All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
54:13
Sam Dickson: "A Benediction for Heretics" (2018)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our last speaker is Sam Dixon.
Sam Dixon, from his student days to his work as a lawyer, as a writer, as a contributor, as a speaker, has been working for our people for longer than many of you people have been alive.
He's really been a great friend and supporter of American Renaissance.
He has been the concluding speaker of every one of our conferences all the way back to 1994.
And so it was with great affection, admiration, and appreciation that I introduce to you Sam Dix.
Applause
Hello, everybody.
Greg Johnson and others have already saluted Mr. Taylor and his staff, but since it is the conclusion of our meeting, I think it goes without saying that we all owe yet another recognition to Jared for this conference and for many decades of very shrewd,
sensible, solid, reliable leadership in his people's cause.
And so I ask everyone to give a sign of how much we appreciate Jared.
APPLAUSE Thank you.
I thought I would talk to you today on several subjects that segue into each other.
One is the mood in which governs our cause as we meet here in April of 2018 here in Tennessee.
And then, where we as members of the English-speaking community stand today.
And where we stand in relation to the system that misrules our country and the rest of the white world, with the exception of the despised by the system government of Russia.
And I thought I would then go to a brief analysis of our enemies and conclude with some comments on the reality of community and the loyalty that community legitimately demands of its members.
I want to congratulate all of you, as other speakers have, on being here today.
The success of this conference will come as a consternation to the enemies of free speech, the enemies of genuine civic discourse in places like Montgomery, Alabama, the Southern Poverty Law Center, National Public Radio of Only Some Things to Consider program,
and people like that.
They would certainly be very disappointed that their efforts to strangle civil debate, civic debate, to strangle inquiry into issues like the ones that we deal with, they have failed.
And you are to be congratulated.
There's a line in the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, these are they who have come out of great tribulation.
300 or so people gathered in this room today are people who have come out of great tribulation.
And certainly the last 18 months have not been months of high spirits.
They have especially not been particularly high, coming off as we have from the high that we had experienced in the Trump election and the presidential campaign, where for the first time People like Jarrett Taylor were able to actually break through in the media,
and we were able to come into public eye.
This high made the following crash, starting with the tragic Hailgate conference in Washington, D.C., and then bracketed by the catastrophe at Charlottesville and the ability of the system to sell a false narrative.
About that rally in Charlottesville, the resulting crash after the high was especially deeply felt throughout our movement.
But I think this is a healthy corrective.
There is the parable of the sower in the New Testament.
I think most of you probably know it.
I won't retell it today.
It's not properly named.
It should be the parable of the soil, because the parable is really about the different types of soil.
On which the metaphor for the message, the seed, is scattered.
And we've seen this for the people who flare up in momentary enthusiasm and go away.
They can't stand like the plants, the hot noon sun, because they have shallow soil.
But the seed that fell on the deep, fertile ground, it produced a hundredfold.
And the people here today, who are not intimidated by the threats, Of losing their jobs, of being doxed, as the young people say.
They are the good seed and the good earth.
They are the good seed.
I say that the events in Charlottesville and the subsequent crash of morale were a good thing.
Now, why do I say that?
I say that because I think that that high was undeserved.
It was unrealistic.
And in some way, it was harmful.
Americans, specifically, and English-speaking people in general, I think have a retarded understanding of politics.
We do not have the intelligent, thoughtful, deep, profound understanding of politics.
That Europeans have.
Or that other rival ethnic groups within our own countries have.
Or that the Marxists have.
I think this is true especially of Southerners, of white Southerners such as myself.
White Southerners, until very recently, and still to some extent, have an idea of politics.
That politics is something that takes place every two years.
That you go to the polls and vote, and that's politics.
Now, those of us in this room who are the cutting edge of the English-speaking white people in America will understand that by that point, all decisions have been made, that politics is something that goes on 24-7,
365 days a year.
We are only now, in recent years, been able to create the kind of things that our rivals...
Rival ethnic groups, the Marxist groups, the so-called liberal groups, have had for decades and generations think tanks, organizations, advocacy groups, rallies, demonstrations that determine how those biannual elections are framed.
We, as an island race, first in Great Britain and then in the western island of the New World, were shielded from the instructive history that our white sisters and brothers enjoyed or didn't enjoy on the continent.
We never had the experience of being occupied, as the Russians did, by 400 years of Mongol rule.
Or, as the Spaniards did, of 700 years of Islamic rule, and everyone in this room will understand what Islamic rule really is, as opposed to the silly version sold on the American system as a tolerant,
happy time.
No Christian people ever under Islam have recalled the period of Islamic domination with affection.
Those who've experienced it don't regard it with affection.
But these long periods of isolation, of occupation and subjugation, created a profoundly different psychology among Europeans on the continent.
They're used to the change of government.
We in the English-speaking world have a superficial continuity of government.
If you were an Englishman in our mother country and died last year in the course of a century, there always was a queen or a king in Buckingham Palace.
There always were the houses of Parliament.
Superficially, nothing has changed.
Superficially, there has not been a revolution in Great Britain since 1689.
And that was just the substitution of a Protestant monarch for a Catholic monarch.
Almost no loss of life.
Very trivial event.
The last time Britain actually had a revolution was in the 1640s when they beheaded Charles I, and that was quickly undone.
And before that, the last time they were successfully invaded was 1066.
Similar in America.
Only the South has a historic experience of losing a war and being occupied by the victors.
When you look at America, it all looks like there's this continuity from George Washington down to President Trump.
Now, this continuity is a false continuity.
Obviously, there have been many revolutions and changes in both countries, the greatest revolution being that we now enjoy governments that are profoundly hostile to the people they rule, people like us, where we are ruled by governments that are our enemies.
But that change is hard to see.
The average person can't see it.
The way a German who lived to be 100 years old last year, in his lifetime, maybe let's move it back.
A German who lived to the year 2000, and lots of people did, and who died at the age of 100, would have seen numerous changes of government.
You would have started out with a moderate monarchy under the Kaiser.
You'd have a period of upheaval and Soviet rule in places like Bavaria, a civil war in Berlin, a liberal system democracy, followed by a national socialist dictatorship.
Followed by a red occupation, and perhaps he moved, he'd go back to a system of democratic rule, and then ultimately the reunification of the country under a supposed democracy.
Now that person would have seen, what, five changes of government in one life?
Assuming the French.
A Frenchman would have seen German troops march into Paris, would have seen governments come and go, the Republican government, the Petain government, the succeeding de Gaulle government.
This gives Europeans a much more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of politics and enables them to distinguish between, above all things, the government and the people, the race,
the folk.
They can understand, a Spaniard can understand, that you can have a sultan, an emir, sitting in Cordoba as a ruler, and that doesn't mean that the Spanish people have ceased to exist.
But I hear Americans all the time say,"Oh, the demograph says that we've lost our country, we've lost, we've lost." They can't think outside the box.
We may very well go into a situation, and I think we will, where we will be ruled by a government from which we are irreparably sealed off.
A government hostile to us, run by rival racial and ethnic groups that are antagonistic to us and will always be antagonistic to us.
That doesn't mean we cease to exist.
It doesn't mean that we don't have ways of moving forward for the salvation of our people.
Little Latvia.
It was able to reconstitute itself in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, even though only 52% of the people in Latvia were Latvians and 48% were not Latvians.
It's a matter of the will.
But the high that we were experiencing 18 months ago was based upon this naive, shallow understanding of politics and government.
That, oh, we've elected Donald Trump now.
Everything's solved.
We saw this with the Reagan phenomenon.
Reagan got elected.
White people all over the country said, oh, we've got Ronald Reagan now.
We've solved the problem.
No. The change of the presidency solves almost nothing.
What is needed is a massive change in culture, in the system of government.
We need to understand.
We need radical change.
We in this room can rightly be called radicals.
The media has, of course, all kinds of names for us.
Surprisingly, most of them not flattering.
But they like to say that we're extremists.
We are not extremists, but we are radicals.
We want to get to the root of the problem.
We want radical change.
The idea, as I've said, that you can win an election and solve the problem.
It's a naive illusion.
The idea one frequently hears, and we've heard at the conference, that the 1950s were some sort of halcyon golden age, and we should return to this wonderful age of the 50s.
We should go back in time.
That also is a fallacy.
The child is the father to the adult.
The 1950s led in...
Inevitably, inexorably, unavoidably to the catastrophic conditions that we suffer from today.
To return to a 1950s America to restore the Constitution, to restore the way things were in 1952, would do nothing but to start the whole process of degeneration and deracination all over again.
There isn't any shortcut to our people's deliverance.
We have a long, long road to travel, and it will be a hard and rocky road.
It will be a rewarding road, but it's not going to be easy.
And it's not going to be quick.
There are no short, simple, quick solutions.
You cannot begin building a skyscraper at the third floor.
You have to begin with the foundations.
And we are in the state of the foundations period of building the edifice of government and society that we want.
This requires a change in culture.
It requires that we capture a large percentage of the thoughtful ruling class.
It requires that we split the elites.
No revolution has ever taken place, to my knowledge, against a determined elite that was in power and was willing to stay there.
It's necessary that we put out our ideas and thoughts in a way that will cause a split in the elites so that when the crisis comes, it will be possible to topple the prevailing order.
We have to understand, and this is at least where I...
One of the rare places where I depart from my comrade, Jared Taylor, and from Peter Brimelow, as some of you may recall, we had a debate on this subject some years back.
I do not see any prospect of salvation from our political system.
I think it has irrecribably closed us.
It is completely in the hands of our enemies, not only the deep state, but even the shallow state.
And we have an example of just how alien we are from this establishment, how vehemently this establishment hates us and rejects us.
We are sailing under the black flag.
We're flying the Jolly Roger.
All hands in the system are against us.
And to show that, I'll turn for a second to the events at Charlottesville.
Now, there has been...
A lot of post-facto criticism of the people who organized the Charlottesville event.
I think most of that is undeserved.
No one could have anticipated a situation in which the police chief in charge of law enforcement would order the police not to enforce the law, would order the police to stand aside while we were attacked,
while we were subjected to criminal attacks.
And that's what's happened.
That's what did happen in Charlottesville.
We know that.
I think most of you in this room, since you probably read the Amran website, are familiar with the Heafy Report.
The Heafy Report was produced by a lawyer named Timothy Heafy, who's a former federal prosecutor.
He was hired by the government, the city government in Charlottesville, to do what was hailed as an independent investigation.
To determine what happened at Charlottesville.
Well, Mr. Heafy called me and told me that he wanted a statement from me since I had gone at the last minute and changed my mind and I actually was there and I saw what happened.
And he wanted an oral statement.
I told him I don't want to give an oral statement.
I want to give a written statement.
And so I did a 20-page written statement proved by people like Jared Taylor and others who removed many of my...
Outrage, ravings, and helped greatly improve the quality of it.
And I sent it to Mr. Heavey with a list of questions that I said any legitimate investigation would have to answer.
Questions like, why was the African-American Antifa activist with the flamethrower not arrested when he fired flamethrowers into the faces of people at the rally?
Things like the fact that the organizers asked people to park their cars three and a half miles away so that they could avoid contact with the Antifa and could be taken on shuttle trolleys to the venue.
But the police prevented that.
They stopped the buses.
They made people get off the buses.
They would not let them go to the park.
They made them get out of the buses and walk through the mob of howling Marxist fanatics to the meeting.
I listed all those, and I told Mr. Hefe, I said, I have a default position when I deal with people.
I am a negative person.
I come out of a negative religion that believes that everybody is depraved, totally depraved, as Calvinists believe.
And so I have a pretty sour view of people in general.
But I try to keep that under control.
And I have a default position.
When I meet somebody, of any political persuasion, religious group, ethnic group, anybody, my default position is that I'm dealing with an honorable person, a straight-up guy.
That presumption is rebuttable.
It's subject to change with experience, and it often does change with experience, as I deal with a journalist or someone like that.
And I said my educated guess is that as the paid mouthpiece of the city of Charlottesville, the purpose of this report is to bring in a ringing condemnation.
Of the people who attended the rally and an exoneration of the city.
And I said, that's fine.
But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and I'm going to give you my statement.
And then I will have done my duty and it will be up to you to do yours.
Well, to show that it's possible sometimes to be too cynical, the Heavey Report actually basically exonerated us.
And it unearthed.
The startling fact that the first African-American police chief in Charlottesville ordered the police not to enforce the law because he told them we need violence so as to have a pretext to close their meeting down.
He also reported that the police chief tried to interfere with the investigation and thwart it.
By telling the police officers under his command not to cooperate and not, above all, not to tell anyone about his orders.
As a result, the police chief had to resign.
And speaking of all things considered, National Public Radio did cover the Hefya report.
That one day, it didn't change the narrative that we were the sole causers of the people who caused the violence.
It did report it and explain they interviewed two African-Americans in Charlottesville who explained that the police chief had taken the fall and that he had been targeted by racists and his resignation was the result of white racism.
So the listeners to National Public Radio were informed, but the Heavey report made no impact on the national media's, the system media's narrative of what happened at Charlottesville.
Well, then our elected officials, the distinguished gentlemen, the honorable members of Congress, got in on the act.
And somebody produced for them a resolution.
I can't find out who did the resolution.
I don't think it was someone like Lindsey Graham or Chuck Schumer or Johnny Isakson, to name a disgraceful senator from my state, who I knew as a child.
I don't think they stood up, they went home at night and got out their keyboard and drafted this resolution.
I suspect it was drafted for them by a certain advocacy group.
There are a couple of them I have in mind, I won't name.
But this resolution was introduced.
And in the face, in the teeth of all the facts, all the pictures of the Antifa activists with the flamethrower, All of the stuff that was all over the Internet that led to the T.E.F.E.
report, in the face of all of that, the Congress adopted this resolution.
The resolution blames us exclusively.
We were the sole cause of violence.
Furthermore, it also proclaims that the death of Heather Heyer was an act of domestic terrorism.
And by doing that, of course, they indicate that the man who has been charged with her death, a fellow named Fields, they basically said that he is guilty.
Now, what was the vote on that resolution?
I will tell you.
435 members of the House of Representatives voted for that resolution.
100 members of the U.S. Senate.
Voted for that resolution.
Now, of these 535 members of Congress, I think it's a fair guess to say that half of them are graduates of law school.
Have any of you as lay people and some lawyers here, have you ever heard of something called the presumption of innocence?
Have you ever heard the idea that it is ethically wrong?
To say that a person who has been accused of a crime is guilty?
I heard of that before I went to law school.
And I heard a lot about that in legal ethics class.
And I've heard a lot about it at seminars.
Every lawyer I know knows that principle.
When Richard Nixon characterized Charles Manson as a murderer before he was tried, he was reproached by some voices in the media for having characterized an accused man.
As being guilty.
And the media was right.
And that was a case in which Manson was reveling in the murder.
In the case of this fields boy in Charlottesville, there's ample reason to believe that a fair-minded jury will acquit him.
And I don't need to spend any time here praising the reason to that.
You all know that.
And almost everyone listening to this talk on the internet will know the reasons, too.
Not one member of Congress was troubled in the slightest by violating legal ethics.
Not when the boss man came into his or her office and told the Congressman,"We want you to sign this unethical, untruthful, lying resolution." All of them signed it.
Not merely the real scum like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, but people like Rand Paul.
Do we have any libertarians in the audience?
What do you think of Rand Paul?
I can tell you my opinion of Rand Paul has gone...
Very much so.
Who could put their faith in a man like Rand Paul?
And he's probably the best of the whole rotten crew that rules us.
Contrary to what Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow feel, I do not believe that we're going to find a Hercules to clean this polluted stable in Congress.
I think we have to work toward the day when they will disappear, not through any violent act on our part, But through the natural courses of history.
And we can create a healthier, viable system.
But the system is sealed off from us.
We see it in other little ways.
There is somebody in this room with whom I have had some strained relationships who has a petition up on his website to declare the Antifa to be a terrorist organization.
Well, that really is like saying that chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream.
Anybody that looks at the Antifa sites can see they are a terrorist organization.
They're selling guns, knives, masks, locks on chains with explanations of how to swirl them and smash them into people's faces.
The one in Atlanta has a death threat on me.
I went to our systems police department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
With a copy of this death threat.
I can tell you, I didn't find what I saw on TV when I dealt with the FBI.
I didn't meet any Elliott Nest or Ephraim Zimbalist Jr.
I dealt with people who could not care less if the Antifa had a death threat up on me.
But there's no question that the Antifa is a terrorist organization.
They attacked many of the Trump rallies.
Jeff Sessions will not declare Antifa to be a terrorist organization.
We know the system knows it's a terrorist organization because there have been documents leaked from New Jersey that they themselves privately know it is, but they won't say so publicly because they're very powerful people and people who control the New York Times and All Things Considered and National Public Radio who would come after them if they dared to call this Good terrorist organization,
a terrorist organization.
The system will condemn us as domestic terrorists.
It will not condemn the Antifa.
The system will exclude Paul Fromm from the United States.
How many of you are aware that the U.S. government will not let Paul Fromm from Canada enter this country?
The system would not let Andrew Joyce enter this country.
They can exclude people like that, who are simply writers and activists with no crime record, who want to come here and meet with American citizens and debate and discuss ideas.
They will not exclude Muslims.
In our mother country, Theresa May, they've got a real problem in Mother England.
They have a problem with Muslim terrorism.
This is a problem that comes up over and over again.
And Theresa May, the Prime Minister, she knows what needs to be done.
She needs to exclude and bar Jared Taylor from coming to the United Kingdom.
That was not the problem.
We cannot expect anything but system hostility.
And now I wanted to look a minute at the nature of our enemies and something about them.
Under the old...
Axiom, know your enemy.
I believe it's fair to say, if it's self-flattering, that people in this room base their thinking upon the rock, the solid granite foundations of truth, of logic, of facts, of reality.
Our enemies either do not care about truth because they're liars who are seeking some sort of advantage.
Or they are fools who believe things that are manifestly not so.
They even talk about how they base their thing on dreams.
You hear them all the time talking about the dream, this dream, that dream.
Not reality, but a dream.
I have learned I don't know much about philosophy.
There are people here who do know much about philosophy, and I feel they will critique me and say that I have misstated things, but so be it.
I learned recently that these people even have a philosophy they have created for themselves.
I was reading a book review, and the reviewer was very negative about this author and said that it was clear to the reviewer that the author of this book was a positivist.
That he was mired in the past.
He was a positivist and had not understood the new philosophy of post-positivism.
So I didn't quite understand what they were saying, so I went and looked it up and I found that they have created a philosophy called post-positivism.
And under post-positivism, you're free to choose your own facts as well as your own opinions.
Facts don't matter.
It's the theory that matters.
This is a fancy word, of course, for lying.
And these people are liars.
Our enemies embrace these lies.
They don't believe in fair play.
They believe in lies.
That's why they peddle the lie of Charlottesville.
That's why they peddle the lie of running the picture of the 13-year-old Trayvon Martin instead of a picture as he really was, which would have shown that he was bigger, taller, stronger.
than Zimmerman.
They did that in the face of the facts, month after month after month.
This is what's called, if they don't understand it, they like to complain about people undermining faith and democracy by accusing the press of false news.
Well, let me explain to Nina Totenberg of NPR and the editorial board of the New York Times that running a fake picture like that...
A misleading picture, month after month after month, after being shown to be fake on the internet, that's what's called fake news.
It's called lying, even if you want to call it post-positivism.
Now, the system and its adherence, I hate using the word liberal, and I'll get to that in a minute, but there have been significant changes to look at another aspect of our enemies.
Which is something that's just encouraging to us, to me.
Our enemies have really changed from the time when I was a child and a young person, and I heard their siren wooing propaganda in school.
When I was a kid, we were told that the left is opposed to the military-industrial complex.
Now they can't get enough of the military-industrial complex.
There are gobs of Democratic candidates.
I subscribe to left-wing sites and try to read them and give them a fair reading.
There's one called Nation of Change that I actually learn a lot from.
They had an interesting article about how many of the Democratic candidates, the party-favored candidates, running for Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, are people of CIA and Pentagon background.
These are the people who, like John McCain, they've never seen a war they didn't like.
Rebuild the military, more taxes, more soldiers, more tanks, more wars.
At least that website still recognizes the historic claim that the system, the liberals we face, are opposed to the military-industrial complex.
They are now pro-war.
They are opposed to self-determination, as we saw in Crimea.
They don't think the wishes of the inhabitants on the ground should matter.
Not when it is in the interest of the globalists that people be forced to live in countries of which they're not ethnically or historically a part.
They openly embrace censorship.
It's intriguing to listen to national public radio.
They've had repeated broadcasts where they have panels on to talk about the failure of Facebook and Twitter to censor out racist speech.
It might be necessary to have government action.
If they can't self-regulate themselves and keep this hate speech out,
There's no pretense anymore by these people, very little, that they are opposed to censorship.
They jettisoned any concern about America's working men and women.
They view them as kind of proto-fascists.
They dislike the American working class.
All the Roosevelt pretense about representing the working people against the bosses, there's no pretense of that anymore.
And this brings something to me to a very significant fact.
I ask people here who are engaged in our People who very much engage in activism.
People who run websites and who write things.
This is a fact that we really need to be discussing and thinking about.
And that was the great racial divide in the Democratic primaries.
This was mildly coming on the media, but it is a very significant thing.
In the Democratic primaries, the white vote went for Bernie Sanders, the white liberals, the true-believer liberals.
They voted for Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly.
If it had been a white primary like used to exist 70, 80 years ago in the South, Bernie Sanders would have taken the nomination hands down.
It was the non-whites who voted for Hillary Clinton.
And this is kind of counterintuitive because we all know Bernie Sanders as a virtual communist, a communist sympathizer.
It's even more anti-white than Hillary, if there's such a thing.
But it's talking about very, very minor gradations, because they're both repulsive.
But anyway, there was this racial divide.
And I think the interesting thing here, there is this alliance between white liberals, the white left, and the minorities, the non-white minorities.
This alliance was created by white liberals who thought we're going to be clever.
We're going to sell out the other white people and we're going to be able to pick up this 7 or 8 percent black vote and this 4 or 5 percent Hispanic vote and we're really going to be able to pull this off.
Well, the blacks and the Hispanics and the other minorities were never interested.
In the issues that excite white liberals.
They weren't interested in the park system.
They aren't interested in the environment.
They're not interested in gay rights.
They're not interested in any of that.
They're interested in one thing only, and that is the guinea.
They're interested in the guinea.
And this is a fundamental split.
I think that we need to rip out of our vocabulary things that I heard.
I winced as I heard people here talking about we are conservatives.
We are right-wingers.
We're not conservatives.
There's very little we want to conserve in this society.
We want change more than the left does.
We are not right-wingers.
We are advocates for our people.
We are white men and women.
We are not a subset.
of an ideological subset of white people.
We need to evaluate every issue on one criterion.
Is it good for the white people?
We need to reject all of these silly ideological subsets and forms that have been artificially created.
Paul Gottfried, the righteous Jew, I had a brilliant column called"Belief Clusters" and he pointed out that most Americans can identify as conservatives or liberals and they can actually answer questions that pass the litmus test.
But the questions bear no relation to each other.
What one thinks about gay rights has nothing to say what one thinks about immigration.
What one thinks about immigration has nothing to say about what one thinks about abortion.
What one thinks about abortion has nothing to say about what one thinks about the graduated income tax, the estate tax.
What one thinks about tax policy has nothing to say about what one thinks about some other issue.
These belief systems are completely artificial with no unifying thread through them.
We cannot confine ourselves to conservative people.
We've gotten them.
Jared Taylor started out not merely on the left, but the extreme left.
It's a chapter of his life I won't go into because he might not want me to go into it.
But it's shocking.
It's shocking to me.
Anyway, there are others who have come to us from the left.
We have got to see that there's no return address label on the message we send.
To white people.
The return address must not be"Patriots of the conservative right wing." Because if that's the return address, it's just going to go in the trash can from all kinds of millions and tens of millions of white people who belong with us.
Because most of us believe in environmentalism.
Most of us are socialists in the sense that we believe that the common good comes ahead of individual self-interest.
There are many areas that we intersect with those people, and they need to be with us, and we need to be with them.
Then I wanted to move on.
I wanted to cover some of the things.
I wanted to go back to sort of 101, the basics of the matter.
And I wanted to do this in the form of running through a list of things that are required of you to be a system believer, to believe National Public Radio and the New York Times and the SPLC and Hillary Clinton.
And my mind went back to Alice in Wonderland, a very famous quote from Alice in Wonderland, which John Derbyshire will probably know by heart, but I don't.
And it reads as follows.
Alice laughed.
There's no use trying, she said.
One can't believe impossible things.
I dare say you haven't had much practice, said the queen.
When I was your age, I always did it.
For a half an hour a day, while sometimes I have believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
And let's take a trip through the Alice in Wonderland world of socially acceptable orthodox thought in our society.
What you have to believe.
You have to believe that race doesn't exist.
The National Geographic magazine has come out with an issue that could have been produced under Stalin.
An issue of this magazine that proves that there's no such thing as race.
You have to be able to look at a Swede standing next to a pygmy and say there's no distinction.
Race doesn't exist.
You have to do that.
You have to believe.
You have to live the dream.
You have to believe the dream.
You have to believe.
That after 70,000 years of separate evolution, under dramatically different climatic and historical conditions, all forms, all subspecies of human life, reached the modern finish line in 2018 at the identical point.
That bizarrely, all of these experiences never affected their IQ.
You have to believe that the law of genetics, Applies to all forms of human life, except humankind.
And by the way, you have to believe this, being as most of them are, an atheist or an agnostic, without any at least logically plausible, internally logically plausible theory, that God intervened to make it nice and arranged that everybody would end up the same.
But you have to believe...
That the law of genetics does control dogs and cows and daffodils, but not one species is exempt, and that's humankind.
And you have to believe that with humankind, the laws of genetics apply to all organs.
Surely even a deluded reader of National Geographic, a believer in National Geographic, claimed that there's no such thing as race, is going to be able to look at a blonde white boy from...
Sweden and a pygmy and tell that the color of the skin and the size are different.
But if pressed, I guess they would concede that genetics controls eye color, skin color, height, susceptibility to various diseases.
But from the shoulder up, the non-god magically suspends the laws of genetics.
And the human brain...
It's the one organ in all creation, all forms, animal kingdom, plant kingdom, mammals, reptiles, everything.
The human brain is exempt from the laws of genetics and is unaffected by evolution.
Just read.
Go read National Geographic.
Listen to Heidi Byrish of the SPLC.
She'll tell you all about it and talk about how we believe in pseudoscience.
Talk about projection.
Anyway, you have to believe to touch on...
The radioactive radio of American politics.
You have to believe that Israel is entitled to a wall and America should pay for it.
And you have to believe that anybody that notices that and comments on it is someone who hates Jews.
That you can't notice that fact or talk about it unless you hate Jews.
You have to believe at the same time that America is not entitled to a wall and that it's racist and immoral for an American to want one.
You have to believe that biology should never be considered in formulating human social policy.
That you can run nations without any reference to biology.
You have to believe that brutality and atrocities such as Whatever happened in the Holocaust, that these are the natural and unavoidable outcomes of considering biology and looking at things like eugenics.
On the other hand, as a system believer, you have to believe that the reign of terror in revolutionary France, the de-kulakization of the intelligent peasants in Russia and Ukraine, in which the believers in equality murdered 10 million people for the crime of being smarter than their neighbors and knowing how to graft their fruit trees and making a little more money and getting a little more produce out of their farm.
You have to look at that and you have to look at the killing fields of Cambodia and say that this doesn't say anything about the principle of equality.
We are answerable for any crime committed by someone they claim was speaking out of our But they are never answerable for any crime committed out of theirs.
You have to believe that.
And you have to believe that this is fair and reasonable.
You have to believe that the difference between men and women, it's going on and on.
You have to believe that there's basically no difference between men and women.
That something as fundamental as the division of our species into man and woman, male and female, father and mother, that this is just trivial and doesn't matter.
And now they've gone one further than that.
You have to believe that one's emotional choice trumps physical reality in determining one's sex.
You have to believe that America has a right to devote publicly a significant percentage of its budget to funding interference in the political affairs of other nations.
America has the right to have its Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, Call our ambassador in Ukraine and discuss who we, as Americans, are going to install as the president of Ukraine in order to secure an anti-Russian government on the borders of Russia.
And that this is good because we're the good guys and we have a right to go all over the world meddling in other people's affairs.
We have that right.
But it's outrageous!
If some Russian actually tried to talk to somebody in America and tell them something negative about Hillary Clinton, that's a crime.
We should maybe have radio jammers to block Russia today like their friend Stalin did back in the good old days of the Soviet Union.
You have to believe that America should demand that Kosovo become a Muslim state and that the Serbs clear out because we believe in the sacred principle of self-determination.
Then you have to go to Crimea and say that the Russian-inhabited Crimea should remain part of a country of which it is ethnically not a part because of America's profound moral commitment to the sacred principle of not changing national boundaries.
You have to believe that this government telling you this is on the level.
They're being straight up.
You have to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, despite the historical record to the contrary.
No one, as I pointed out to a church group which I attend, when they were oohing and aahing over how superior Islam was to Christianity, when it came around to me, I asked if anyone had polled the Armenians on this subject.
No. But you have to believe it.
You have to believe it.
Thank you.
Yes, it requires a whole lot to be a good system girl or boy.
That you be either a fool or a liar, one or the other.
And you and I in this room today and millions like us don't have the requisite hypocrisy or stupidity to believe in the system.
We are not conservatives.
We are not liberals.
We are people who judge each issue on its own.
We believe in community.
We believe...
As Robert Putnam has disclosed in Bowling Alone and Common Sense tells us, that man is not meant to be alone.
We see the negative side of individualism.
We believe that no man is an island.
We believe that life can only have real meaning if one is part of a community.
We recognize that sociopathy is the ultimate form of secular individualism.
Just as atheism is the ultimate form of spiritual individualism.
We are advocates.
We are fighters for our people.
We are white people.
We are racial idealists.
We are racial communitarians.
We believe race cannot be left out of the question of community.
We are not a subset of a subset of any set of philosophical political principles.
To legitimate demands on our loyalty and affection that we cannot choose to deny.
I cannot look on my race.
I cannot look on my people.
I cannot look on my religion with detachment or indifference.
The Russian author Dmitry Marikovsky wrote a trilogy about the Antichrist.
And one of the Antichrist novels he wrote was on Leonardo da Vinci.
And the aspect of the Antichrist that da Vinci revealed, according to Malachowski, was that his paintings were too analytical.
They were devoid of affection, devoid of connection and love.
I think of the example, and we have affection for our heritage, even when we don't quite share it.
I think of Arianna Fulanchi, the famous...
Most famous Italian journalist in recent times, who when challenged, she was an activist against immigration, and she was challenged on why she was objecting to Muslim immigration because Italy is a Christian country.
And she replied with a statement that makes perfect sense.
I may be an atheist, but I am a Christian atheist.
And that makes perfect sense.
I understand exactly what she's saying.
I cannot look with indifference on the Parthenon, even as a Protestant.
I cannot look with indifference upon the Notre Dame Cathedral or St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice.
I cannot cease to be what I am.
I cannot cease to be a Southerner.
I cannot cease to be an Anglo-Saxon.
I cannot cease to be a European Christian.
I cannot cease to be a white man.
I don't have that choice.
And you don't either.
These are the mystical ties that bind.
They bind us all here today and those on the internet and around the world and in Europe and elsewhere.
They bind us man to man.
They bind us one and all together as common pilgrims for the redemption of our race and our civilization.
Of all that lights the pathway of progress in our world.
We are pilgrims on a crusade, a pilgrimage for all that we love and for all that we believe gives meaning to life.
And here we stand, my brothers and sisters, my racial family, my fellow pilgrims.
Here we stand.
As Luther said, we can do no other.
Thank you.
But with those words, we conclude this year's plan.
And may the spirit of our people go with you until next year.
See you all again May 17th.
▲
Export Selection