All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
40:22
Sam Dickson: "A Benediction for Heretics" (2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sam Dixon, who will now close our conference, is the son of a Presbyterian minister, as am I, and descended from many generations of South Carolinians.
He attended the University of Georgia, where he got his BA, and he also got his law degree there.
He has lent his legal talents to many causes on our side of the spectrum.
For example, during the Atlanta Olympics, he got a judge to issue an order such that the The Confederate battle flag could not be barred from display during the Olympic parade.
And for his activities of that kind and at American Renaissance, one of the watchdog groups said that Dixon and his ilk should be considered and treated as terrorists.
Now, I'm sure by that they mean indefinite detention and waterboarding.
Well, we think otherwise.
And I'm convinced that when Mr. Dixon goes to his reward, the great white father will say unto him, well done, good and faithful servant.
And since the very first American Renaissance Conference, Sam has spoken at all of them, through thick and thin, through good times and bad.
And so it is with great pleasure that I introduce to you my esteemed colleague and dear friend, Sam Dixon.
It is a great honor and treasure to be considered a friend by Jared Taylor, someone whom I hold, I think, all of you in the very, very highest esteem.
I have known lots of people who I think are actually willing to die for the revolution.
Not lots, but some.
I've certainly known far more people who are willing to die for the revolution than people who are willing to work for the revolution.
Jared and his assistant, Henry Wolfe, are actually willing to work for the revolution.
And I think we...
This conference shows the recovery from the blows and the losses sustained by the attacks upon us by the so-called Antifa.
And we are now back close to where we were, where Jared was before.
And I think we all owe a great hand of applause and a standing ovation to Jared and to Henry Wolfe for all of their work on the conference and for 26 years of work in American Renaissance.
So, let's see.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, thank you very much for that.
This reminds me, about 10 years ago, an allied organization gave me a prize or an award for lifetime achievement.
And my wife's reaction to that was, well, does that mean you can stop now?
Well, no, honey, it doesn't mean that.
So 26 years is just the beginning.
But thank you very much.
You're very welcome.
Jared, Jared.
Jared and I are both, as he said, sons of Presbyterian ministers and from long lines of Presbyterians.
And my childhood nanny was a woman who went over to Japan, where Jared's father was a Presbyterian missionary, and she was sort of a nanny to Jared.
It's astonishing that long before we knew each other, we were already bound together.
But I'm sure that you are included among the predestined elect.
When predestination was explained to me and the president of Sunday School, my Sunday School teachers were alarmed at how readily I warmed the idea that I was predestined and could do whatever I wanted to and go to heaven.
It's a wonderful doctrine.
They did not like my interpretation of it, I'm afraid.
My talk is going to be on the bed of Procrustes.
Procrustes was a monster in Greek mythology.
He's a minor figure.
I doubt that many of you have heard of him.
There's a great book that was written by my late friend Vladimir Volkov, the white Russian novelist in France, whose aunt was my Russian tutor.
And Dr. Volkov wrote a book.
He's a very famous writer in France.
He won the Chateaubriand Prize for French literature and almost was admitted to the French Academy.
But he wrote a book which has never been translated into English called Le Lied de Procuste, The Bed of Procrustes.
It's a very short book and it's a beautiful demo job.
On the idea of equality, and especially on the idea of the moral superiority of the idea of equality.
And Volkoff went back to antiquity, and he selected out, brilliantly, The Bed of Procrustes as the title of his book.
The Procrustes was a monster, but he was a good-feeling monster.
He had a warm heart, and he loved people.
And he loved for people to come and stay with him and be the guest in his house.
But it upset him because the guests didn't fit into the bed he had.
Sometimes they were too tall and their feet stuck out of the bed.
Sometimes they were too short and they didn't fit comfortably in the bed.
So because of his love of people...
Procrustes set out to remedy this problem, and so he arranged to have something like a guillotine, and when people were too long, he would chop their feet and legs off so they would fit into his bed, and if they were too short, he would put them on a rack and stretch them out when they'd be the right size.
This is a brilliant insight into the ideology that rules us, and that's going to be the thrust of my talk, is the ideology that grips America.
That grips Americans usually without their knowing that it grips them.
In last Sunday, April 12, 2015, the New York Times carried an interesting front-page article on its review of the week.
The article was written by John F. Burns, who is a veteran Times reporter.
He is retiring after 40 years as an overseas reporter for the New York Times.
The article he wrote was, The Things I Carried Back.
Now, we can set to one side Mr. Burns' self-congratulatory lie in referring to the Times' alleged commitment to fairness and balance.
I've had experience with the Times' commitment to fairness and balance, and I can assure you it was not a pleasant experience, and the article that resulted had nothing about it constituting in any way fairness and balance.
In fact, it was an article filled with lies and things that they knew were lies.
So we can set to one side his little pat on his back about the alleged goodness of the New York Times.
What stood out was Mr. Burns' references to ideology, which he described correctly as the scourge of the 20th century.
He identified ideology as the greatest problem that he saw in the world.
Now, of course, the problem there is that Mr. Burns cannot see that he himself is gripped by an ideology.
An ideology provides a way for certain people to deal with knowledge and facts the same way that Procrustes dealt with humans who didn't fit his ideal prescription and for whom he could not be hospitable.
An ideology enables people who are in its grips to dismiss facts, to select facts, to organize information so as to buttress their ideology.
Mr. Burns describes some of these ideologies overseas.
He's a very striking reference to a visit he made to a hospital in North Korea.
The hospital had been built by Kim Il-sung's underlings, and it was a magnificent hospital.
Every modern machine, glistening floors, large rooms, the state-of-the-art hospital.
And so he was shown through by a representative of the regime, a doctor, who showed him all of this, but there were no patients in the hospital.
And so Mr. Burns alleges that he asked this guy, well, when are the patients arriving?
To which the communists replied, smiling, oh, there will be no patients, because under the leadership of Kim Il-sung, there are never any sick people.
To which Mr. Burns says, he said, Never?
And the communist functionary replied, absolutely never.
No one is ever sick in North Korea.
But this is an extreme example of how an ideology organizes information.
To paraphrase, or to quote the Bible, ears have they and they hear not, eyes have they and they see not.
They become like that which they worship, creatures of wood and stone.
Seeing for these people is not believing.
And we see this all the time when we read of American Renaissance, we read the stories, and we talk to people who are in the grips of the ideology.
Seeing for them is not believing.
The facts don't matter.
You can show them things, they can see it, but they don't believe it.
Because they live in a fairy tale land.
They live in an Alice in Wonderland of their ideology.
There's an excellent book which I recommend to you, which I picked up inadvertently at a library sale, called The Resurgence of the Real.
And the author of that book gave the definition of ideology that I gave you a few minutes ago.
But she says that the real is reasserting itself.
Of course, the real always will reassert itself.
You can imagine that there is no law of gravity, but the law of gravity will prevail of your imagination.
And ultimately, the real will prevail over the ideology
Mr. Burns cited the absurdity of the hospital in Korea, North Korea.
But we have many similar absurdities here in America.
We have seen several nationwide scandals that serve as a means for us who are not in the grips of an ideology but who are informed by reality to assess The degree to which our country is in the grips of an ideology.
We do not really have an ideology, I don't think.
We look to nature, to science, to facts, and we draw conclusions from those, and that is how we think.
This is not how the Antifa people who were outside yesterday think.
They do not think that way.
Neither does the staff of the New York Times editorial page.
The incidents I'm referring to are the Ferguson incident, the incident with the poor little SAE schoolboy in Oklahoma, and Martha Stewart.
And I'd like to engage in what my high school teachers, English teachers, call compare and contrast.
And I'd like to share with you for a minute a compare and contrast of these three incidents to show you the degree to which our country is in the grips of an ideology almost as insane as that of Kim Il-sung.
Now, Martha Stewart, let's start with poor old Martha.
Martha is a vulnerable person for many, many reasons.
Like Sam Francis, I study history and I try to study human psychology and I observe the world around me.
Like Socrates said, an unobserved life is not worth living.
And when Martha Stewart's troubles began, I knew part of the reason Why she was having difficulties.
She was a nobody.
She was a Polish Catholic from a big family of people who didn't have much money who had made a lot of money and become prominent.
Now, whoever you are, regardless of your religion, your race, whatever, when you are a nobody and you make a lot of money, I can tell you, you are in trouble.
Because the people who have inherited a lot of money, the people who are already king of the mountain, They do not like newcomers at the banquet of good things.
They don't like the idea that someone like Mount Martha Stewart can rise up and take a place in finance and become a world figure and make money.
Especially, of course, they don't like it when you're a Polish Catholic.
That didn't help Martha either.
And she had no connections.
She had not gone to exclusive prep schools.
She hadn't gone to the Ivy League.
She had none of the protective connections that big money generally has that can pull strings and ensure that indictments aren't handed down and that grand juries don't hold hearings.
So Martha committed a crime.
And a lot of people think that Martha's crime...
Was that she engaged in insider trading and that she was convicted of insider trading.
This is wrong.
Martha did not engage in insider trading.
Martha had a boyfriend stockbroker of whom she was fond.
And she apparently had an intimate relationship with him.
The degrees of which we can...
I say intimate.
I don't know the degree of that intimacy.
But Martha was fond of him and she was loyal to him.
And he sent her an email with a stock tip.
Martha never acted on the email.
But her stockbroker boyfriend became the target of a federal investigation about insider trading.
And they came to Martha and they asked her, did you get an email from so-and-so?
And out of loyalty to her beau, she said that she had not.
And that's a stupid thing.
She should never have talked to the federal investigators to begin with.
She just said, no, I'm not talking.
But she said no.
And it is a crime to give false information to a policeman, which is another reason why it's very dangerous for people like us to talk to policemen and FBI agents, certainly dangerous to talk to them outside the presence of a lawyer and without a lot of consideration,
because you can be completely innocent and they can twist it around and make you guilty of giving a false statement.
To the police.
So it's a dangerous thing when the police come to call.
And I say that as somebody who likes, who basically likes most cops.
I don't buy into the I hate cops thing.
I know they're bad cops.
But we need them.
And I can tell you, I'm sure you've all had the same experience.
We've been very glad to see a cop at certain times.
And it was nice to see the cop get out of his car.
But that was Martha's crime.
It was a first offense.
Martha didn't have a history of lying to the police.
It was not a sustained thing.
It was a very short thing.
She lied to the cops about getting an email from her boyfriend.
Martha served time.
Martha served real time.
She went to a grim prison.
She had dental problems.
With all of her money, she asked if she could have a dentist come fix her teeth, and they said, no, you can't.
You're in jail.
And she suffered permanent...
Tooth damage.
This is what the system did to Martha Stewart.
A woman whose lie was a crime, but it was a first offense.
And nobody died as a result of it.
In fact, nobody was even hurt by it.
Because the police already had the stockbroker's emails, and they already knew that she had gotten the email when they asked the question.
But Martha served time.
Now let's go to Ferguson.
At Ferguson, the lowest elements of the black community came to the fore.
Every race has them.
As a friend of mine said, a very fine Virginian of Bill Clinton, he said, you have to be a Southerner to know what kind of trash he is.
And I think that's true.
Southerners can understand just how great, how the depth of what trash Clinton is better than Northerners who didn't grow up with Southern cracker trash like Bill Clinton.
And so we've all got them.
Every race has got them.
And every race has good people.
I know we have a black woman here today, and I certainly don't want her to think that I am accusing her and all black people of being the kind of people who came out into the streets at Ferguson, eager to be victims, eager to victimize the cop.
These people systematically, not all of them, about half of the blacks, stuck to their story that they had told when the incident first happened.
That the gentle giant was attacking the policeman.
That he was acting erratically.
He turned around and charged back at the policeman.
These blacks stayed their story.
As the Bible said, the honest man sweareth truthfully to his own hurt.
And these people swore truthfully to the hurt of those elements of their community who saw an opportunity for the poverty pimps.
Like Jesse Jackson and others, to have another run at being national celebrities and getting money and all this by being pimps for the poverty of this particular element of the black population.
They're deservedly called, in my parlance, poverty pimps, because that's what they are.
And they do nothing for black people.
They just cause black people to victimize themselves over and over and over again.
But now these people, about the other half of them, they're the real scum.
And I think, like I said of Clinton, I imagine you have to be black to know what kind of trash they are.
And I've had black clients tell me that, about, you know, that you have to be black to understand what trash the other party is, in cases I've handled for black people.
But the trash element changed their stories.
They had initially said what the others said, that the gentle giant, whom we saw on the video...
Attacking a non-white cashier a third his size when the cashier tried to interfere with his robbery.
And then to show there was something really wrong with this guy.
If the people in this room were to commit a crime like shoplifting, most of us would get the hell out of Dodge.
This guy didn't.
He went out in the parking lot and he decided he's going to turn around and go back in and have some more fun beating up the cashier.
So this was a very odd, belligerent guy.
These people changed their stories, and they claimed that Brown was holding his hands up and saying, I give up.
And so all over America, you had football players, you know, hands up, hands up.
And they claimed that the cop had just wantonly shot this man down, dead in the street, for no reason at all.
Now, these lies were repeated to policemen and federal investigators.
These lies were then repeated by these people to the news media.
As a result of these lies, people died.
Cops were killed in New York City.
Fathers were killed whose children would grow up fatherless.
Millions of dollars of property was burned to the ground in Ferguson.
Ferguson is now destroyed.
Ferguson is never coming back, contrary to what the New York Times and the media talk about, about voting the whites out, voting the blacks in.
Ferguson is finished.
No businessman is going to open a business in Ferguson, and Ferguson will be, henceforth, a terrible slum.
And the black people who own houses there have lost their money because of the behavior of this scum element that lied about these things, sustained their lies, repeated them for months, and caused problems from coast to coast.
Now, is any single one of those liars...
Let me back up.
Ultimately, when pressed by the federal investigators sent by the African American, Eric Holder, pressed these people, most of them, or many of them, finally admitted, well, yeah, actually, I didn't see the hands up, don't shoot.
Actually, I did see him attacking the cops.
One woman said, well, I saw that, but I thought it would help the community for me to say that I saw him trying to surrender.
So I changed my story.
And I told you then that he was trying to surrender.
Now, are any of these people being indicted?
Are any of them seeing the inside of a grand jury room?
Obviously, you know the answer.
No, not one.
The government has announced there will be no prosecutions of people who, like Martha Stewart, lied to federal investigators and police.
Over and over again, and through their lives, caused the deaths of innocent people a thousand miles away who had nothing to do with the incident whatsoever.
People who have destroyed their own community, who have caused the businesses in their community to be burned to the ground and the people who work there to lose their jobs.
People who inflicted, it may be safe to say, these people caused tens of millions of dollars nationwide of damage.
They will not go to jail like Martha Stewart, whose lie had no impact on anybody whatsoever.
And moving on to this poor little SAE boy who got drunk and made his rude comments, which can be deconstructed to say that he wants to be in a fraternity with his own sort of people.
His life is ruined.
His family have had to go into hiding.
There have been mob demonstrations in front of their house.
This is the society we live in, where Martha Stewart will go to jail for a lie that had no impact on anybody whatsoever, and people whose lies caused the deaths of policemen and damage to their city and arson and millions of dollars of losses and put the whole country into a frenzy.
Not one of them will ever serve time.
Not one of them will ever be tried.
But the SAE boy and Martha, their lives were significantly They like to talk about profiling.
It sounds to me, and I think it sounds to you, like Martha Stewart and that SAE boy have been profiled.
And those people in Ferguson have not been profiled.
Thank you.
The insanity grips this country.
This is an insane situation.
The late Murray Rothbard wrote about these people, and he said the odd thing is that they are secular people, but they're in a grips of a mania, of a religious excitement that's beyond any religious excitement we've ever had, we've ever seen.
And this mania, this excitement drives them along.
In Atlanta, where I spent some part of the year, we have a paper called Creative Loafing, and they have a part of that paper called Happenings, and organizations can put...
They're meeting notices.
You can have two pages of liberal left-wing meetings, people that do this, that, and the other.
These people have huge energy.
They are driven by this mania, and they have maniacal energy.
And when they face opposition, they become extremely nasty.
Many of them, I think it's fair to say, would probably like to live in a Kim Il-jung society.
I wouldn't put it past Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich to love the idea that they could sit in an office and sign pieces of paper and put the people in jail.
I can't say they believe that, but their attitude toward freedom of speech, their attitude toward open civic discourse, certainly shows that they do not believe in an open society by any means.
Mark Potok was interviewed recently, and a friend of mine was kind enough to send me Mark Potok's interview.
And it provides a little window into the mind of Mark Potok.
And I seem to have come up here without it, so I will have to state it from memory.
But he was asked, what are the criteria by which you establish that someone is a hater or something is a hate organization?
And Potok replied, oh, well, he said, this is how we do it.
If you say there are differences between people, then you're a hater.
If you say that there are differences in groups of people.
So if you look at a pygmy and you look at a Swede and you see something different, well, you're a hater.
You're a hate organization.
Now, is this not insane?
Is this not an ideology that has gripped people who now have eyes that see not and ears who see not and for whom seeing is not?
This ideology is something which we can never join.
We can't reason with it.
We can only hope that this insanity will cure itself as it did in previous eruptions like the French Revolution and the abolitionist frenzy in New England in the 1850s and the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
But there are other aspects of ideology that grip our country which we can deal with.
There's a saying many of you have heard that if you want to see what you can change, look at the guy who's looking at you when you're shaving.
Look at the guy in the mirror.
That's who you can change.
And we can at least change ourselves.
We may not be able to change the country yet, but we can change ourselves.
And one thing that I think is very important is that we free ourselves from what I call the ideology of freedom.
The ideology of freedom grips us.
It grips the so-called right as well as the so-called left.
The Tea Party people are in the grips of the ideology of freedom.
And what I mean by the ideology of freedom, I do not mean that we embrace a slave state.
That we give up the rights that our ancestors won to a jury trial and representation by a lawyer and freedom of speech and the right to hold your property without the government taking it, without just compensation.
I'm not saying we go over to the kind of police state that our enemies, I think, would love to have.
What I mean by the ideology of freedom, I mean an ideology that explains all of American history in terms of the idea of freedom.
This is a very strange thing that has come to be accepted by people without thought.
A country is not an idea.
When the Greeks fought the Persians at Thermopylae and Marathon, yes, they were fighting for the West.
They were fighting for people who, like us, believed in looking at nature and drawing conclusions instead of flogging the sea as Xerxes did when the sea wasn't perfect.
Smooth, the Persian king, an example of oriental despotism, had his soldiers go down with whips and spank the sea.
He was going to reproach the sea.
This kind of thing stands in stark contrast between the stories from our own history as English-speaking people of King Canute, who pointed out to his courtiers that he could not command the tide not to come in.
It's an example.
A freedom taken out of a libertarian context and put more into the general cultural context of Western history, the difference between Europeans who are at heart freedom-loving and people who have to live in the kind of con-slave state of a Stalin or a Xerxes.
So I'm not talking about giving up freedom when I talk about the ideology of freedom.
I'm talking about breaking free of the idea that American history, and also to a lesser extent English history, is explained by the evolution of an idea.
That our history is a story of freedom broadening down, getting more and more freedom.
Where today, guys in this room can marry each other, women in this room can marry each other, we can marry non-whites.
We have all these freedoms that have been created that didn't exist when we were children.
Barack Obama invoked the ideology of freedom in his second inaugural address.
It is an exposition of the ideology of freedom, how we're going to keep going.
This kind of freedom ultimately leads to the atomization of people.
It is a corrosive acid that works to dissolve societies, to dissolve racial communities, linguistic communities, religious communities, families.
This kind of freedom...
It isolates the individual.
It takes the chicken out of the flock.
It takes the human out of his society.
Aristotle famously said that man is a social animal.
And man is a social animal.
A complete individual would be someone who like the incidents in India where the wolf raised the child and the child was discovered five years later and couldn't speak English but could howl like a wolf.
That child would be free.
He didn't have his mother tongue imposed upon him in a fascistic manner by his parents who made him call an apple an apple instead of calling it a yabloca, a word of his choice.
This kind of freedom, the freedom ideology, is a corrosive.
It ultimately strips man of protection.
Because we cannot be free unless we're free in a society.
And libertarians don't seem to understand that.
We can only be free in a society where our rights as individuals are protected.
We cannot be free in anarchy.
This ideology of freedom creates a paradigm.
It creates a debate that we cannot win.
We cannot win against the left.
Or even the fake right, which is committed to the same ideology as the left, by playing the game, being within their paradigm.
What then is our explanation of American history and of British history and of our related cousins from continental Europe?
Our explanation of things like British history, American history, is the evolution of real people.
It's the story of real people with a real history.
Not people in the service of an abstract idea of freedom, but people who have families, ancestors, descendants, people who have a language, a religion, a culture.
And the story of the coming of these people to America at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock and the creation in this country of a new Europe, of a new England in the best sense of the word, at times in the worst sense of the word.
But it's a story of a people.
Just like the fight at Thermopylae in Marathon, while it had elements in it of a fight for freedom against the kind of oriental potentate and tyrant that Xerxes represents, it was more a fight for Sparta and Athens.
Those guys at Thermopylae were dying in obedience to Sparta's laws.
That's why they were dying.
And Athenians likewise.
When they burned their city and...
And got on the boats and fought the Battle of Salamis in the bay in front of Athens.
They were fighting for Athens, for their flesh and blood, for their children, for their descendants.
And this is a mature, real, adult understanding of history.
When the Russian Grand Duke of Muscovy, Dmitry Donskoy, broke the Mongol yoke at the Battle of Kulakova, Yes, in a sense, it was freedom.
He was freeing his people, Mongols, and even in the sort of Byzantine, more repressed society that Slavs have, he was fighting for freedom.
But that wasn't 1% of what he was fighting for.
He was fighting for Russians.
He was fighting for his tribe of Russians, for his relatives, for his subjects, for his serfs, for his soldiers, for his knights, for his clergy.
The people fighting with that Russian army were fighting for real flesh-and-blood people, not an abstraction.
We, at least in this room, can break free of that ideology of freedom.
And again, for those of you who are libertarians, I hasten to say I am not talking about embracing a slave state, but I am talking about broadening our minds beyond mere philosophy to the real, to the granted.
To the granitic truth, to the existence of the real, the resurgence of the real in that book that I hope many of you will read.
This is what we have to do.
We have to explain our history as what it is.
The history of a race, of a people.
A people in which many of the ancestors and people in this room played a small role.
Some may have played a major role.
And some of you and your descendants will continue to play roles.
Play roles in the survival of our people and the triumph of our people because we're not looking merely to survive.
We're looking to carry our civilization and our culture to unheard of heights illuminated by the lights of science which our ancestors did not enjoy.
We are at a turning point in human history.
We can either go back down into the sludge of the third world or we can carry the first world's knowledge to undreamt of heights and apply Science in a humane and Christian manner to the solution of social problems and individual problems through things like genetic modification,
through breeding the best, through removing from our society those afflicted with mental illness.
And this, contrary to what liberals say, is not a hateful thought.
I come from a family which has some very distinguished people in it.
But also there are elements of my family that suffer from mental illness.
And I've had to deal with cousins of mine.
I've had to be the lawyer for the trust.
Cousins of mine who are mentally ill.
It would be nice to remove from the gene lines these traces, these things that cause what my cousins experience.
It is not kind to refrain from the use of genetics and our knowledge of eugenics, to refrain from removing these things from our gene pool.
But we can carry this culture and this race far beyond what has been achieved before.
But to do so, we have to liberate ourselves.
And the most critical tasks we face are, I think, twofold.
One is liberating ourselves from the left-right paradigm.
We are not right-wingers.
We are not conservatives.
We are not bound by their ideology.
Neither are we liberals.
And the second is to replace the freedom ideology, the Whig theory of history.
Of our history broadening down as individuals get more and more freedom from their society with an explanation of America as the story of a race of Europeans recreating the culture that they brought with them from Europe.
Now, it is easy to be discouraged, but we should not be discouraged.
Above all else, we have truth on our side.
And the old Latin saying, veritas vincent.
It doesn't matter that the Kim Il-sung regime supporters can claim that no one is sick under the communist regime.
It doesn't matter that Mark Potok can claim that you're a hater if you look at a pygmy and a Swede and think there's something different.
That doesn't matter.
The truth matters.
And we represent the truth, and we have all of that truth.
That's why you should never tell a lie in the service of our cause.
So often people use Exaggerated or false documentation and weaken our cause when we have a wealth of information on our side.
Science is on our side.
The growth of science is on our side.
And we should always be careful to use the best arguments, and to use simple arguments.
One thing I've said before, and I'll say it again.
The liberal or multicultural, the anti-white explanation is that at the end of 60,000 years of separate evolution in different areas of the globe, everybody came out equal at the end of 60,000 years under different circumstances.
And since they pride themselves on being secularists and not believing in God, they have to say this happened magically.
That somehow Karl Marx magically caused all this to happen in a non-religious way because they like to say that they are scientific socialists.
They also have a position, these people will admit when you press them, that things like height and eye color are controlled by genetics.
But they will say that out of all creation, and they'll say, you know, this is true of plants, it's true of your okra bush, it's true of the azalea, the sequoia tree.
It's true of animal life.
It's true of your dogs.
They will even admit that it is true of individuals, human beings, in things like a propensity to mental illness or a vulnerability to cancer or eye color.
But their position is that there is one organ of one species that has been exempted from all the laws that govern all other forms of life, and that's the human brain.
Because people like Hillary Clinton will tell you that all human brains are the same and that this was achieved by non-God.
Somehow all of this was achieved.
That's what they have to sell.
And they can sell it only by their ideology.
They cannot sell that to reasonable people.
And so we have that on our side.
And we have the best interests of our people at heart.
Our enemies, people like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, these people have no program for our people.
Their program is merely one of more degradation.
They have no brakes.
They can't put the brakes on.
The answer to things like Ferguson is more anti-white hate, more psychological war on white people.
They have no program at all.
They have damaged our country and our people enormously.
They have wasted $6 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we didn't have to get into.
They could have been used to build a nationwide...
This is what these people represent.
Surely we will be able to defeat them in public debate.
Eventually things will turn our way.
And people like Jared Taylor and Henry Wolf and those of you in this room, we are planting seeds.
Those seeds are not visible.
They are in the earth.
But the seeds are there.
And the seeds are germinating.
Their germination will split the earth.
Thank you.
Travel safely to all of your homes and may the spirit of our people be with you.
▲
Export Selection