All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
56:38
CNN's Fareed Zakaria Interviews Jared Taylor (Full Interview)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, Mr. Taylor, thank you so much for doing this.
It's my pleasure.
Tell me, what is your basic objective?
If you think about this philosophically, what are you trying to do?
I consider myself a white advocate.
That is to say, I speak up for the legitimate interests of white people.
Every other racial group has organizations, lobbies, even congressional caucuses that look out for their interests, but only whites are not considered a legitimate group for those purposes.
And to your mind, what are those interests?
What is your objective?
If you could achieve it, what would it look like?
Well, one of our objectives, of course, is to end...
Racial discrimination against whites in the form of affirmative action.
That's obviously in our interests.
Another is to slow or stop, or perhaps even reverse, the dispossession of whites as a majority in this country.
The idea that we're supposed to be celebrating diversity means only that whites are to celebrate their dwindling numbers and declining influence.
I don't think any healthy people wants to become a minority in its own country, especially for those of us who are living here in the nation that was built by our ancestors.
Why should we wish to become a minority?
So that is a key interest of whites who are aware of the crisis that we face.
A similar understanding of whites all around the world in Europe, and especially Europe, where they see immigration reducing whites to a minority.
They simply don't want to be replaced.
Who are whites?
Whites are the people whose ancestors were living in Europe about 500 years ago.
And most of the time, we have no difficulty distinguishing whites from other people.
I think the idea that race is somehow a sociological optical illusion is some kind of modern fad, and it's not based in biology.
It's based in wishful thinking.
Well, let me ask you about that, because most of these racial categories come out of the 19th century, many of them with Germany, German scholarship.
And the original term used, as you know, was Caucasian.
Now, I think scholars would agree I have as good a claim on being Caucasian as you do.
Caucasian meant people who come out of Central Asia, out of the Caucasus.
In fact, the term Aryan, which is another one that is often used, comes specifically out of India, which is where I grew up.
And it comes out of about 2000 BC.
Aryan invasion which drove the original inhabitants of India way down south.
So why am I not a Caucasian?
By certain definitions, you might very well be a Caucasian.
But genetic research shows that people who are living in Europe, who are descended from Europeans over the last 500 or 1,000 years, have definite genetic clusters.
And it shows in their appearance as well.
It's really not very difficult, either visually or genetically, to distinguish Europeans from non-Europeans.
You know that most scientists would disagree on the genetic part, which is that race, ethnicity has some genetic basis.
Race, for example, really doesn't in the sense that there are people, you know, the argument used to be made that these Caucasians migrated and traveled to Europe, and that's why they're called Caucasians.
So presumably that's the same genetic stock.
On the contrary.
People who really do study this matter carefully will show you.
You can graphically represent the kind of genetic clusterings that reflect Europeans, that reflect Middle Easterners, that reflect subcontinental Indians, for example.
The clusters are distinct and different.
And this is what's reflected in the phenotypes, the fact that Europeans look different from Indians or from Middle Easterners or from North Africans.
So, I'm a Caucasian and an Aryan, but not a white, according to you.
I don't wish to split hairs about these matters.
Well, you're advocating policies that would discriminate against people, throw them out of the country on the basis of these issues.
So I'm just trying to understand who is what.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about throwing anyone out.
I've never proposed such a thing.
Well, you supported Donald Trump's proposal to have illegal immigrants leave.
I heard you tell Jorge Ramos that you thought under certain circumstances he should leave the country.
So all I'm saying is if you are advocating policies based on racial categories, I just
I think most people would not consider you white.
But it's not a popularity contest, is it?
It's not a popularity contest.
Either this is a scientific fact or it isn't.
And all I'm saying is, I think there's a fair amount of scientific evidence that would suggest.
That I'm Caucasian and Aryan.
And why doesn't that count in your book?
Again, my definition would be those whose ancestors were living in Europe 500 years ago.
Okay. So in that case, I'm trying to, again, just trying to understand.
All right.
A lot of the people you want out of this country or slow the immigration down.
Look, look, look.
Out of the country.
We were talking just earlier about sending illegal immigrants back.
Yes, I think that's fully legitimate.
But one of the reasons you want to get rid of them is because they come from a different race or because they're not white, right?
I mean, presumably you don't mind if there are a lot of British illegals coming in.
I don't like the idea of illegal immigrants from anywhere.
No, but I just want to understand.
But the particular problem is that they are not...
White, right?
Yes. So what I'm trying to understand is if the argument is that the people you like are people who lived in Europe 500 years ago, so Hispanics are white in that sense.
I mean, the term Hispanic comes from the Roman term for the Iberian Peninsula, Spain.
Why are Hispanics not okay?
They are Europeans.
Spaniards are Europeans, but the people who qualify as Hispanic, they can come from Honduras or Guatemala or Mexico.
They may be mestizos of some sort, but they have a large admixture of American Indians.
So let me understand that.
They're genetically and visually and physically different from Europeans.
But if they came from Argentina, which has a huge European population...
Would that be okay?
So long as they're Europeans.
Europeans have assimilated practically without any difficulty here in the United States.
But how would you distinguish?
Because if they came from Argentina, what I'm trying to understand is, how would you figure out whether a Hispanic...
Because if you want Europeans in, a large number of Latin Americans have very strong European ancestry.
Why is that not okay?
Tell me this.
How does our alma mater, Yale...
Distinguish between whites and non-whites for affirmative action purposes or for special services in terms of community organizing.
But you have to decide because you're advocating policies based on...
I'm not at this point trying to make these distinctions.
I'm trying to ask you, since you are, what are the distinctions based on?
The whole country makes these distinctions all the time.
And that is one of the sources of tremendous and perpetual tension in this country.
I still don't understand why, if you want Europeans, an Argentine or somebody who came from Central America who had Hispanic, Spanish ancestry, Italian ancestry, French ancestry...
If they're Europeans, that's fine.
How would you figure that out?
Oh, most of the time it's not all that difficult to tell, even just from visual inspection.
But genetic tests are likewise possible.
You look at people and try to figure out how white they were?
This is very much an artificial discussion.
In the United States today, there is seldom...
Any disagreement as to whether this person is Asian, this person is Hispanic, this person is European.
I think you're not getting around enough.
There's a lot of intermarriage.
There are a lot of people who look mixed.
I mean, if I've traveled around Latin America, there are parts of Latin America where you think you're in Europe in terms of the population.
So I think you'd have to do one of these things that they did during slavery and segregation, figuring out...
How many drops of blood and how many grandparents you had?
I think most of the time, for most purposes, it's not difficult to distinguish whites from people who are non-white.
And if it ever comes to this, there will be genetic ways of doing so.
I don't believe that's likely to be a problem.
And, as I said earlier, the United States...
Just so I understand, there's a genetic way to determine the difference between somebody who is Spanish and somebody who lives in Argentina.
And what has a little bit, you know, has intermixed with the population a little bit?
Oh, yes.
Those things are very easy to determine.
You can determine whether someone is European or how much of his ancestor is.
And what's the problem with the person who, way back when, may have married somebody?
What is the problem with intermarriage?
What does it do?
I just want to understand.
What, intermarriage?
Yeah, what does it do?
So suppose that Spaniard had intermarried with somebody in Argentina and was mestizo in that sense.
What's the problem?
That person, as far as I'm concerned, is no longer fully European or white.
It's the same with marriage with non-Asian.
And what's the problem with that?
Because I want my people, who I consider Europeans, to survive into the future.
And I'll tell you a story about a discussion I had with a fellow named Wilfred Reilly.
We were debating the question of whether diversity is good for the United States or not.
He took the position that it is.
And he said with increasing non-white immigration and increasing intermarriage, 200 years from now there will be no more white people, and that's a good thing.
In my view, I want white people to continue, even past 200 years.
I think this is natural, normal, and healthy.
I don't want my people to disappear.
Even though you don't quite know what white means.
Oh, I know very well what white means.
You don't, but I do.
So one of the things you said earlier is that what you want to preserve is the sort of culture, the nation.
And you quote a Frenchman who says, what a nation is is the shared legacy that people have, the shared history that people have of having lived together.
And I'm wondering, so if I look back on Catholics and Protestants in Europe, They have no shared history other than a shared history of slaughter, mass slaughter.
The religious wars killed almost a third of the German population.
And yet now they live happily together.
Is it possible that...
And of course there were people in those days arguing precisely what you're arguing, that Catholics were people who couldn't integrate into European societies.
In this country, as you know...
Many whites considered Irish and Italians to be essentially subhuman.
And yet they've now all kind of mingled together in exactly that kind of horrible mixture that you've been decrying.
I'm wondering, could it be that you're wrong and that we'll mingle together and be happy and create a new culture?
Look, all of us can be wrong, theoretically wrong, but...
What you're talking about is dicing with the future of my people, of my race.
And if I'm right and you're wrong, then my people disappear.
And it's right for me to oppose that.
No, I understand.
What I'm trying to get at is people like you, several centuries ago, argued that if Catholics and Protestants lived together, it would be ruinous.
That if Irish and English lived together, it would be ruinous.
If Italians and Nordic people lived together, it would be ruinous.
And they've all come together so much so that you now make no distinction between these people when there used to be deep distinctions made.
I mean, I could read you stuff that people said, but you know it.
In the 19th century, they talk about the Jewish race, the Irish race, the Italian race, as very distinct from the Anglo-Saxon race.
And here you are lumping them all together as white.
Aren't you guilty of the same kind of miscegenation that you're accusing others of?
Whites among themselves have had many reasons to slaughter each other.
We are not exempt from that kind of fratricidal enmity.
But in the larger scheme of things, Protestants and Catholics have far more in common with each other, certainly they do, with Muslims or Hindus or Indians.
But you say this now, that was not the view in the 15th century.
Does that mean that people are not allowed to change their minds?
The idea that...
So could it be that a hundred years from now people will look back and say, well, it turns out that Americans and Hispanics...
Whites and Hispanics had lots in common.
And blacks and Asians and everyone else.
If I'm wrong, then my people have disappeared, and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.
I'm just trying to understand who your people are, because as I said, it used to be that there were Nordic Protestants.
Then now you're saying it's Europeans, but not including Hispanics who might have intermarried somewhere.
Hispanics are not Europeans in the sense that they have lived for a long time in Central America.
Many of the Hispanics coming are obviously Amerindian rather than European.
Are Albanians Europeans?
Albanians, I would consider.
Even though they're Muslim?
Even though they're Muslims.
It's a race, not a religion.
Some Europeans are Muslims.
It's not a very large number of them.
You've talked admiringly about the leaders of Eastern Europe who talk about, in a sense, kind of preserving their nation in very similar ways that have racial overtones.
So I look at somebody like Viktor Orban in Hungary, and I assume you admire him.
Yes, I think he is a great patriot for Hungary.
One of the things that I'm struck by is when you look at the history of Hungary, Hungary is a complete mishmash of different, you know...
People came from all over.
There is no real Hungarian kind of nationality as such.
These are all polyglot populations.
Have you ever been to Hungary?
Of course I've been to Hungary.
If you look around Hungary, if you look around Budapest, you find a people that has a certain quality of Hungarian-ness.
They speak a language.
Many of them are of the same religion.
But you know that many of them didn't.
Please, please let me finish.
And they have the right to preserve whatever it is they have become.
Just as Japanese, for example, or Turks, or Vietnamese, they have the right to preserve whatever it is they have become.
They have the right not to be replaced and displaced by people unlike themselves, and so do Europeans in France and Germany.
And also in India, for example.
If Indians were being filled up with Pakistanis or Arabs, they wouldn't like it one bit.
Well, that's a fascinating point you make because Indians and Pakistanis are identical in ethnic terms.
That may be, but they don't mix very well either.
I'm not saying that race is the only social fault line.
I'm saying it's just the most serious one.
But there is no racial difference between Indians and Pakistanis.
There are many social fault lines, and religion is certainly one of them.
My point is that...
I'm trying to get at the arbitrariness of these distinctions because you talk about France.
So Eugene Weber, a great French historian, pointed out that I think it was in 1850, almost...
Half of the people living in France didn't speak French.
They were Bretons, and they came from various provinces, and they didn't think of themselves as French.
So you treat these categories as so firm and hardened, whereas, in fact, all these countries had polyglot populations, they spoke different languages, and now you're giving them this unity that never existed.
Not at all.
I think if regions of France wish to be independent, they should have that right.
The Bretons, to the extent that they have a Breton nationalism, or the Gasgorns, or the people of the South, or Picardy, they should likewise have an opportunity to express their culture.
And the only way they can do it is if they remain Bretons.
And if they get filled up with people from all around the world, then the chances of their having a Breton culture and a destiny that is the same as the kind of heritage that is theirs becomes zero.
I'm not asking anything special for white people.
I think all people deserve the right to have a future that reflects their culture, their genetic substrate.
And if whites are allowed to have this, I agree that everyone should have that right.
No one should force a group of people to undergo some kind of population substitution, which is something that we demand only of whites.
Nobody is saying that Japanese have to have a huge immigration policy that reduces them to minorities.
So let me ask you, you used the word"replacement" and you've used it often.
Yes. What is your fear?
What do you worry about?
Of disappearing, like this fellow that I debated with.
He says, 200 years from now, no more white people.
Should I want my people to disappear?
You remember at Charlottesville, there were people who were chanting, the Jews will not replace us.
Is that your fear?
I mean, you could use any other term for Jews, Hispanics, blacks, whatever issues.
The point is, a people being substituted for another people.
That is what I oppose.
I oppose that for my people as well as for any other people, and that it is entirely profoundly moral to resist that kind of replacement.
Even though what you call replacement has really been the commingling which has happened through most of these countries, as I'm saying, whether you look at France, which has brought people in from all parts of Europe, if you look at what has happened to the United States, if you look at what has happened to places like England.
What you call a replacement has also been a historical process of mingling that has happened forever.
If you're telling me that the Angles and the Saxons and the Jutes and the Norsemen, yes, they have mingled to some degree in the United Kingdom.
And you're telling me...
And the French.
Don't forget the Norman invasion.
Hold on.
Okay. Hold on.
In that case, and you're telling me, well, if the Haitians or the Guatemalans or the Vietnamese or the Chinese come, it'll work out in exactly the same way.
So why won't it?
It will work out, but I don't think that anything that is uniquely British, distinctly British, will remain.
What is British if it turns out that there are a whole bunch of Frenchmen and Jutes and Nordics?
Isn't it something you're kind of...
You really don't believe any population is distinct from another?
You really believe that?
I'm trying to understand what population means.
Is it a racial category?
Is it a religious category?
You choose whichever one you like.
As I pointed out, in scientific terms, I'm Aryan and Caucasian.
But yet you don't regard me as white.
And I'm not sure how you...
You make these southern Italians, for example, people who came from Sicily, were generally regarded as close to being black.
Certainly not being white when they came to this country.
Now I'm presuming you regard them as your fellow white citizens.
Some of them have a North African admixture, it's true, and so do Portuguese, but yes.
And so they're ruled out?
No, they're not being ruled out.
Look, you really are hung up on this idea of some kind of purity.
I'm trying to understand.
You want to make fairly substantial public policy on the basis of it.
I want to know who's we and who's they.
Mr. Zakaria.
Public policy is already made on the basis of race all the time.
And almost never is there any confusion as to what race someone is.
Almost never.
I'm not advocating that.
I've never been a particular advocate of those policies.
All right.
All I'm saying is this is not nearly as complicated a matter as you suggest.
All right.
Let me ask you another philosophical thing, which I think underlies this.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
Is that you don't think all races are equal.
No, I do not.
And I don't see why anyone would.
Why would anyone think that Congo pygmies, on average, are as intelligent as Koreans?
There's no evidence for this.
So when Thomas Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, you don't believe that.
He did not believe it.
I'm asking you what you believe.
Of course not.
No human on earth thinks that every person is equal.
They may be equal before the law.
You don't believe the Declaration of Independence.
As an immigrant, I was told that's kind of important to being an American.
The Declaration of Independence had a particular purpose.
It was to explain to the world why we were separating from England.
H. L. Mencken has an interesting burlesque translation into English of the Declaration.
And when he gets to that point, he translates it as, me and you are as good as the next guy, maybe better.
These are American colonists explaining to King George, look, we are not intimidated by you.
We are going our own way.
And if you wish to interpret that clause as equal genetically, biologically, in talents, abilities, That is obvious foolishness.
If you wish to interpret it equal before the law, then that's fine.
And that has no particular significant meaning.
Thomas Jefferson himself said the Declaration had served its purpose of parting ties with England.
Other than that, it had no particular new or interesting or significant ideas.
So when Lincoln says in the Gettysburg Address, this is a nation dedicated to a proposition, and the proposition he's referring to is that all men are created equal.
He is also wrong.
Well, they're created equal before the law.
The idea, he himself...
His idea of the future of the United States, once the slaves were free, was to send them away.
He himself had no intention of living in a society, a mixed racial society of the kind we have today.
It was obvious that he was not saying equal in any literal or physical sense, equal perhaps before the law.
Do you believe all people are equal in any way?
In what way are you and I absolutely equal?
If they're equal before the law, Mr. Taylor, how could you...
How could you expel certain citizens based on their racial categorization?
Surely there will be a distinction made on the basis of race.
How many times do I have to tell you I'm not talking about expelling anyone?
Well, you've said, as I point out, I think I'm reflecting your views accurately, that you think illegal immigrants should be expelled, and you think...
Your problem with illegal immigrants is twofold, to be fair.
One is that they're illegal, but two is that they're not white.
And so what that suggests to me is that you have a different standard for somebody who was white than non-white, and I'm suggesting that that is a difference in equality under the law.
Oh, not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
The Congressional Black Caucus, they have a different standard for black interests as opposed to everybody else's interests.
Their purpose is to examine...
Let me finish.
Do you decry them or do you want to copy them?
No, no.
I think it's entirely understandable.
They are speaking up for their people.
And I think whites have the right to speak up for their people as well.
We have an Asian caucus.
We have a Hispanic caucus.
All this recognizes that people have different group interests.
And once again, when it comes to determining who is in the black Congressional Caucus, there's almost never any debate as to whether or not someone is black.
This is an artificial objection that you have raised.
If the average test scores of some population is the way you determine whether somebody is superior, some race is superior to another, as you know, North Asians do better than whites.
Yes, they do.
So are they a superior race?
I think in terms of IQ, yes, they are superior.
By practically every index, East Asians are superior to whites.
So would it be all right for them to in some way discriminate, subjugate whites because they think that they are superior?
Of course not.
I don't think races are different.
I'm not saying that one is superior to another necessarily.
You just said that.
But in those terms, you could objectively say...
You said whites were superior to blacks, North Asians are superior to whites.
You have a racial hierarchy.
There are certain parameters according to which that's true.
Athletically, I think you can make a good argument that blacks are superior to whites.
The races are simply different.
And to insist on calling this superiority inferiority is an unnecessary and invidious comparison.
Let me finish.
I do believe that East Asians, for genetic reasons, have a somewhat higher IQ than whites.
I think they also are less likely to commit crime.
They have lower illegitimacy rates.
They live longer than whites.
I think there's a genetic component probably to all of this.
This doesn't mean that I want to turn my country over to anybody else.
White people, just like the people of Irian Jaya, So you know that, of course, none of these Asian values or Asian traits are very prominent among North Koreans,
which suggests, of course, that a lot of this has to do with wealth, health care, education, things like that.
I have no doubt.
North Korea and South Korea are the same race, and yet there's dramatic differences.
Because of all kinds of things that have to do with public policy, education, income.
How do you make sense of that?
Do you really doubt that if the North Koreans, after a generation, are living under South Korean circumstances, that by all of these standards, they will be that easily distinguishable from South Koreans?
Well, but my point is that...
The fact that they're not shows that it's not just race.
There are many other factors.
Of course.
Environment can make a difference.
The Eastern Europeans, the East Germans, they were much poorer than the West Germans.
But because they were basically German, once the two sides were reunited, you had a united Germany, and it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the Aussies and the Wessies.
Let me ask you about something that I'm genuinely interested in your views on.
So as you know, In the 70s and 80s, there was a great deal of concern, really from the 60s onward, about what was happening in inner cities to blacks.
High degrees of drug use, violence, family breakup, and people wrote lots of essays and tried to figure out what was going on.
And the argument was often made that there was something about black culture that had led to this.
A sociologist named William Julius Wilson wrote a book that was called When Work Disappears.
And he said, actually, this is not black culture.
What's happening here is...
The de-industrialization of the Northeast in particular, all these places that have no jobs.
And when you have no jobs, when work disappears, you begin to see family breakdown.
You see violence.
You see crime.
You see drug use.
So now when you look at the upper Midwest or you look at parts of Pennsylvania...
Parts of West Virginia.
You see precisely these pathologies that were often associated with blacks among whites.
You see family breakdown.
You see massive use of drugs.
80% of opioid use is whites.
You see crime.
You see all the same pathologies.
So doesn't that tell you that a lot of these things that often are attributed to race or culture are actually rooted in something quite simple to understand, such as jobs?
I would never argue that environment counts for nothing and large structural aspects of an environment will inevitably have some kind of effect on people.
What I'm saying is that groups are not identical.
And if you're talking about an Asian population or a white population or a black population, they will react differently to this kind of change in the environment.
At the same time, something that I think is important to understand about what's called current white pathology is the realization that every time white people turn around, they're being accused of racism.
Whether conscious or unconscious, they're being accused of benefiting from illegitimate white privilege.
Whites are constantly being told that you are to blame for all of the ills that have ever befallen any other non-white group in the history of America.
All of this is very distressing and depressing.
They're also being told, pretty soon you're going to be a minority.
We are celebrating diversity.
Diversity means fewer of you guys.
I can't prove it, but I suspect that that contributes to some of what's called white pathology.
Do you think...
How would I put it?
Do you think that any...
Middle class, upper middle class white would ever switch roles with a black person?
In other words, if blacks have all these advantages in America today, would you change places?
Would a black person change places with a white person?
No, I don't wish to change places with anyone.
I like being white.
It's okay to be white, as the new slogan would proclaim.
No, I like being white.
My people have been white for 40,000 years.
What does it mean?
I have to confess, I don't understand.
What does it mean to feel okay being white?
How do you feel differently than I feel?
I kind of feel like we're very similar people.
Tell me this.
If someone told you, I'm black, and I like being black, would you probe into that?
Would you say, well, what does that mean?
What can that possibly mean?
I would.
I think you'd get a legitimate answer.
Likewise, if you ask someone, are you Asian?
What does it feel to be Asian?
It's funny because people often say that to me and I think it's kind of a ridiculous assertion because...
There is no such thing as Asian.
There's Chinese people and Japanese people and Indians, and within India there are 15 different languages officially.
So it just strikes me that these things are entirely constructed.
And so you make my point.
There is no such thing as Asian.
It's frankly a Western construct over a vast quantity of 2.5 billion people.
Then tell that to all the people who consider themselves Asian Americans.
As you know, on campuses today, there are Asian There can be sub-Asian organizations as well.
But more and more, people in the United States who might have origins in China...
What does an Iranian have in common with a Japanese person in Europe?
It just points to the arbitrariness of these...
Again, you're making artificial distinctions here.
When people talk about Asians, generally they mean East Asians.
And to say, okay, are Iranians Asians?
Are Lebanese Asians?
You know, all of this stuff is peripheral and completely inessential.
Let me ask you about Trump.
Do you think his election has been a moment for white nationalism, white advocacy, however you would want to characterize your movement?
It's certainly the case that he was supported by People with a racial consciousness who are white.
And I think it's primarily because his policies would have resulted in a slowing down of the dispossession of whites, unquestionably.
Now, I never thought that he is a white man who thinks in racial terms at all.
I don't think he cares.
So then why do you think he's doing it?
Why? Because he has sort of an instinctive sense of American civic nationalism.
I think he understands that there are some people who don't assimilate as easily into the United States as others.
I think he's recognized that Muslims...
So then isn't that being a conscious white nationalist?
Unconscious? No, a conscious.
I mean, if he believes that, isn't that part of...
A core element of your belief is that non-whites can't really become proper Americans.
Sort of instinctively understands that.
I'm trying to understand, isn't he in a sense then fulfilling the agenda you're hoping he would fulfill?
Those are two entirely different things.
If he recognizes that Asians don't assimilate very well in the United States and decide...
I'm sorry.
If he recognizes that Muslims do not assimilate very well in the United States and decides that fewer Muslims should come, that has nothing to do with any kind of white racial consciousness.
Well, but if he did it about Asians, wouldn't he?
I beg your pardon?
But if he felt that way about Asians or Hispanics?
He clearly doesn't.
He clearly doesn't feel that way about Asians.
I've never heard him say anything at all.
About limiting Asian immigration.
In fact, just in his latest State of the Union speech, he said more immigration than ever, more legal immigration.
And of course, let me finish.
Legal immigration is overwhelmingly non-white.
If he approves that, he certainly doesn't care about whites being reduced to minority.
And I think he genuinely does not care.
So are you disappointed in him?
I didn't expect much better.
But yes, in that respect, I am disappointed.
But as I say, I never thought that he had any kind of real racial consciousness.
Interesting. He never gave any hints that he did.
Well, I just heard a couple of your speeches from a year and a half ago where you seemed much more hopeful.
Well, I was hopeful that he would at least stick to his policies.
His policies had to do with abrogating the executive amnesties that Barack Obama had implemented in which people who had been brought to the United States as young people, illegal immigrants, would have their amnesties revoked.
He also said he was going to build a wall.
When he was campaigning, he said he was going to try to send every illegal immigrant home.
If he'd kept those campaign promises, I don't care whether he has a racial consciousness or not, but he is still reducing the process of my people being reduced to a minority, and that I would support.
Do you think you've already lost the war?
I look at the United States now.
As you point out, the demographics, which can't be reversed even if your policies are accepted, would suggest that, The whites, however you define it, would be a minority by 2040, 2050.
If you look at places like Sweden, they are now 25% foreign-born.
Canada is 25% foreign-born.
Haven't you already lost?
Perhaps, but I feel I have a duty.
I have a duty to my ancestors and to my descendants to try to preserve our people.
And I don't roll the dice and say, what are my chances of success?
What I do depends on my conception of what is right and what I owe my culture, my heritage, and my extended family, which is the European people.
And even if it's hopeless in the United States, and I don't think it is, it's not hopeless in Europe.
And we should be supporting the efforts of the Poles.
Let me finish, please.
We should support the efforts of the Poles and the Hungarians, the Estonians, the Latvians, to preserve their nations as European nations.
And I ask you, what is wrong when they wish to remain Estonian or Polish or Hungarian?
Why is that possibly wrong?
So I'm wondering why you don't think you've lost already.
About 40% of the country is already non-white.
How can you have a white nation when you already have 40% of the country being non-white?
I've never talked about turning the entire United States into a white nation.
I think that would be immoral.
These people are here.
They came here legally for the most part.
I'm not talking at all about sending people away or throwing people out.
This is an idea that you have put in my mouth.
I've never spoken about that.
I do think, however, that it is possible that somewhere on the North American continent there will be an area, large or small, in which is indisputably...
The possession of white people and will continue to be.
That would be my goal.
It may seem fanciful at this time.
No, I'm just trying to understand what does that mean when 40% of the country is non-white and they're reproducing at faster rates than whites?
It means that I'm not at all talking about the entire United States becoming white.
I'm talking about simply a portion of it becoming white.
So almost a kind of secede, that the whites would secede to a...
Perhaps. I don't know how it would work in practical terms.
But I can assure you that more and more white people agree with me all the time.
They do not want to become a minority.
People who grew up in the United States don't want to grow old in an outpost of Mexico or Vietnam.
They want to live in the United States.
And their conception of the United States, rightly or wrongly, is one that is infused with the European values and where European people live.
And it is by no means wrong or immoral for them to desire that.
And I hope that at some point in the future, there will be some place on this continent where white people can have their own destiny and move forward without the unwanted involvement and interference of people unlike themselves.
And again, I consider that to be a supremely moral and normal natural desire.
Would that secession mean maybe it's creating a new nation?
Perhaps. Ideally, yes.
And again, my view of this would be voluntary separation.
I've always been in favor of voluntary movements.
And if you look at the way white people behave ordinarily, they don't normally want to be a minority.
When the neighborhood becomes non-white, they move out.
And is it only by accident that they move to places that are still white?
And when the school becomes majority non-white, they take their children out and send them to a school that is more white.
Now, they wouldn't dare say that this is because they have a racial consciousness, and they may not even have a racial consciousness.
But whites in their daily lives do not want to become a minority, and yet they would never dare say, I don't want the country to become a minority.
They've been bamboozled and hypnotized and intimidated into being unwilling to state their own preferences.
And yet, as the process continues, more and more parts of the United States will be places where they will not feel comfortable living.
And they're not allowed to object.
And in fact, they are told, celebrate this.
Do you have children?
I have children.
If one of your children married a Hispanic, what would you say?
That would be her choice.
I would oppose it, but that would be her choice.
You would oppose it in the sense that you would...
Would you attend a wedding?
Well, it depends on the Hispanic.
If this were a European, a Spaniard, I wouldn't.
Well, it depends on the individual, of course.
No one's good enough for my daughters anyway.
But it's not dependent on the individual.
You just made it clear it would depend on their racial categorization.
Of course it depends on the individual.
This could be some absolute lily-white Spaniard who is a lout and a wretch, and I would disapprove.
But yes, I hope that my children will marry white people.
I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents.
And there are many Jews or blacks or Asians who feel exactly the same way.
It's only when whites express that preference that they're somehow bigoted.
So let me present an alternative view of what might happen, and I wonder what you think, which is just as people thought that these distinctions between Protestants and Catholics, between Irish and English, between
Italians and Northern Europeans were deep and that these populations could never mix together, and that they ended up mixing together and
We may be entering a future in the United States where...
We will have more and more mixing, more and more intermarriage, call it what you will, and that these populations will find a way of getting on and enriching the culture and creating a new culture, which will be different, which will be deeply influenced by white culture.
But also influenced by other sources, just as American culture already is, by the way, if you think about jazz music or something.
And that that is the future that we're going toward, which is not one where whites are replaced, but where there is a kind of admixture, and that mixture creates vitality and diversity.
What's wrong with that vision?
I would certainly oppose it, because, as you pointed out, You're talking about changing the nation my ancestors built.
And these changes are being wrought by people who did not build my country, who have come from the outside with different ideas.
Why would I approve of that?
A lot of blacks' ancestors did build this country.
They certainly provided labor, but they did it under the direction of whites.
Now, you're talking about people coming to this country from different cultures, different religions, different races.
The future that you predict or that you propose to the United States means the disappearance of my people.
Why should I possibly?
How could I possibly prove that?
It's not happened.
There are still plenty of white people with a consciousness that they do have a past and they deserve a future.
Not to be simply melted away in this multi- The American people aren't being made a minority.
All right.
We will talk about white people.
Up until, of course, 1965, we had an immigration policy that was designed to keep the country white.
There was nothing wrong.
From the 20s, not forever.
Before that, it was whoever could come in.
Absolutely not.
Don't you realize the very first naturalization law, 1790, passed by the
First Congress reserved naturalization to free white persons of good character.
The Founding Fathers has an explicitly white and European vision for this country.
If we had maintained faithful to that, then the place would be entirely different from what it is now.
They believed in slavery.
Should we have maintained that?
I mean, well, are we...
You can't have it both ways.
Of course I can have it both ways.
You, you yourself...
We're just singing the praises of Jefferson because of this foolish observation about all men being created equal.
He owns slaves too.
I'm well aware of that.
Yes. So if he's a slave owner, we have to throw out all his opinions too.
Of course we can have it both ways.
We can admire the things they got right and deplore the things they got wrong.
And you decide what they got right and what they got wrong.
So do you.
So do you.
Everyone does.
Let me ask you a couple thoughts I had about Public policy now.
I'm trying to just kind of try to understand what you make of some of these things that have happened in the past.
So I'm going to read you a few quotes.
Now, these are quotes from me?
No. I am a man of European ancestry.
The blood runs in my veins.
It is the same that runs through English and Nordic men.
I am a descendant of one of the original colonists of Virginia.
Black people are racially aware, but white people don't always think about race in their daily lives.
We need to and we have to.
All fine.
These are things you could have said, right?
I might have phrased things differently, but yes, white people do not have a racial consciousness.
Non-whites do.
So this is from Dylann Roof and from John Ernest, the first being the Charleston and the second, the San Diego synagogue.
I was sure it was going to be someone like that.
So I'm not trying to trip you up.
What I'm asking is...
Of course you are.
Do they represent part of the same movement that you do?
No, certainly not my movement.
My movement, to the extent that I have one, is explicitly against any kind of violence or illegality.
But they believe in the same things.
Would that be fair?
What you're suggesting is that my beliefs lead to violence.
No, I'm not.
I'm asking.
Oh, sure you are.
I'm asking.
Now, what are you asking me?
Do they share the same beliefs that you do?
Do they have the same worldview?
I find little to object to in that sentence.
Now, I'm sure we could find other sentences written by Dylann Roof that I would object to.
I'm sure we could find sentences written by communists or anarchists or monarchists that you would agree with.
But I think, let me make an analogy.
A lot of people argue that a certain kind of Islamic radicalism, fundamentalism, militancy of thought has a tendency to morph or encourage violence because it paints the other as being threatening,
demonizes, etc.
So in the same way, is it fair to say that some of the kind of things that you talk about could encourage people to regard non-whites as an enemy that needs to be...
And of course, while you would never advocate violence, those views can give solace to people who have that more violent tendency.
So, of course, I was right.
You're suggesting that my views can lead to violence.
That was precisely the point of this quotation that you read from Bill and Ruth.
Do you believe militant Islamic preachers who preach Islamic fundamentalism and who argue that non-Muslims are heretics, in a sense...
Lay a groundwork which allows somebody to go out and say, well, if they're heretics and they need to be gotten rid of, I'll get rid of them.
It's the same kind of thing, isn't it?
It doesn't take fanatic clerics.
That's right in the Quran.
The Quran is very explicit about eliminating heretics.
What I'm asking is, can extreme thoughts lay the groundwork for violent action, even if the person advocating the extreme thoughts...
First of all, my thoughts are not extreme.
My thoughts would have been shared by practically every living white person up until about 50 or 60 years ago.
There is nothing the least bit extreme about them.
They were absolutely taken for granted.
Americans assumed that this was a European country and always would be.
So there is nothing extreme about my views.
Furthermore, any idea in the mind of a violent, murderous fool It can become dangerous.
Let's imagine that you think that global warming is a terrible threat to our species.
And you talk about this a lot.
And you find out that someone who has listened to your words has gone to the Exxon Mobil building and shot up the executive floor.
Does that mean you were wrong?
Does that mean you should stop saying?
I don't think it's quite the same.
Let me try to explain again what I'm saying.
It's just that when you have an ideology that says that there are other people out there who are threatening Your life, your existence, your culture, when you create another out there who is dangerous and you paint that person or that group in threatening terms,
whether you are an Islamic preacher saying that about non-Muslims or a white nationalist saying that about non-whites, I'm just wondering, isn't it fair to say that that can create a climate?
In which people who are more violent-minded will go out and, in a sense, act on those views in a violent way, in a way that you would never have done yourself.
Any idea, if taken in some extreme way, can be misused.
The idea of creating another.
What about all the people who are fulminating against the 1%?
That's creating an other.
That's creating a group that some people might wish to kill.
And perhaps some people will kill them.
Furthermore, when we constantly talk about unearned white privilege, when we talk about unconscious and perpetual white racism, that creates an other.
And I'm...
Convinced that that contributes to the hugely lopsided black on white violent crime rates in the United States today.
There are many conversations in this country that talk about otherness.
Otherness that almost always paints white male heterosexuals as somehow demons.
And if that starts leading to attacks on whites, well then you start saying that, oh no, no, all those ideas were wrong.
Society is full of divisions.
There are people who disagree about one thing and disagree about another.
No, I do not for a moment accept that my ideas, which were absolutely mainstream for most of American history, can in any way be accused of leading to criminality.
What do you think of the alt-right movement?
I don't know what it means.
When people talk about the alt-right or Breitbart or these things like that, do you regard them as sort of fellow travelers, comrades-in-arms?
I'm just trying to understand.
Again, I don't know what the alt-right movement really is.
Breitbart is a website, but I don't think Breitbart in any way expresses a white racial consciousness.
So who does?
Who does?
Oh, American Renaissance does, and the people that write for us, the people that read us, and I can assure you.
More and more people throughout the United States.
We have more supporters, more contributors, more viewers.
And yet you say Breitbart isn't and Donald Trump isn't.
So I'm wondering, where is your support?
You seem to again be having it both ways.
You're either disassociating yourself from everybody else, and then you're saying, but in fact, the majority of the people agree with you if they do.
Not the majority.
I've never said the majority.
There are people who write for Breitbart who may agree.
Some of the people who write articles for Breitbart, they seem to have an intelligent understanding of race.
But very seldom, I don't think ever, on Breitbart.
Would anyone talk about what I consider to be the two fundamental aspects of racial consciousness?
That is, first of all, the idea that we deserve to remain a majority in some territory of our own.
You'll never hear that idea on Breitbart.
Nor would Breitbart talk about racial differences in intelligence or personality.
Those are two important things that have to be discussed if we're going to get a sensible handle on racial problems in the United States.
I've never heard Breitbart talk about that.
Never heard Donald Trump talk about that.
Why did you do a robocall for him?
As I explained, if he had kept his campaign promises, he would have slowed down the process of reducing whites to a minority.
Race and IQ.
I just want to understand, again, you believe that whites are superior in terms of intelligence.
To all races other than North Asians or just blacks?
Oh, the evidence seems to suggest that the smartest people in the world are Ashkenazi Jews, then East Asians, then whites, then Hispanics are a very heterogeneous population, then I don't know where Arabs all fit in in various aspects,
but then black Africans and Australian Aborigines come up near the bottom.
That's the way the data shake themselves up.
What would you do with that data?
In other words, what does it mean to you?
Why is race and IQ so important?
It's important because when blacks in particular, but also when Asians, don't do as well in school or don't get the same kind of incomes in the United States, it's always blamed on whites.
We are the bad guys.
There must be, what, 13,000, 15,000 school districts in the United States in every one of them.
Asians score better than whites.
Whites score better than Hispanics.
Hispanics score slightly better than blacks.
People are wringing their hands trying to figure this out.
All of this wasted effort can be explained in very simple terms.
Groups are not the same.
Furthermore... But you know the highest income...
Let me finish.
The highest income by...
You know, if you want to make these distinctions in America as Indian Americans.
Exactly. Does that mean I'm smarter than you?
I don't think so.
You may be.
You may be.
You have a PhD from Harvard.
You must be a smart guy.
Really, do you want to base your understanding of the world on the basis of these rather nebulous categories, races, and then these average IQ scores, which must be related to so many other things like family background, income,
the fact that Europeans have been rich for so much longer?
Surely you don't want to...
It's a very dark worldview to believe that there's this hierarchy of races with IQ scores and you're going to sort the world on the basis of that?
I don't plan to sort the world at all.
I want people wherever they are.
To be the best possible people they can be, whether they're Asians or Africans or Indians.
And the only way that that can happen, I believe, is that if people are free to pursue their own destiny in the name of their own culture.
I want the people of Africa.
To make Africa the best possible continent they can for Africans.
And Africans, I believe, will be happiest not living in a society like ours in which they are constantly being told white people are oppressing you, white people are out to get you.
They need to live in societies where their Government, their media, their infrastructure reflects their own people.
I think that is how they will be happiest.
No, my vision is not dark at all.
Mine is a bright vision in which every group can pursue its own identity without interference, without...
The fear of exploitation or discrimination or jockeying for position, all of this is much more likely and much happier when people are living in coherent societies that reflect their ancestors and their own culture.
You talk about Africans.
There are so many different divisions within this vast continent, 45 different countries.
Indeed. You place so much weight on the fact that a certain group of people's ancestors spent a lot more time in the sun than in other groups, and so their skin is darker.
It just feels like such an arbitrary distinction.
Do you really think that blacks and whites are basically identical twins separated at birth?
That they are really indistinguishable and replaceable?
In other words, if the United States had been populated by, oh, people from Senegal, that it would have turned out exactly the same way or have been just as wealthy, just as well loved?
Do you really believe that?
How can you?
I don't believe that, but I do believe that most countries have a lot more intermingling of people than we realize.
That much of that intermingling happened a long time ago.
Among groups that people regarded as very different, Protestants, Catholics, Irish, English, Jews, Christians, and that we've now happily...
We've forgotten it and we lumped them all together.
And now the next phase will be, yes, blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites, Asians and whites, and we'll move on.
White people disappear, whereas there is a vast reservoir of Asians, there's a vast reservoir of Africans, there's a vast reservoir of Arabs, but there's tiny population on the face of the earth, maybe 10% of the human population.
We are the only ones who get swamped and disappeared.
That is your vision for my people.
Yes, it is.
Would you like it or not?
I don't think in terms of yours and mine.
I think, in my view, we're all God's children.
Anyway, this was a pleasure.
All right.
▲
Export Selection