind of constant sense of evangelizing, just a gentle comment here and there.
The fact that there are not posters of black basketball stars on the bedroom walls.
The fact that you don't watch the most egregious sort of television.
All of this can have an effect.
Now I know that I've said a few things by no means are the things that I've said entirely adequate really.
I don't have the answers.
Every person is going to have to face this choice differently.
It is a difficult challenge and again the more you can cooperate with others The better.
So, I'm glad that I had this question, and I encourage listeners to send me further questions, further comments, things that we should have covered, and especially errors that I might have made.
Sometimes I get things wrong in these podcasts, and I like nothing better than having factual or logical errors pointed out to me, and I will certainly read them into the next podcast if you do so.
So, please send your comments, questions, and corrections to amran.com, and if you click on the Contact Us tab, you can get straight through, and I would love to hear from you.
So, thank you for your attention on this occasion.
▲
Export Selection