All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:36
Round Two with the Great Sam Dickson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the latest episode of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and today is December 29th, Anno Domini 2020.
With me is my good friend and colleague, Sam Dixon, who was with me also on the previous podcast.
For those of you who are tuning in for the first time now, Mr. Dixon is a stalwart defender of his people and his civilization and has the distinction of having been the closing speaker at every one of the American Renaissance conferences going back to 1994.
Welcome, Mr. Dixon.
I'm delighted to have you with me again.
I'm delighted to be here.
I would like to start with a little news item, just one, and then after that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Dixon and his views on the way liberalism has changed.
Mr. Dixon is a very distinguished observer of the folly that surrounds us, and I look forward very much to his observations.
But to begin with, The latest annual Gallup survey of the men and the women whom Americans most admire has just come out.
And I was surprised to learn, I suppose I haven't been paying sufficient attention, but for the last 12 years, the living person whom Americans most admire has been Barack Obama.
For the past 12 years, isn't this gratifying?
But just this year, he was pipped at the post by none other than Donald Trump.
I consider this to be a surprising achievement.
This is like his 74 million votes in the election.
This is a man whom the media have been constantly telling us is probably the worst human being to have had American citizenship ever since the year dot.
Certainly the most loathsome and vile person ever to be elected president, and he is the most admired man in America.
So, I think of that as something of an improvement over the previous man, Barack Obama.
But Barack Obama has, alas for him, fallen into second place.
Poor boy.
The remaining top men include Elon Musk and the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Microsoft Bill Gates, as well as the basketball player LeBron James.
LeBron James, a black basketball player, one of the most admired men in America in the top 10, and the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lama.
Now, this is not to say that Donald Trump has never been in the top 10.
He's been in the top 10 for 10 times, including four times before he ever even entered politics.
So while he was in the White House, he was not right at the top in the top 10, but he was included in the top 10.
Bill Gates has been in the top 10 21 times while Barack Obama has been in the top 10 15 times, and I would point out that having been for 12 straight years the most admired man in America, Barack Obama tied Dwight Eisenhower.
He was the other person who was so most admired, Dwight Eisenhower.
I realize that Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Dixon, is not one of your favorite people.
But I find almost more interesting the top ten women that Americans admire.
Number one.
And this is her third spot.
At the number one spot is Michelle Obama.
Mrs. Obama.
She is number one and has been for three years running.
And number two, this is yet another one of our African-American fellow citizens, Kamala Harris.
She's number two.
Then, number three is Melania Trump.
She's been within the top ten all four years.
She's never been number one.
And then the number four is Oprah Winfrey.
So, in this nation of ours, which is constantly being derided as white supremacist, full of white privilege, three of the top four ladies who are most admired by Americans are African-American fellow citizens of ours.
Now, I believe, as you were noting earlier, probably blacks overwhelmingly vote for their co-racialists in these matters.
And all it takes is a concentration among blacks to put somebody into the, oh, 10, 12, 15%, which is all you need to be at the top.
In other words, the way this poll works is Americans are asked,
name any living person whom you consider to be the person you most admire.
And people will, so all told, they will get hundreds of proposals.
Apparently, 10% or so, or 15% or so of people just mention some relative of theirs
or someone they know personally.
But among the people who are known to the rest of the world and who will accumulate enough percentage points
to make it to the top, all Michelle Obama required was 10% of Americans to say that they admired her most.
But that's still substantial.
1 in 10 Americans will come out unprompted with her name.
Isn't that gratifying?
Well, there are many layers of that cake.
Yes.
Well, serve us a few.
Well, first of all, all of us, all of our adherents listening need to keep in mind that a poll tests only what people will tell a stranger on the telephone.
And so right off the bat, there are a lot of things that people call me and ask my opinion about.
I would not tell a stranger on the telephone.
And all of us are like that.
The second is what Americans think.
What is an American?
I have almost nothing in common with Michelle Obama or Barack Obama.
I have nothing in common with some Chinaman who's just come over from China and been hurried through a nationalization ceremony.
They may be living on the same turf, but they're not my people.
Any more than a Sudetenland, Sudeten German, or German living in the quarter in Poland became a Pole because of a boundary change.
Just because a cauliflower is growing in a carrot patch does not make the cauliflower a carrot.
But don't forget, for the purposes of Gallup, anyone living here, and I don't know if they're restricted to citizens, who knows, Anyone living here is just as American as you, and just as qualified.
That's their definition.
But the opinions of what, quote, Americans, end quote, think about things is going to be split all over the world because we have all kinds of nations living on the same geographical turf.
Indeed we do.
The other thing is that it's significant to know who is not mentioned.
In terms of our future ideal ethnostate, it's going to be run very much differently, with different values from what we have today.
Now, one of the people you mentioned, except possibly Musk and maybe Gates, is an inventor.
You know, if I would ask who I admire the most, I don't know because I don't know their names, but I had an MRI test not long ago, and I lay there waiting for it, thinking about the people who invented that machine, enabling my body to be read without anyone having to cut on me or invade me.
This person has really helped mankind far more than Kamala Harris or Michelle Obama or Melania Trump, but they're not even noticed. Of course,
most of them are white males.
And we get no credit for all of the great things that white males have brought to the whole world.
It is certainly true, and I have remarked on this for years now, that the media are vastly
more interested in who some Kardashian girl is dating than the myriad people who make our lives
so much better because of their scientific and engineering contributions.
Scientists and engineers get no credit in this world.
And people have no long-range thought.
The human beings remain the same flawed creatures they've always been.
The average person in a housing project today, in America, Has more personal comfort than Marie Antoinette did.
And yet it has not stilled the promptings of hatred and envy and covetousness one iota.
That will always be.
It's all a question of relative ease.
The other thing is that you know full well that it doesn't matter that all these quote Americans end quote like Michelle Obama or Barack Obama.
It doesn't say anything about whether or not we are an evil white racist country.
As you know, facts don't matter.
We live in a fact-free society.
And so they come up with this thing of, first it used to be institutionalized racism.
Now it's systemic racism, which rhymes with pandemic, which has a nice subliminal impact.
But That way they don't have to use any facts to prove white privilege or anything.
No.
And yet, surely, surely you would assume that if we are simply by breathing the air, you and I, being the fact that we are white men, we are propping up the white supremacist patriarchy, Surely, you would think that when they have an option to vote for someone they admire, wouldn't they, even in a subliminal and subconscious way, arrange things so that you didn't get the top pack for the black people?
No, that's because they're very subtle, and it's very subtle, it's hard to show.
So you don't have to actually produce statistics.
You can produce a statistic that the average white family has a significantly larger net worth than the average black family.
Yes.
And that's true even if you adjust for income.
But somehow the white racists prevent blacks who have high incomes from buying utility company stocks, or creating a significant deposit, or paying off housing.
Somehow we put a gun to their heads and make them spend more of their money on showy disposable products, such as fancy new cars, and bling, and clothing.
That's right.
We force them to do that.
That's right.
And we can be demonized in a way that Other groups cannot.
If you took out what they say about white people and started plugging in words like Hispanic, Black, Jewish, they would just have paroxysms of rage.
No question about it.
But, you know, just for the interest of our listeners who probably will not see the full list of the women that Americans admire, let me just get all the way back down to number 10.
Starting again with Michelle Obama, who is Queen third year in a row.
Kamala Harris, this is her first appearance on the list, but the fact that she is the VP to be, this apparently makes her an admired person.
Number three, Melania Trump.
Number four, Oprah Winfrey.
I would love to know what the proportion of women and men who consider her an admired person are.
Then after, Oprah Winfrey is a white person, a white woman, not a white American.
Can you imagine who that would be?
Angela Merkel.
Angela Merkel.
She cruises in at number 5.
Then back to the United States with Hillary Clinton.
Just below Hillary Clinton, neck and neck with Hillary, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Then we have another white woman, Queen Elizabeth II.
Bravo!
Yes.
Followed by Amy Coney Barrett, another white woman.
And then the last white is a female, I would not call her a woman, it's Greta!
Greta Thunberg!
She is the 10th most admired woman by Americans.
Now, this is not something that blacks, for example, or Hispanics, I'm sure that people who voted for Greta are practically all white people.
These are hopped up white people who think that Greta Thunberg is just the future of the world.
The only ones I would say were admirable were Melania Trump, by virtue of her academic achievements and her height, and Queen Elizabeth.
It's an argument for the British monarchy that it's nice to have a system Which all of these nobodies, like Greta and Michelle and the others, in a monarchical system like in Britain, they have no chance of ever being numero una.
You'll be pleased to know that Queen Elizabeth has been on this list 52 years.
52 years!
Yes, she is well admired by Americans, or at least consistently admired.
Of all these women, I probably have the highest opinion of her myself.
But be that as it may, now this was a brief interlude before we got into your observations about the ways in which liberalism has betrayed its own values and moved on to do other things that are vastly more noxious.
So the floor is yours, Mr. Nixon.
Well, two initial quibbles.
Yes.
One, as you know, I shun the word conservative.
Of course.
I feel we are not conservative.
I didn't use it.
We are revolutionaries and we are neither left nor right nor in the center We are above all of these ideological quarrels.
I'm a liberal on more issues than I am a conservative, and conservatives are not our friends.
The other is, you said that I was a defender of white people, and to some extent I am, but I think that's defensive thinking.
We need to think of ourselves as advocates for the triumph of our people, for the further expansion and the greater things that lie ahead of our people.
So, with that, it's remarkable how the system You have to sort of use the word liberal, because we were all seduced, or they attempted to seduce us in high school and college by telling us how great liberals were, how broad-minded and thoughtful they were, as opposed to narrow-minded conservatives.
Now, when you and I came along in the late 60s and early 70s down at Cal College, where I went, at the University of Georgia, Up with the elites at Yale, where you were.
I bow and tug at my forelock in recognition of my superior.
Oh, your sincerity is so striking.
I am, I'm serious.
I believe that you respect the elites.
But anyway, they have now reversed themselves on virtually all issues.
They haven't admitted they've reversed themselves, but the positions they took in order to seduce us and to get us to think of ourselves as liberals have changed.
We hear about it a lot.
They like to say they're globalists.
They're not nationalistic.
They're globalists.
Well, they are globalists in terms of the fact that they want open borders.
They want free movement of labor and capital.
They say they're opposed to xenophobia and this kind of thing.
But in terms of politics and ideas, they have become isolationists.
They're political isolationists, as we see in the Russia investigation.
They want capital and labor to move across national boundaries, but they don't want ideas or influences.
Not the wrong ideas.
No, not the wrong ideas.
It's really astonishing that, as we'll deal with later, the first and foremost questions are never dealt with in American civic debate.
And the first and foremost question is just this whole idea that it would have been treason, as Schumer and some of the others said, Adam Schiff said, for Trump to have received information from the Russians about Hillary Clinton.
I mean, just think about it.
Four years from now, if you don't have a devil figure like Trump running.
He had Mitt Romney running against President Harris.
And Kamala Harris got a message from the French Securite.
And they said, we have irrefutable proof that Mitt Romney is involved with the Mafia.
That he's been involved in the murder of witnesses.
We've got it all.
It's absolutely irrefutable.
And we want to give it to you.
Under the Adam Schiff, Schumer, New York Times viewpoint, President Harris would be required to tell them, you're not Americans.
I can't talk to you.
Don't you dare give me that information.
I'm calling the FBI and reporting.
You try to give me information about the opposing candidate.
Have you ever heard anything so preposterous in your life?
In a normal society, in a sane society, unlike a USA, people would just laugh at the very unveiling of the Russian probe.
This is an absurdity.
What are they going to do next?
In the Cold War, Comrade Stalin jammed radio broadcasts.
Young people today, I find, are totally cut off from the world we grew up in.
When people tried to broadcast into the Soviet Union, the communists would jam the broadcast with static where you couldn't hear them.
Is the next thing that we're to hear from the New York Times and National Public Radio and Schumer and Schiff going to be a proposal that we start jamming Russia today?
Well, that's in effect happening.
And the jamming lasted for far longer than you suggest.
Up into, I believe, the 70s and even the 80s they were jamming Radio Free Europe, which was directed into the Eastern European countries, and Radio Liberty, which was directed to Cuba, all of these were diligently jammed.
But what they're doing now is they have handed off that operation to private enterprise.
And private enterprise will make sure that RT, the Russian television and internet network, will no longer be available on your computer.
Just as American Renaissance is increasingly unavailable in all the platforms where it used to be.
Yes.
But yes.
And that's why the election was illegitimate.
People are making a mistake in focusing so narrowly on whether or not votes were stolen, which they always are and undoubtedly were.
You know, the whole election was illegitimate.
The one thing Biden had over twice as much money.
Trump and his supporters were blocked on the social media.
Trump's rallies were attacked by violent criminals and nothing was done about it and they weren't condemned by Biden.
You start going down the list.
This is the way politics takes place in a place like Haiti or Panama or Nicaragua.
This is not the way a first world country is run.
Well, and it is an extraordinary thing, the amount of money that you're talking about.
As I understand, on both the congressional seats and the presidential election combined, this 2020 cycle It was twice as expensive than anything that ever went before, and the Democrats spent twice as much as the Republicans.
It used to be the other way around.
The Republicans were the big business people.
They got all these fat cat donors.
Now it's the other way around.
We have this strange situation in which the Democrats are supported by the richest people in the country.
And at the same time, they are going after this strange coalition of non-whites and weird whites.
It's a very, very peculiar thing that I wonder whether it will hold together after the central hate figure that holds them all together, Donald Trump, is now gone.
Oh, they hate us, though.
We serve as the hate figure.
Yes, but I'm just not sure.
They were so coalesced around Donald Trump.
But back to the whole question of how the liberals or the left, whatever term we wish to call them, has shifted, one has to do with this huge amount of money that is now being mobilized for what we would at one time call leftist causes.
Here's a fact to weigh that probably a lot of our listeners don't know.
That is, when David Duke was running a few years back for something in Louisiana, The criteria, the criterion that was supposed to be used to determine if you got onto the public debates on National Public Radio and television and stuff like that, was your standing in the polls.
But I listened to All Things Considered and they were, the journalists were, the presstitutes were all congratulating each other.
In the case of Duke, they changed the rules.
And these people who are against big money and who are socialists and all this, they changed it.
It wasn't your standing in the polls.
It was, how much money did you raise?
And this way they could contrive to make sure that bad ideas weren't heard by the voters.
That's right.
They could use an allegedly, an ostensibly objective standard to determine.
But the standards always change to their advantage.
We're dealing with really evil, corrupt people who would do anything.
But what were some of the other points you planned to make?
Well, the military-industrial complex.
I was in a difficult position, and you may have been too, back in the 60s and 70s.
I was an isolationist.
I did not believe we should be in Vietnam.
Not because I loved Ho Chi Minh, Uncle Ho, or Chairman Mao, like all the anti-war people did, but because I simply believed that Vietnam was not worth the bones of a single Georgia farm boy.
And I still believe that.
But that didn't sit well with the anti-war people, and my opposition award didn't sit well with my other ROTC cadets and young Republicans, so it was a different thing.
I never liked the military-industrial complex.
I agreed with the students for democratic society.
And you agreed with Ike on that point, too.
Well, I'm glad he said that.
I'm amazed he did say that, yes.
But without going into that side story, now the establishment, the system, the liberals, the fashionable people, they love the military-industrial complex.
It certainly seems that way.
They love these wars.
They want boots on the ground in Syria.
They want money spent on the military.
We ought to just virtually shut the military down.
We don't need the military.
We spend more on the military than almost every other nation on earth combined.
But you won't hear anything about that on national public radios,
all things considered. That's not a thing. It's not to be considered.
And you won't read about it in the New York Times. They love the military.
We also, as I understand it, have soldiers of one sort or another
in over a hundred countries.
What is this nonsense?
What are they doing?
Why are they there?
What on earth is going on?
Well, there are little side stories there.
Do you remember when the media got its panties in a wad along with all the fake politicians about the Russian plane that buzzed the American ship in the Baltic?
Not long ago, oh, they were all upset.
A Russian pilot had buzzed this ship.
Oh, it was a big crisis.
Well, here again, people never ask the first question is, where was this ship and what was it doing there?
Well, I found out that we have our fleet trolling up and down about 30 miles off of the Russians' main port of St.
Petersburg.
Why are we there?
Obviously, we're there to provoke trouble.
There's no reason why our fleet should be there.
What would we say if Putin sent the Russian fleet and had it crawling back and forth off
of Boston and New York?
I mean, it's simply outrageous.
Those ships need to be back here.
They need to be back in Charleston and back in Boston and back here in the United States.
They don't need to be over there provoking a quarrel.
And as you noted, when the decisions were being made or not made as to whether or not by Trump to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, the Our generals are now proudly telling us that they misled him on the number of troops who were there.
They lied to the commander-in-chief?
Yes, yes.
You would think that he would, he should have been, he should have fired every last one of them.
If someone had lied to Truman during this, I think he would have fired them.
They applauded Truman for firing on MacArthur.
Exactly.
And he certainly didn't lie.
That was my next point, is that they no longer believe in civilian control of the military.
they support the military doing like the Japanese military in the 1930s and just having its
own policies and pursuing them regardless of what the civilian government wants.
It will depend of course on what those policies are.
Oh yeah.
But the point, I think the larger principle here is that there are no principles.
So long as the effect is the one that suits our rulers, then the old principles such as
the rule of law such as, you're going to get into this later, assumption of innocence,
all of these things, and civilian control of the military, they just go out the window
so long as any violation of those principles suits their long term.
That's right.
Now they do have a guiding principle.
Yes.
And that is that everything they do is anti-white, Anti-Christian, anti-European.
Well, I wouldn't quite put it quite so... Let's look at another little thing that probably escaped people's views.
America is the only nation on earth that constantly prattles about morality and the issue of foreign policy.
You know, most nations historically have pursued a low-key, pragmatic approach of what's in their nation's interest.
You occasionally had figures like Philip II of Spain who tried to pursue ideological campaigns to re-Catholicize Europe.
But by and large, most people have adhered to what's good for Britain, what's good for France.
But Americans, it's always moralistic.
We're always fighting wars to save democracy or to reform the treatment of women in Muslim households and all this stuff.
And all this is nonsense.
When you look at it, these moral principles Are just smokescreens for very sordid and selfish and anti-white, anti-Christian things.
And here's an example.
You said I was going too far.
You are going too far.
Yes, you are.
You're so good-hearted.
But anyway, back in the days of the Kosovo business, the U.S.
laid the law down to the Serbs that you have to give independence to Kosovo because the sacred moral principles that govern American policy are Morality.
American morality requires self-determination.
This is a holy principle to the Clinton administration, as to all administrations.
And since Kosovo was majority Muslim, it needed its independence.
And after about 10 days of bombings and other things, the Serbs said, cried uncle, and gave up, said, okay, we'll pull out of Kosovo.
Well, the northern fifth of Kosovo is Serbian Orthodox Christian.
So these poor naives said that, well, okay, well, we're going to exercise our right of self-determination since our fifth of Kosovo is overwhelmingly Christian and Serbian.
We will join Serbia.
And then the Clinton administration and Hillary and all the others and General Clark announced, oh no, America will not stand for this because the sacred moral principles that guide American foreign policy is the sanctity of national boundaries.
Now the only thing that was consistent in all of this was that American foreign policy was consistently anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-European.
Well, I am certainly not prepared to say that all of those who are upset about, for example, the Islamic treatment of women are motivated by anti-Christian or anti-white animists.
No, I think a lot of them genuinely do feel That we are right and these poor beleaguered people have got it wrong and those who throw homosexuals rooftops to punish them are barbaric and they have to be brought into line.
I think there's probably a lot of sincerity on this.
On the other hand, what of course is particularly galling to me and I'm sure to those is that just, what is it, 20 years ago, Homosexuality for example was on the books illegal in the United States and now we're running around telling all the world well we got it wrong and you got it wrong and not only have we had it wrong ever since the founding of the country up until 20 years ago but now that we know that we're right you've got to shape up too.
But I agree 100% with you.
I don't know of any other country that makes this kind of chest-thumping and moral preaching part of its foreign policy.
It's our official foreign policy to fight anti-Semitism, to fight homophobia, to fight sexism.
Good grief!
How is that in the interest of the United States?
No sense of the same country has such a policy.
No, no, no.
And history shows, as in the case of Philip II, what happens to countries in overreach where they undertake these ideological But at least Philip II actually believed that.
You said there are a lot of people who believe the stuff about liberating women.
They are, but they're the nobodies.
They're the kind of people that are voting to say that Kamala Harris is the greatest woman in America and that kind of thing.
The people at the top, the people at the top, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Bush, they don't believe any of this.
It's just a gimmick to deceive Americans.
And you see this over and over.
Here's another example.
No, no, no.
Well, let me stop you there.
I don't think that if they would cook this up just as a gimmick to deceive Americans, they would put the heart into it that they do.
There must be somewhere at the top a genuine commitment to the idea That homosexuality is a perfectly okay thing and all the world should recognize that and all homosexuals who want to get married anywhere in the world should have that right.
I think there has to be genuine conviction about that or we wouldn't do it in the obsessive and consistent way that we do.
There doesn't have to be genuine conviction at all.
It's just a matter of marketing or deceiving.
How else are you going to deceive the American people into taxing themselves to maintain this bloated military?
Not by trying to persuade the Ugandans that they should decriminalize homosexuality.
Not by trying to persuade the Ugandans that they should decriminalize homosexuality.
Let's look at two more examples.
We believe in democracy.
Always exporting democracy.
A system that I despise and have despised all of my life from childhood.
My parents didn't believe in democracy and I don't believe in democracy either.
I can't imagine anyone who possibly thinks about it could believe in democracy at all.
Most people disagree with me, and so I just accept the fact that my views are apparently very peculiar.
But Americans, at least, the head table claims that we believe in democracy.
That's why we had to overthrow the Kaiser in World War I, and we had to go to war, and that's why we had to do all this stuff, because we have to spread democracy all over the world.
We have to have people dropping little pieces of paper into ballot boxes.
Well, there are two examples that come to mind.
I know they're in your mind, too.
Belgium.
In Belgium, you had a democratic NATO country, and the wrong party, just a few years ago, won the election.
The Flemish Bloc Party.
A conservative party that's highly Roman Catholic, they're culturally conservative, they don't believe that people should be screwing around, they believe that people should get married and have babies in the family, and they believe people should go to mass, and they are proud of their country's history, and they believe that Oh, they believe that pornography shouldn't be on the television or whatever, and they also believe that there should be no immigrants coming into their country, that it ought to be run for the Flemish and the Walloons.
That is the part that was most offensive to our rulers.
Of course, of course.
Well, what happened?
The Rom people won the election, and so the Belgian Supreme Court simply declared the Victorious Party to be a criminal organization And ordered it disbanded, and that was the end of that.
Was there any protest in the U.S.
State Department?
Did the New York Times have an editorial about it?
This is really serious stuff.
A NATO power declaring the victorious party a criminal organization and setting aside the election returns?
This is a remarkable thing.
And then you had another case in Greece.
The wrong party got enough votes to get in the Parliament.
The Golden Dawn got one-sixth of the votes.
What happened?
A voter, the American media lied about it and said it was a party official.
It wasn't.
It was somebody who wasn't even a party member.
Got into a quarrel with an anti-Farh activist and they had a fight in the course of which the anti-Farh activist was killed.
Well, whereupon the Greek government declared the Golden Dawn Party to be a criminal conspiracy because of this murder or death that took place by one of their voters and removed one-sixth of the elected officials from Parliament.
And once again, no outcry from the U.S., no reprimand from the State Department.
Hillary didn't issue a statement.
No one got his or her panties in a wad.
It was all fine because these people are opposed to Muslim immigration into Greece.
So they are anti-Christian.
The one guiding policy is they hate the historic demographic culture and religion of Europe.
Well, it is certainly true that the principle of democracy which they claim to support can be subordinated for more important goals.
And as I said, all of these aspects really have to do with jettisoning anything that would be an objective principle if that principle interferes with their plans.
Another one that occurs to me is a somewhat less relevant one.
But I think it was back in the 1980s, there was an election in Algeria and the FIS, Front Islamique de Salut, the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, won the election.
Well, at that time we were not so friendly to the Islamists, certainly not in Algeria, and so we supported the military government in putting down and rejecting the results of a democratic election.
Now, once again, just the starkest kind of hypocrisy.
And the pity of it is, of course, that there are not more people who observe and despise these people, who bend all the principles to suit themselves.
They're contemptible people.
They're not worthy of respect.
We have to realize they're ruthless people, they're dangerous people, and that they're people motivated by bad motivations.
They're ill-willed.
And they delude themselves to the point where they're convinced that they are motivated for good purposes.
I think that's only on the lower level.
Oh, I don't know.
The ones in charge, Soros, I don't think Soros believes that.
I don't think the editorial board of the New York Times believes that.
I think they do believe that.
I don't think Barack Obama believes that.
Look, they get up in the morning and they rub their hands together and then they roll up their sleeves and they spit on their hands.
What are we going to do that's going to be evil today?
No.
They believe they are on the side of the angels.
I'm perfectly convinced of that.
A scoundrel like Soros who made his money speculating in currency crises that he manipulated, impoverishing poor neighbors.
I don't believe that.
I think he's a malevolent man.
He is a critical man.
He knows how to, like a squid, he knows how to put the black ink out in the water and hide behind all of these universalistic goody-goody secrets.
I must say, I just had an exchange by email with a very clever and observant fellow who is a columnist whose name I dare not mention on the air here.
He was, he'd written a column in which he was describing some of the malevolent behavior or the malevolent consequences of some sorts of behavior and I wrote to him.
It had to do with the money that he's poured into these elections for district attorney.
the district attorneys who are refusing to prosecute, who are letting go all these rioters,
who are refusing to put anybody in jail, who has shoplifted less than $900,
people who are just unleashing a flood of criminality and chaos on their own countries.
Public urination and all of this sort of thing, public drunkenness, we're not gonna prosecute any of that.
I asked him, what in your view motivates someone who would do this?
Why would someone do this?
And he said, much as I despise George Soros, I cannot say.
But he, like I, like me, hesitates to attribute this simply to some kind of pure evil wish to destroy American society.
It isn't an evil wish to destroy.
It's a desire to promote his side, his faction, over other people.
And he's loyal to his people.
It's like blacks who vote as a bloc for their leaders.
You know, they have a goal, which is to bring their people to dominance over white people, and that's an admirable goal.
I wish white people were on that avenue.
But in what possible way does so decriminalizing shoplifting that one after another the drugstores in San Francisco are shutting down because they can do nothing when somebody walks in and clears off a whole shelf of merchandise and walks out?
What possible series of Rube Goldberg connections logically can go from that to whatever movement that George Soros supports?
I think it's a matter that he has an adversarial attitude towards society.
He instinctively hates Western civilization.
He instinctively hates white people.
And a lot of white people that have been indoctrinated in the boo hatcheries that we call universities, they also are instinctively opposed to our society.
They immediately recognize what is beneficial in terms of destabilizing and degrading our society.
But even if you hate white people, It's the people who live around these no longer available drugstores, mostly black.
They don't care about black people.
Well, okay.
You think Hillary Clinton lies awake at night worrying about what's good for black people?
I don't think she does.
No, of course she doesn't.
If anybody believes that Hillary Clinton actually cares about black people, he's sadly mistaken.
No, I don't believe that for a moment.
But I don't think that Hillary Clinton would agree that, okay, we're just going to make life as miserable as possible in the United States, and that's going to be a good thing.
I think she hates the deplorables.
When she sees a Norman Rockwell-type town in western Pennsylvania, I think she immediately despises it.
Has contempt for it, and she wants to crush it, and she wants to hurt those people.
But let's move on, let's move on.
And that's why she lives in a white country, in a white city called Chappaqua.
But anyway, yes, do move on.
They used to say that they were great intellectuals, that they were against McCarthyism, that the evil people who would use that filthy tactic of guilt by association against other people, now they're McCarthyists on meth.
You know, represented by that institution, the Southern Poverty Law Center, first and foremost, that's State Exhibit A. You know, they're clever enough, they don't use the term association, they say linked.
They're linked.
And when you read these linkages, the media gives them full credence, incites them, and the media's into this too, how people are linked.
The wildest McCarthyite that they've created in their own paranoia would be embarrassed to come up with the links that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the New York Times comes up with.
I've said many times that they had an article about the Southern Poverty Law Center produced an intelligence report about Eric Rudolph, the guy that was accused of bombing the Olympic Games and the homosexual nightclub and the abortion clinic.
And they said he was linked to people like you and me.
And I saw that headline in the Atlanta Journal and I thought to myself, I hope my telephone number is not in his address book, but the links were geographic.
He was geographically linked.
He grew up in Western North Carolina, an area known for Klan activity in the 1920s.
He grew up only 20 miles from where a known Holocaust denier lived.
Well, I looked into that.
The known Holocaust denier died when little Eric was 11 years old.
So he would have had a long bike ride to pedal his little bike over the mountains of North Carolina to get to that Holocaust.
But they had the geographic connection.
He's linked by geography.
They have audience guilt by association.
They've used on you.
I've read all about you in the writings of august people like Dr. Heidi Beirich, a great intellectual with a PhD in political science.
You are linked because when you made a talk in Chicago, a known Nazi was sitting in the audience.
Wow!
And, you know, he might write something like that, but I don't believe that's ever, in fact, been the case.
Well, it doesn't matter.
You have a meeting that anybody can walk in.
Who attended rallies for the Carters, you know?
Mass murderers of homosexuals, child molesters, Jim Jones, all kinds of people went to meetings with Jimmy Carter.
But it says nothing as silly as the idea that you're somehow linked because of where you were born.
When they ran this article, I lived only three miles from the King Center in Atlanta.
So I was seven times more closely linked to Coretta King than Eric Rudolph was linked to the so-called Holocaust.
And now they've come up with Quotation guilt by association.
So-and-so denies that he's a Nazi or racist, but his research has been quoted.
By racist newspapers.
In a sane society, again, people would fall on the floor laughing.
If someone got up in a sane society, like Sweden, or a first world society, instead of a jungle society like ours, and started this kind of stuff, people would think this guy's off his rocker.
Oh, Mr. Dixon, it's just as bad in Sweden.
It's just as bad in Sweden.
Don't ruin my illusion.
Don't take my illusion.
No, no, no.
There are sane societies.
Somebody like Estonia, or somebody like, maybe Hungary, America in 1850.
Any sane society, if someone started talking about it mattered where you were born because two generations before you were conceived, somebody in the neighborhood did something.
I mean, this is aberrant.
This is not really mistaken.
It's aberrant.
Beware, Mr. Dixon.
If you lived that close to the King Center, if anybody ever throws a can of paint on the King Center, they'll know it was you because you live nearby.
I am very careful about such things.
I'm a bit paranoid.
I've gone to Montgomery several times on business.
I have gone to great lengths never to drive by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of the danger that they might have censors out reading license plates.
And then they would say, oh, he drove by.
And there would be a huge percentage of Americans who would think, oh, he must have been planning to bomb them.
He drove by their building.
I take great effort, I make great efforts not to go near these people.
Stay away from them.
That's probably very wise.
I walked past the Poverty Palace a couple of times myself.
You better watch out.
I will watch out.
I will go and sin no more.
But anyway, they're now into the crudest forms of guilt.
Something that's just laughable.
And yet they think they're intellectuals.
They tell us how intellectual they are.
How they are the natural leadership of the country.
All these thoughtful people.
In all things considered.
In the New York Times.
All thoughtful.
Oh yes.
But then there are others.
They used to be great civil libertarians.
They championed the Warren Court.
Warren Court handed down a decision that I as a liberal agree with.
That people are entitled to a lawyer.
That if they're accused of a crime and can't afford a lawyer, a lawyer should be provided for them.
I believe that.
Now...
They support organized efforts to intimidate lawyers.
I was a victim of this with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the smear they put up against me.
I resisted them and I caused them damage in court and so they came after me and that smear was mailed to my clients and to judges and other officials so as to try to ruin me professionally.
Anyway, now this Lincoln Project, supposedly moderate Republicans who are opposed to Trump, It's all in the papers.
They're organizing a campaign nationwide to the applause of the New York Times and all things considered.
They're organizing a campaign to intimidate lawyers so they will not be willing to represent the President of the United States in court.
If the President of the United States cannot get a lawyer, what does that say for little people like you and me?
Oh, I agree.
This is absolutely extraordinary.
It seemed to me At the time of the Kenosha riots, after the police, as far as I can tell, quite justifiably put seven rounds into this fellow who was going for a knife, the riots out there, and a number of white people, astonishingly enough, decided they'd had enough, and they came into Kenosha after two or three nights of rioting with their weapons, and they said, we're going to try to keep this from happening again, and
One of the consequences was that a young man named Kyle Rittenhouse, we will find out what happened when this case goes to court, but there was a melee in which he ended up shooting a couple of people and was charged with two counts of capital murder.
As I understand it, they don't apply the death penalty in Wisconsin, but still he's facing life in prison, life in prison.
Under circumstances I think are ambiguous at best and perhaps wholly justified in terms of what he did.
Well, when he tried to go to GoFundMe and raise money for his defense, not only did GoFundMe let this thing up for only a short period of time, they gave back all the money that had been contributed.
Illegally, yeah.
They returned the money to make sure that he could not afford a lawyer.
And that's what these people stand for.
They've gone from being civil libertarians and believing people have a lawyer to glorying in making it financially impossible for people to have a lawyer.
And they glory in the bullying of lawyers, putting up the names of their spouses and children and where they live.
This is the kind of thing you would expect from the Ku Klux Klan or the lowest element of the American Legion in 1942 or something, you know.
But no, now it is blessed.
And here again, It so permeates the leadership of our society.
There hasn't been one peep from the American Bar Association or any legal thing that this is intolerable.
You cannot have lawyers and their families being threatened so as to prevent them From being able to represent American citizens in court.
Well, and again, I think what I'm describing is the other side of exactly the same coin.
That a man who has got, who is risking life in jail, the end of his life in effect, cannot raise money in a public manner for his defense.
He's still presumed innocent as far as I know.
Not anymore.
Well, apparently not by the people who want to go find him.
Here's another shocker.
Here's another shocker.
I can never get the name right.
Is it Jason Fields or James Fields that ran over Heather Heyer?
James Fields.
Well, he was convicted and he very well may have been guilty, but it certainly was a case that was not clear.
He had a viable defense.
When his trial was pending, the U.S.
Congress, by 535 votes to none, Passed a resolution saying that his act was an act of domestic terrorism.
Yes.
Whether he was innocent or not.
Probably half of those people sitting in Congress are lawyers.
Yes.
One of the first things we learn as lawyers, and the average citizen knows it too, is you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That doesn't matter anymore.
Last night I was listening to All Things Considered.
I'm a masochist and I listen to things like that.
And they were talking about how outraged people were when the police officer killed George Floyd.
That hasn't been determined in the court of law.
In fact, as you know, there's considerable evidence that the police officer's action did not kill George Floyd.
But they no longer care about things like the presumption of innocence.
It's all about hating white people.
It's all about hating white people.
Well, it is all, again, sacrificing principle.
When the principle gets in your way.
Just the other day, I heard George Ford referred to as the patron saint of fentanyl overdose.
It struck me as a bit of a wry humor.
But to return to Kyle Rittenhouse and finish up with him, he then moved when GoFundMe gave away the $30,000 or $50,000 e-raid, he immediately went something else, a competitive crowdfunding site called Fundly.
And he had raised more than $50,000 in just a few hours, but that's as long as that site let him go up.
They, too, shut him down and gave the $50,000 back to the people.
Yes.
Now, finally, he stumbled onto a Christian crowdfunding site.
And last I checked into it, he had raised half a million dollars for his defense.
So, it was, if you are persistent you can do this, but I agree with you 100%.
The fact that these better-known sites had denied him the right to a defense, this should have been something that was denounced from all quarters of the spectrum, but no.
So long as it's a white guy who is defending property rights with a rifle, an AR-15 no less, automatically bad and pathetic.
To follow up on your point of intimidating lawyers, another great example of this was a fellow named Ronald Sullivan.
When Harvey Weinstein was accused of all of this despicable behavior, he of course deserved a defense.
As far as I can tell, most of it really was very crude shakedowns for sex of women that he did not physically assault.
And if they really wanted that part in the movie and they were willing to go to bed with him under those circumstances, I don't see that necessarily as a crime.
But in any case, Perhaps he did commit crimes.
He is in jail now.
But a man who stepped forward to defend him was a black man named Ronald Sullivan.
He was a teacher at Harvard Law School.
His wife also was a lecturer there.
They were dismissed by Harvard.
After a huge outcry and uproar within the Harvard community of the very idea of defending this loathsome beast.
So being black is not even a defense against the mob if it decides that someone is so awful, such an insect, that we're going to suspend any kind of ordinary legal process and decide that he is guilty long before proven so.
There was a newspaper in Georgia called the Fulton Data Report, which is the county legal newspaper for the major county in Atlanta, and most lawyers get it.
And they had a report that I think somewhere around 200 major law firms in America had signed statements demanding that nobody represent President Trump.
I mean, what in the world is this?
Is it lawyers?
I mean, what is this stuff?
Well, I agree.
It's just astonishing.
I don't know.
Every time I think I have seen, we have plumbed the depths.
I've gotten over that conviction.
I know we have not plumbed the depths.
You remain our candide, our Dr. Pangloss, though, who doesn't ever seem to think All right.
I know that that's the case.
But you see, the difference between me and you is, I know something worth is going to happen.
I think they're doing it with the best of intentions.
All right.
But yes, your next point.
Well, they loved to say when I was a kid, they were mad at science.
We liberals, we believe in evolution.
We're going to show this movie to all you kids in class called Inherit the Wind that's going to show how dumb these people are.
They're not liberals.
We are men of science.
All of that, as you know better than anyone since you've done so much race research, has long ago been thrown away.
But they used to claim they believed in evolution.
They still claim that and mock creationism.
Provided creationism is based on religion.
Now, I happen to believe in evolution.
I'm not pushing a religious angle here.
But I try to treat people with respect and I don't make fun of people who have religious beliefs in opposition to evolution.
But they now will quote a silly political tract like the Declaration of Independence as if it's a scientific text.
I have a cousin that I love very much who is brilliant.
She's a psychologist.
She's quoted, but Sam, the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal.
It's beyond the Baptist and their belief in the inerrancy of the scriptures.
It's so ludicrous and they become angry when you disagree.
We are secular atheists.
You and I are secular atheists.
The people who are listening to us are secular atheists.
We dissent from the real religion of the country.
These people react to us the same way that Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition would have reacted.
If you'd walked up to Torquemada in the 1480 and told him that there are only two sacraments instead of seven, you would have probably gotten a more reasonable reaction from Torquemada and a fairer trial from the Inquisition.
That's right.
That's what we get from these people today.
Yes, the Inquisition actually did put people on trial.
Yeah.
You could call witnesses.
Unlike us, we are just experts.
Well, that applies to religion.
You were rear as a Presbyterian, I still am a Presbyterian, and I'm still a member of the mainline church.
But the distant church, the so-called conservative church, the PCA, the President Church of America, excommunicated somebody for reprinting sermons and writings by Presbyterian theologians about the subjects of race and slavery.
I met this guy.
He got a registered letter from the... He never raised it in his parish.
He got a registered letter from the clergyman saying that this had been brought to their attention and that he was going to be put on trial for heresy.
And he wrote a polite letter back saying, well, I will appear at the hearing and I will bring someone to defend me and so forth.
And then he got the second registered letter saying, there will be no hearing.
Don't ever darken the doorstep of our church again.
Now you're in the Book of Church Order as with the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
It sets out how you excommunicate someone.
And you're not supposed to do it without a hearing and operating for them to be heard.
But not when it involves reprinting dissident ideas about race.
Then you're not entitled to a hearing.
So black, so egregious that you are not entitled to a hearing.
Yes, the whole idea of their being on the side of science.
I've been reading a remarkable collection of contributions to a collected, edited book of chapters about, it's called The Nature of Human Intelligence.
And this put out by Cambridge University Press, and it's very, very clear where the weight of scientific consensus lies.
Inheritability of intelligence, differences between men and women, individual genetic differences between not only individuals in the same race, but group differences.
It's all very clear.
And yet, whenever the other side deals with someone like me, they will say, oh, the things he says, they are debunked.
This is scientific.
Debunked by who?
Debunked.
Yes, that's always my question.
Debunked and how?
Under what circumstances?
Was it persuasive?
But in any case, and it's not just me, of course, it's people like Charles Murray, it's people like Richard Herrnstein.
And it's a matter of common sense.
Oh, these are things.
You know, the idea all men are created equal.
I have never met anyone in my life who was equal to any other human being.
Of course not.
And that doesn't mean I hate them.
Yes.
But you know, no amount of Wheaties would have made me Bill Mitchell and made me quarterback of my high school.
Football team.
No amount of music lessons, even started at age one, would have made me into Mozart.
That doesn't bother me.
My own view, you know, this thing about racism, you and I know it's a semantic weapon created by one of the most horrible figures of history, the brutal communist murderer, Leon Trotsky.
But, you know, to me, if there is any sense to what they're talking about, you know, if I know that Norwegians, for instance, maybe are three inches taller than the average Sicilian, I can look at that and not say Sicilians are not human beings, they're not smart Sicilians, they're not tall Sicilians.
The problem would come in if you believe that so strongly that when you met a Norwegian who was 5'10", standing next to a Sicilian who was 6'4", and you insisted that the Norwegian was taller than the Sicilian.
Which is what our enemies are doing all the time, you know.
Well, you know, on the subject of all men who created equal, we had a remarkable contribution sent into American Renaissance some time ago by an American who was teaching English in China, in a fairly remote, it wasn't one of the big cities, and he would gently broach in class questions of racial differences.
And he said whenever he did this, invariably, Out in the countryside in China, the reaction was, but aren't all men created equal?
The foolishness of that phrase has penetrated into the deepest, darkest China.
And I don't know why.
And these are Chinese who have not, from grade one, been inundated with this foolishness.
It's just mind-boggling.
When I was in ninth grade, I first heard the idea that science had proven that everybody was created equal.
I thought it was a joke, but I found out later it was actually a UN resolution.
Just accepting evolution.
During whatever period of time that we have separated from black people, we had skull change, skin change, hair texture change, the idea that inside that cranium there was never any change.
This is a form of secular creationism.
It's a belief by faith based upon the Holy Scripture of the Declaration of Independence.
Well, and on that note, on that leap of faith, I suppose we're going to have to have a leap of faith and think that maybe next week we'll have an opportunity to speak with our people.
No, your time is up, Brother Dixon, and we shall perhaps have another opportunity to do so.
But for now, I thank all of our listeners for your indulgence and your attention, and we look forward, at least I look forward, perhaps Mr. Dixon will not be with me, but I look forward to speaking with you again a week from now.
▲
Export Selection