All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 14, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
46:12
Sam Dickson: "Through a Glass Darkly" (2017)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ever since his days as a student at the University of Georgia, our final speaker, Sam Dixon, has been an activist for our people.
That means that he has been working for our cause for longer than many of you have been alive.
And with every one of his talents, as a lawyer, as a businessman, as a speaker, as a writer, as a contributor and donor, Sam has been a faithful and dedicated servant to our race and our people.
And I'm sure that when he goes to the great white father in the sky, he will be told,"Well done, good and faithful servant." Sam has also been the closing speaker of every one of our conferences all the way back to 1994.
And for that, I'm personally and professionally grateful, and I look forward to his filling that role for many years to come.
Today he will give a talk called Through a Glass Darkly.
Thank you.
Jared and I belong to a mutual admiration society, and it goes without saying.
This meeting today is the culmination of, oh, how many years?
What would it be?
27 years of American Renaissance.
I first met Jared in, I think, about 1987 or 1988 at a conference in Western North Carolina where he presented his plans for American Renaissance.
And this meeting today is the result of many, many years of wise and patient work.
Kipling, in his poem"If," which is now ridiculed, of course, in our society, talks about somebody who can, if you can rebuild what has been destroyed with worn-out tools, you'll be a man.
Jared has rebuilt American Renaissance from all kinds of attacks.
He has patiently sojourned on in obscurity, an undeserved obscurity, for many, many years.
And I know we all owe him.
A great debt of gratitude and a great friendship.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before I begin this talk, I wanted to comment and I wanted to take a sort of a poll.
Would everybody here who is under, who is over 35, over 35 years of age, stand up or raise your hand.
There are people standing there.
Okay, and then put them down.
Everybody who is under 35, raise your hand.
My belief is that the numbers are at least equally matched, or maybe for the first time ever, the people under 35 here outnumber the people who are over 35. And this is the work of our younger generation,
which has stepped forward to the redemption of their people.
It's a work for which we can claim very little credit.
I think to a great extent it is something that has made itself and you have created yourself in the face of great adversity and it's a really changing thing.
It's a transformative thing that we see the young people coming forward in these organizations and coming to us.
The title of my speech is taken from the New Testament, from the words of the Apostle Paul, that we see through a glass darkly.
We can only see, in his case, he was speaking of the projected eternal life through a glass darkly.
But you can only see the future through a glass darkly.
There is no blueprint of what's going to happen in the future.
Nobody can plan what will happen in the future.
One thing that we know from all military history and political history and general historical experience is that after the first engagement, things usually don't go the way they're planned.
Planning is very important, but where this will go, nobody can really predict.
We can't predict the time or the way things will happen.
But one thing I think we can predict with certainty, and that is that dramatic change is in the offing for good or evil.
The present order cannot sustain itself.
I thought I would go back over examples in history of other great turning points in human history.
The word revolution is one term we'd be using about such things.
But revolution is not quite an accurate term.
I like the German word"Wentpunkt" or"Turning Point" because at least one of the examples I want to talk about is not really a revolution.
It's simply a genocide.
But it has lessons for us, many lessons on many levels.
Glancing over human history, the history of the Western peoples, our peoples, There may be three revolutions that indicate how revolution may come about.
We can look at what initiated those revolutions and where they went.
The first is the English Civil War, the British Civil War, in which Charles I was defeated and later beheaded in his effort to create a divine right monarchy such as England had never known before.
His system was fundamentally un-English.
He wanted a French or Spanish-style monarchy.
He had an exaggerated belief in his own goodness and wisdom and the role he was to play in society.
He was able to dispense with Parliament.
He did not like Parliament.
He was at odds with his people on many points.
And he dispensed with Parliament.
And it worked very well for about 20 years.
There's a book about it by a very famous historian.
He called him Wedgwood.
I think her name is C.V. Wedgwood, called the King's Peace.
And for about 20 years, Charles I was able to reign as a divine right monarch.
He was able to imprison people.
He was able to corrupt the courts of England.
He was able to impose illegal taxes in violation of English common law.
And things went swimmingly well for him.
But he was guilty of personal and regime overreach.
He had brought about a religious revolution in the Anglican Church to move it much farther back toward Roman Catholicism and away from Protestantism.
This had met with massive resistance from his people, but he had managed to overcome that.
But he decided to impose his system upon the people of Scotland against the advice of his counselors and against the advice of His representatives of his royal authority in Scotland.
This provoked a violent response from his subjects who were much more Protestant than the Protestants in England and upon whom he very foolishly tried to impose an even more nearly Roman Catholic form of worship than he had managed to impose in England.
And this provoked a revolt by his Scottish subjects.
He was unable to fund his army to put down the revolt, so he had to call a parliament.
And from there, it unraveled.
The parliament, he expected to pander to patriotism by appealing to English hatred of Scots, much like people in our era, like John McCain, seek to pander to patriotism, or the current hubbub about the Russians,
the people like Lindsey Graham and the Democrats try to pander to patriotism.
By appealing to anti-Russian sentiments.
But this didn't work.
The parliament refused to be bulldozed and they demanded reform.
They demanded that he back down from his claims of being a divine right monarch whose word was law.
And from there it exploded.
He disbanded parliament and called for new elections and the new parliament was even more violently opposed to him than the previous one.
And eventually Britain sank into a vicious civil war.
As a result of which, he was beheaded.
The lesson from that is that a system can go on for a long time until the test comes.
Charles I was able to sustain his regal revolution for 20 years.
But when the test came, it fell apart.
Another revolution we'd look at would be the French Revolution.
And here again...
The test there was the result of war.
The French decision to support the American colonists in their war with England exhausted the treasury.
It was beyond the financial and military resources of the French monarchy.
France did not really recover economically from those exertions.
And a series of failed harvests and other economic crises forced the king to look at reform.
And the system, it's very difficult to reform a system.
It's the most difficult thing you can do.
The reform system failed.
The effort to fail reform, and the effort to reform failed, and France descended into the bloody reign of terror, and the royal government came to an end.
Likewise, in Russia, the Tsar was doing well until World War I came along, and the system could not sustain the strain of the war, and that government fell.
The fourth example of history is not what you would call a revolution, but it is a major upheaval.
And that was the extermination, the genocide of the Armenians.
The Armenians had adapted a strategy of survival under the Turks and Muslims.
That was to keep their heads low, not to make waves.
When there would be these explosions of Muslim and Turkish violence directed toward them, they would just sort of roll with the punches and a lot of them would be killed, but they felt resistance was hopeless.
And the only way that you could contend with being a Christian island in a Muslim sea was to subordinate yourself.
As Islam teaches, they must subordinate themselves.
This strategy worked reasonably well and Armenians were able to survive for some centuries until World War I when the rules changed and the Turks embarked upon their campaign, the Turks and the Muslims embarked on their campaign to exterminate the Armenian Christians.
This story of the Armenian Genocide does not jive well with the efforts of the system in America to tell us how tolerant and wonderful Islam is.
As I remarked to a group of liberal Christians in a study group I attended when they were oohing and aahing over Muslim tolerance, I asked them if anyone had ever taken a poll of Armenians to see what they thought of Muslim tolerance.
But the lessons we can learn from there is that the strategies of survival must change as conditions change.
The strategy of survival of white Americans for the last two generations has been to move one more expressway exit out of the city.
This has been the strategy of survival.
And it has been a strategy of survival that you go along with the program.
You don't do anything to jeopardize your job.
You just do whatever they want, so long as you can go home to your house in the suburbs and grill a steak on the terrace at night.
On the weekend and have friends over, that as long as that can be done, you just don't make any waves.
You don't associate yourself in any way, of course, with a movement like represented by the people and groups that are met here today.
This strategy for survival, like the strategy of survival of the Armenians, is not going to work anymore.
We see that is not going to work as we move into a South Africa-type situation, like we heard a few minutes ago.
And whites are increasingly diminished in numbers and increasingly beleaguered by a government and a system that hates us.
Having seen how other systems have failed, I want to turn our attention to the system that misrules and oppresses us and why we can be confident that it will fail.
The system shows that it will fail both in episodic And in systemic ways.
The episodic ways are little current events in recent history that show a system that, much like Charles I, is out of touch and is becoming increasingly ludicrous and offensive to its people,
the people it misrules, and in the case of the white founding stock of America, the people that the system truly does hate.
Looking over the episodic events, I would rate them in this order.
First would be Obama's executive order basically granting legality to 800,000 illegal aliens.
This was an extraordinary step.
It was an unconstitutional step.
The executive is bound to enforce the law.
He does not make the law.
For the executive to claim the power to pardon people, basically, which is what he was doing, is something, to this extent, is something unprecedented in American history.
You have to go back again to English history to find a king who tried that, the last steward to claim divine rights status.
It was James II.
And he tried to use his pardoning power to undo the laws of Parliament on the establishment of religion in Great Britain.
And this was met, again, with furious resistance, which forced him eventually to leave the country and put an end for all times to the idea that the executive branch of government is the one that makes the law and that the king's word is the law.
Obama behaved in exactly the same tradition as James II.
No one seemed to pick up on that or notice it, but the very principle that established the idea of legislative supremacy and the fact that the executive is under the law instead of making the law, that principle was established when an executive,
the king, Tried to use the pardoning power to undo an act of Parliament, and so in America we see the system abandoning any claim to legitimacy by engaging in an unconstitutional act.
Another example of the episodic indications that the system is coming to an end would be the violence that we saw in the last election.
This was unprecedented.
I don't think even the election of 1860, which is maybe the most contentious election in American history, featured the kind of violence that we saw, the routine attacks upon Trump rallies.
Violence that came almost exclusively from the left, directed at the right.
And the silence of the media.
There was some reporting of it.
But there was no emotional content to the reporting.
There was no real anger about it as there would have been had a bunch of white identitarians attacked some black people attending a Hillary Clinton rally.
It was just sort of ho-hum.
Yeah, you know, here they are.
They're kicking some 80-year-old lady trying to go to a Trump rally.
Let's move on to the next story.
Hillary Clinton even said that the violence was caused by Trump.
That it was the violence of his rhetoric had caused it.
She knew that you could blame the leader of the victims.
She knew where to assign blame.
A system that does this and a media that endorses this attitude is a system that is on its way out.
The final episodic example would be the The hubbub and furor about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian to hear what she had to say.
This is sort of an ultimate bankruptcy of the media and the congressional forces that want to keep pursuing this Russian investigation.
There was an article in the New York Times by Robert Krugman, who I think was in Obama's cabinet, the Nobel Prize winning economist.
He wrote an article called The Climate of Treason, in which he said that the Republicans were covering up for treason, that Donald Trump Jr. had committed treason by talking to a Russian.
This appeared on the pages of America's newspaper of record.
Now, he compared Donald Trump Jr. to Kim Philby, the famous, the greatest spy in human history, who penetrated British intelligence as a communist agent.
Betrayed pro-Western agents behind the Iron Curtain who died as a result of this.
He said that Donald Trump is a new Kim Philby.
Now this is a Nobel Prize winning former member of the cabinet who cannot distinguish or pretends he cannot distinguish between a spy who betrays his country's most important secrets to an enemy and someone who simply sits down and listens to a foreigner.
Do people that say this kind of thing in Congress or in the New York Times, do they retain any credibility at all?
They cannot distinguish between the two?
And what kind of a country do they want?
Since we're not allowed to talk to foreigners, what does this mean?
Do they want the sort of 1937 Stalinist Russia?
Where Russians were terrified to be in the same elevator with a foreigner because the secret police didn't want Russians speaking to foreigners?
And you could go to the gulag and die if you were caught speaking to a foreigner?
What's going to come next from people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the Clintons and their followers and all the people who are carrying on in the New York Times about Russia's alleged efforts to influence our elections?
Are they going to want to have jamming like the Soviets used to jam radio-free Europe?
What if this woman from Russia had gone on Russia today or Radio Moscow to speak to the American people?
Are we all to rush to our radios and televisions and turn it off because it's treason to listen to somebody from a foreign country?
An establishment that gets this point is an establishment that is on its way to extinction.
Then there are the systemic problems with our establishment that doom it.
And those are, first and foremost, it's based upon hatred.
It's based upon Marxist-type hatred.
It's based upon racial and ethnic resentment and hatred.
The Greeks said that anger is a temporary form of madness.
Anger is something that most people cannot sustain very long.
I would submit that hatred is another form of temporary madness.
But the problem with hatred is it can be sustained for a long, long time.
It can be sustained for an entire lifetime.
You see people whose lives were poisoned by hatred of their mother, hatred of their father.
And we see in our country people whose lives are poisoned by their hatred of white people.
Black people's lives are poisoned with their hatred of white people.
Latin Americans, Hispanics, they're going to be poisoned by the hatred that's being instilled in them toward us.
So the system starts out, at heart, doomed because it is based upon hatred.
And then it's based upon propositions that are completely false and can only lead to injustice, oppression, and failure.
We're all met here today and we know that the first and foremost of these false propositions is the idea that all men and all races are created equal.
Something that is just so preposterous as to be unbelievable.
No human being has ever been equal in human history.
Even identical twins are not equal because one gets more oxygen than the other in the process of being delivered from his mother's womb.
When you start out with a proposition that it's fundamentally flawed, that at the end of 60,000 years of separate evolution, without any kind of divine intervention, somehow all races reach the finish line at the same place under different climatic and environmental conditions.
When you start out with something that preposterous...
And you simply announce, as a matter of faith, and our enemies, as I think Peter Brimlow and also John Derbyshire mentioned yesterday, they basically see the world through the eyes of faith and not through fact and reason.
When you start out with this article of faith, nothing good can come from it.
If the races are exactly equal, then what Hillary Clinton and people like that...
Jesse Jackson say is correct.
If everybody's exactly equal and blacks are making vastly less money and they have net worth, I think they're, what, 5% of the average white person's net worth, then clearly this has to be the result of injustice.
When you tell black people this from childhood, they become angry and violent and they become participants in a pity party.
That will poison their lives.
You institute policies that can only be unjust.
It would be like starting out the idea that all men and women are the same height, and simply announcing, maybe through some kind of United Nations Declaration, which is where the claim that all races were equal came.
It was a declaration by the United Nations in the early 50s, where this claim was advanced, that science had proved the races were equal.
Maybe the UN would issue a proclamation that all men and women are created equal.
Women are of equal height.
All women, on average, are of equal height with men.
And any differential is due to men mistreating women, withholding food from their daughters and giving it to their sons.
And that if things were done justly, women would make up 50% of all the basketball players.
Where would this go?
What would this lead to?
It would lead exactly to the kind of madness that we see on the subject of race in our society.
So then you might have, well actually we do have, the propositional family.
You know that our family is not based upon genetics.
Our family is based upon principles and morality.
So long as you adhere to this set of principles, you're my son.
You're my father.
And when you depart from this set of principles, you're not a member of our family anymore.
In a way, the absurdity of that is obvious.
The intolerance of it is obvious.
But to some extent, we've actually sort of reached a propositional family.
It was widespread in America.
I even saw it in my own family that people would refuse to deal with relatives who voted for Trump.
Once again, the narrow-mindedness came from Given a system that is clearly berserk and one that is based upon principles that are false,
the destiny of that system is clear.
It will fail.
There will be a collapse at some point.
How will it come?
Well, it could come As it did with the French through military overreach causing financial problems.
People like Hillary Clinton and many people in the government are not content with merely fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at a cost of six trillion dollars.
They want to go into Syria.
They want to fight with Russia.
They seem to have no conception of the limits to American power.
It could come through a financial collapse.
The American dollar is a matter of a trust that this dollar bill is worth something.
The fact of the matter is that the American economy is not what it was in'45.
Eventually, the euro will emerge as a far more stable currency that should be the world reserve currency than the dollar.
If people lost faith in the dollar, the economy would collapse overnight.
It can also come through a race war.
If and when the enemy achieves amnesty, and I think they will, if they can't get it through Congress or through a president, they will achieve it by a Supreme Court decision, the way they did the abolition of segregation,
which was done by the Supreme Court, or the legalization of gay marriage or abortion, which were decisions that were decided not in the legislative branch of the government.
But merely by a vote, in some cases, of a divided Supreme Court.
The system is determined to get the amnesty, and I think it will eventually get the amnesty.
This will mean the addition of some 60 million poor, non-white, hostile people in our population.
60 million is probably a conservative figure.
The government says that there are 11 million illegal aliens who will be legalized in an amnesty.
They've used that figure now, as Ann Coulter points out, I think for like 20 years.
It's never gone up.
You have to figure most of these guys or most of these immigrants, illegals, are single or men without families.
Many of them have families in Latin America and elsewhere.
Their families were reunited to them.
So if the government were correct in saying 11 million and these people have on average three kids apiece and a wife or a husband, you're looking right there at 60 million.
A 20% expansion of the national population made up of these hostile, angry minority, non-white minority groups.
There is no prospect for Brazilianization either, as people talk about.
In Brazil, you had the Roman Catholic Church sort of, you know, keeping everything tamped down, white priests preaching, you know, all in order.
Here, we don't have any institution like that.
All institutions in America...
are dedicated to increasing minority hatred.
Groups like La Rasa, the NAACP, the Black Lives Matter, and others are determined to pick at the scabs, to talk about Emmett Till, to fabricate stories about the gentle giant in Ferguson, to just keep the hate going.
And that's what our opposition, the people who are contending with us for the turf here.
That's what they're reared with from kindergarten on.
These people are going to be profoundly hostile to us when they're legalized.
That could also provoke the collapse.
What's turning from the inevitability of collapse to what will happen?
I don't see any prospect for salvation through the system.
I respectfully disagree.
with Peter Brimelow and Jared on the possibilities of reform.
Edmund Burke said that an institution without means of reform is without means of survival.
And it's the fact that there can be no reform that ensures the present system will not survive.
The demographics preclude any reform by voting.
The corruption of the system precludes that.
There will be no reform.
And so this ensures that what will happen will be dramatic and extreme.
Hopefully it will be as bloodless as possible.
It doesn't have to be a bloody affair.
It has to be a drastic and dramatic affair.
But given decent leadership, the type of, say, Gorbachev as opposed to an Abraham Lincoln, it doesn't have to be a horrific bloodletting.
But it will be dramatic.
And what will emerge...
Cannot really be seen very clearly.
We see it through a glass darkly, as I said.
We can't really know where this will go, although we can plan, which we should be doing, for what kind of an ethnostate we're going to create when it melts down and our people create their state.
I have some ideas about that that I throw out.
We have to think about...
Many, many things in our ethnostate.
What the relations of men and women will be, the relations of parent and child, how the state will be governed.
We don't want, at least I don't want, a dictatorship of one man, a sort of Fuhrer Principe.
Neither do I want universal suffrage democracy.
The problem with a one-man dictatorship is that you...
When he's wrong, he's really wrong, and history shows us that the Anglo-Saxon form of sort of committees and boards of directors probably works better overall than putting all power in the hands of an individual.
Neither do we want a democracy.
Democracy, like the system itself, is something that is so preposterous that no thoughtful person can believe in it.
A friend of mine had this idea, which I've stolen and will claim from my own, that If we're to have democracy, why don't we have voting in the airports to choose our pilots?
If we should vote to choose the president, if some welfare recipient with an IQ of 80 has a right to vote and be bused to the polls to choose the president of the United States, maybe Delta Airlines should tell people,"Well, we're..." Part of a democratic society.
You're getting ready to take your flight.
We're having an election for pilots.
And some guy can get up, who's nice looking, has pretty blue eyes, can get up and say,"If I'm your pilot, you'll get two sacks of peanuts and not just one.
Make me your pilot!" The absurdity of democracy is just clear on its face.
So what we want is a system with a franchise broad enough to prevent tyranny and to represent the popular will.
But narrow enough where intelligent people with a stake in the game will be the ones who vote.
And that becomes difficult to figure out how to draw that line.
And so here are some thoughts.
A lot of these are sort of tongue in cheek, but they're the kind of things we need to think about to get the thoughts flowing.
One idea I had was that you would restrict the franchise to married men with children.
Who had never been divorced.
Now this will not fit well, sit well with some of you in the audience.
I'm sure a large number of you are, like me, are unmarried men or you're people who've been divorced.
But think about it, that you would vote as a head of a household instead of as an individual.
A father would vote.
A father who had been able to create a successful marriage, who had legitimate children.
Somebody with a stake in the future.
I'm sure many of you saw the material on the internet about the fact that most leaders of white countries today are childless.
They have no genetic investment in the future.
This would certainly eliminate that.
I would like to let you be able to have public office, hold public office and seek public office if you were childless or unmarried or...
Divorced man, but I think that if you had restricted the electorate to married men who had successful marriages, it would have a transformative effect.
As Richard Spencer told me, though, it might be too stable.
It might be impossible to get revolutionary action when it was needed.
You have ideas of how to...
You need ideas on how to...
Deal with the fertility rates.
We have seen that almost nobody seems to have figured out how to boost white fertility.
In Germany in the 1930s, they were able to boost it dramatically, but that was because they came out of a depression in which the birth rate had been very low, people were very optimistic, and they had a very traditional society in which women played very little role.
It is going to be impossible, I think, to convince intelligent white women to have, as my grandmother did, six children.
No one's found a way to really convince people to have large numbers of children when children have become, as they have, a financial detriment to your life instead of a financial investment.
Until three or four generations ago, if you wanted a pension, your chance for a pension was a child.
That was your possibility of being supported in old age.
And children were an economic asset.
They could work on the farm, they could work in the shop.
Children now are an economic burden.
And it seems that nobody is finding a way to get white men and white women to have enough children to replace themselves.
Putin is trying.
But he's not mating with a lot of success.
Well, I thought about that.
The financial incentive, mostly the efforts to boost the birth rate, have used financial incentive that you'll get certain benefits, which generally seem to be rather paltry.
Perhaps if the financial incentives were raised to a proper level to compensate people for the cost of a child.
And the burden of this was imposed upon childless people, as it should be.
Then perhaps men would be more motivated to have children.
I think men are more moved by financial incentives to have children perhaps than women are.
I think that childless people like myself should bear that burden.
We're going to be the beneficiaries of people who have children.
When I see white people with babies, I congratulate them and I thank them and tell them,"Thank you for having that child who will pay my Social Security." And I encourage you to say the same.
I am grateful.
I am grateful to people who have white babies.
And I would not mind having a 10% surtax on my income, if everybody else did, to encourage white people, especially intelligent white people, to have children.
This wouldn't work in a multi-ethnic society, of course, because the very people who'd have more of them would be the people we don't want.
I used to subscribe to the Jerusalem Post, and there was a hilarious article, I thought it was funny, that appeared one day.
The Israelis, like the National Socialists, have a program to boost their birth rate, and they give the equivalent of the Fuhrer's hero mother to mothers who have five or more children.
And the article was on Hero's Mother Day in Tel Aviv and it had Shamir was handing out the medals and you looked at the audience and there were only black faces and they were almost overwhelmingly...
They were the so-called Jews from Ethiopia.
They were winning all the mother's medals.
So the program in Israel to boost the birth rate has not boosted the birth rate of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews, but boosted the birth rate of these Fallasha Jews from Ethiopia.
So this would only work in our ideal future ethnostate to have this kind of program, but that's what we're talking about.
With women, I think that there have to be emotional incentives to have children.
One idea would be a sartorial incentive.
A sartorial being a fancy Latin word for our native Saxon clothing.
Women with children would be allowed to wear different clothing, give them greater status, and they'd get perks that women without children didn't get.
These are just some ideas on how we would run our ethnostate.
So bringing me back to the end of my talk and our own movement, the one thing we can control to some extent is our own movement.
And we need to think about the kind of people who need to be brought into the movement, the kind of people who need to be leaders of our movement.
And I would say that the one thing that is essential is that people must Feel race.
Studies of IQ differences and heredity are all very nice.
I enjoy them.
I think they bring a lot of benefit.
But this is like an inert matter.
It's like a corpse compared to the living person.
The corpse has the same materials in it as the living person had, but it's not alive.
And unless you have a spirit of race, a spirit of community...
An attachment to your ancestors and your descendants and your comrades.
A feeling for race.
All of these academic studies will mean nothing.
And that is why we have to realize that a race must live in a cultural history.
Our program is not merely DNA.
DNA alone is not enough.
We have to live within the continuum of Europe, of antiquity, Christendom, and the historical and cultural experiences of white Europeans.
We have to have both a cultural as well as a genetic direction in our cause.
We need people who are stable.
We need people who...
Who don't suffer from personality defects.
We especially need those in positions of leadership.
This organization exists today because we have somebody who has stability and good sense.
Thank you.
The damage that can be done in our movement by kook is great.
One kook will drive out a hundred good people.
One great thing about the alt-right youth movement is that you people are mostly very attractive people.
You're the kind of guys that you'd want a sister or daughter to marry.
You're not kooky.
You're not weird.
It's even more important in positions of leadership that we have people...
Who are not strange, who don't suffer from strange personality defects that wreck causes.
We've seen many, many of our causes wrecked by a defective leader.
I also would like to say that we must get away from the left-right dichotomy.
I've sat here and listened to people talk about the conservative this and the right-wing that.
A racialist movement is neither left nor right.
A racialist movement is racial.
I'm not a conservative.
I don't believe in what the conservatives believe in on many, many issues.
I do believe in race.
That's what I believe in.
I believe in race, and I believe in community.
That's why I call myself a racial communitarian, as well as a racial idealist, as opposed to a race realist, because I want an ideal race.
I want my race improved.
And I believe in the community.
I believe that the common good comes ahead of individual self-interest.
I think avarice and commercial gain must be subordinated to the general good of the community.
We must not confine ourselves to a subset of our people.
We must deal with our people as a group.
One of the most encouraging signs in recent times has been the racial schizophrenia within the Democratic Party.
In the primary elections, Hillary Clinton got the black vote, minority vote.
Bernie Sanders got the white vote.
Now, superficially, you might look at that and say, well, that's crazy.
The white people were voting for the person who's most inimical, most hostile to their interests.
And the blacks actually would get more by voting for Bernie Sanders.
But it shows a racial subconscious that's going on.
And it also shows a fundamental fissure line within the left.
And that is, the minority groups that vote for these people, that form part of the leftist minority racist coalition, they are not interested in any of the liberal issues.
They're not interested in gay rights.
They're not interested in environmentalism.
They're not interested in these things that excite the Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo-driving, wine-and-cheese liberals.
They're interested in the gimme.
That's all it is.
Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme.
And I think this is dawning on white liberals, that these people are not compatible with a liberal program.
I predict that we will see many, many more people, like the young fellow that spoke to us last night, who was the youngest delegate.
At the Obama nomination nine years ago, there's a rich field of Bernie Sanders leftists for us to work.
And our ethnostate is not going to be the Southern Baptist Convention at prayer.
It's not going to be a VFW post.
It's not going to be a collection of gun enthusiasts.
It's going to be a real ethnostate.
It's going to include all kinds of people.
Socialists, libertarians, gay people, straight people, alcoholics, poor people, rich people.
It's going to be a genuine racial state.
And only us, only we, can bring that about.
As the speaker last night said, we are the only people with a sensible program that can address today's issues.
We are the ones who can give sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf and life to the dead.
We are the only people that have a solution.
And I still believe that we have it in us to rise to the level of our ancestors and be the kind of people who stood against them at tours, who stood against them at Kulakova, the great battle in which the Russians freed themselves from the Mongol yoke.
We fight for our people as they were.
We don't fight to conserve the status quo.
We're not fighting for the world of Madonna and Lady Gaga.
We're fighting for what our people were once and what they can be again and what they will be again.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, this concludes our program.
▲
Export Selection