All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
15:02
House Hearings on White Natio ... er ... Censorship
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
On April 9th, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the dangers of white nationalism and how to fight it.
It was a miserable display of ignorance and arrogance.
There were several major themes.
White nationalism is inherently violent and threatens America.
Donald Trump encourages it.
The solution is a total clampdown on all forms of white advocacy.
And if the tech companies won't do it, government should.
There were a few voices of reason from the Republicans, but they were far outnumbered by crazed Democrats.
No witness was called to explain what white nationalism actually is.
I suppose that would have been like holding hearings on fighting cholera and having someone explain that it's actually quite fun and even good for you.
No. White nationalism, whatever that may be, is irredeemably evil.
The only question before the House was how best to exterminate it.
Over and over, the hearings referred to Anti-Defamation League's claims of a terrifying rise in white supremacist murder.
As Eileen Hershinoff of the ADL explained, White supremacists have been responsible for more than half, 54% of all domestic extremist-related murders.
in the past 10 years.
And in the last year, that figure has risen to 78% of all extremist-related murders,
Chairman of the committee, Gerald Nadler, Democrat of New York, told us what this actually meant.
In each case, the perpetrators were motivated by a belief that people perceived to be non-white, whether they be African-Americans, Jews, Muslims, or members of other minority communities, were plotting to undermine the
white race as part of a great replacement.
Does anyone anywhere think Blacks and Central Americans are plotting together to carry out the Great Replacement?
Chairman Nadler asked about the ADL data.
Are we or anybody else manipulating statistics to increase the apparent prevalence of white nationalist hate crimes, as was stated by one of the witnesses?
No, Mr. Chairman.
The ADL is data-driven.
White-ring extremism last year was responsible for all but one of the 50 domestic extremist murders.
This is shameless bullying.
Do you know who they include in those 50 murders?
Killings by three black men and the 17 deaths at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, where almost everyone killed was white.
Also, that frustrated so-called incel, the involuntary celibate who killed two white women at a yoga studio.
And any white trash Klansman who killed a family member.
We have a full analysis of this ADL rubbish in the link in the YouTube description box.
This rubbish is supposed to justify these hearings.
And of course, we learned that the internet is seething with hate.
As Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America explained, When Mr. Klein finds out,
I hope you'll let me know.
David Sicilini, Democrat of Rhode Island, is also worried about the Internet.
Because I do think something that is different today is that the ability of white supremacists who are advocating violence and advocating and preaching hate have an ability to reach many more people because of the advent of technology.
Congressmen and witnesses repeatedly talked about advocating violence on the Internet.
Is there a single white adequacy site anywhere that promotes violence?
And the other huge problem, of course, is Donald Trump.
Here's Stephen Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee.
If President Trump would have come out after Charlottesville and condemned neo-Nazism and Klansmen, do you think that would have helped in the atmosphere of people standing up and saying white nationalism is being something bad?
Absolutely. The bully platform has to be used to tamp this down and to call out where we are seeing extremism.
Well, what did Mr. Trump actually say?
I'll quote him.
I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists when I say fine people because they should be condemned totally.
Here's Sylvia Garcia, Texas Democrat.
She also took a jab at the president.
Today's dialogue is important as we examine the ways in which harmful rhetoric and policies of the national stage have emboldened hate.
Jose Luis Correa is a California Democrat.
Here he is with Mohammed Abu Salah, the father of a hate crime victim.
When our political leaders echo white supremacist, white nationalist ideas, does that inspire violence in our streets?
Honestly, it does.
If you are in power, if you're in charge, you're a role model.
And I'll give you one last example of Trump bashing from Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights.
At every turn with this administration, we've seen policy actions that make clear that people of color have a target on their back.
Whether you're talking about the Muslim ban, whether you're talking about the separation of brown children from their parents at the border, whether you're talking about the assault being waged on affirmative action by this Justice Department, we're seeing the dehumanization of African American and Muslims and other communities of color.
And that's why we have a crisis, as Joe Neguse, Democrat of Colorado, explained.
We cannot allow for hate to be normalized in our nation, and we cannot sit idly by.
This divisive rhetoric that continues to pervade our national conversation demands a discussion and demands action.
Sylvia Garcia, Democrat of Texas, had questions for the tech companies.
What have you done to ensure that all your folks out there globally Know the dog whistles, that know the key words, the phrasing, you know, the things that people respond to to ensure that we can stop some of this and be more proactive in blocking some of this language.
She wants to snuff out phrases, words, and obviously the only solution is censorship.
Well, Neil Potts of Facebook explained that they have been investing heavily in censorship.
We remove any content that incites violence, bullies, harasses or threatens others.
And that's why we've had long-standing policies against terrorism and hate, and why we've invested so heavily in safety and security in the past few years.
Facebook took down our page years ago.
Were we inciting violence?
Threatening anyone?
Promoting terrorism?
Well, the fact is, Facebook now has a new rationale.
Because they did as they were told by the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights, as Kristen Clark explained.
We advocated for Facebook to abandon its ill-conceived policy under which they banned white supremacist activity but permitted white nationalist and white separatist activity because we know these racist ideologies are indistinguishable and equally dangerous.
Supremacist, nationalist, separatist.
White anything is obviously bad and equally dangerous.
As Mr. Potts of Facebook explained: And last month, we extended that policy to include a ban on all praise, support, and representation of white nationalism and white separatism.
We see these ideologies as being inextricably linked to supremacy with intents of violence more generally.
So you see, white identity is inextricably linked to violence.
And Mr. Potts promises guilt by association.
If we do find known white nationalists or known white separatists or people who are affiliated with hate organizations, we actually have a process where we conduct what we call a fan-out.
And a fan-out is to look at that person's connections to ensure that we are trying to get to the root of those networks and to remove them from the platform.
Alexandria Walden of Google says they don't just take down the bad stuff.
And in addition to removal, we promote counter-speech across the platform.
But that's not good enough, as Eva Patterson of the Equal Justice Society explained.
We would like a national commission to be formed to study all forms of white supremacy.
We think there should be a joint law enforcement civilian task force to study white nationalism and to outline an organized counter-insurgency strategy.
A counter-insurgency strategy.
Well, Kristen Clark of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights notes that we may need some new laws.
We call on all communities to help tear down the structures that facilitate violent white supremacy in our country.
The banks that facilitate commercial transactions, the tech companies that provide open platforms, the web hosts that prop up these sites are all part of an infrastructure that feeds hate that must be dismantled.
Congress must study and consider new laws for combating this online threat, and the federal government must abandon policies that fuel hate.
New laws to stop banks, tech companies, even web hosts from doing business with white advocates?
How about laws to deny us phone service or electricity?
The ADL wants new laws, too.
It's interested in the following: Strengthening laws against perpetrators of online hate, helping to ensure that social media platforms act against hate and increase transparency in ways they are not now doing.
Tom McClintock, Republican of California, pointed out a possible obstacle to snuffing us out.
Free societies don't punish words and thoughts, they punish deeds.
And the reason for that is because words and thoughts can be countered by words and thoughts.
That's why we have a First Amendment.
And what we're seeing across the world today is that it is a very slippery slope between banning hate speech...
And banning speech we just hate.
We've seen many examples, even on our own country recently, of legitimate speech being suppressed on college campuses, on social media platforms, and even in public discourse.
If there's an ideology that we don't like, the weakest thing that we can do is try to forbid it or suppress it.
The strongest thing we can do is to use our own freedom of speech to confront it and defeat it on its merits.
To this, Congressman Cedric Richmond of Louisiana replied, We heard a pretty accurate description of the First Amendment.
And I will not impugn any intent to it, but I think that there was one glaring omission, which is you don't get to yell hate in a crowded theater.
And just because you're upset with your station in life, And sitting in your mama's basement in your boxes, you don't get to spew hate that you know will incite violence because you can hide behind anonymity.
In other words, what thousands say and millions believe is not covered by the First Amendment and should be a crime.
These are the words of a sitting congressman.
Most of this hearing was about as balanced as the Moscow show trials.
The bright spot was Candace Owens of Turning Point USA.
The hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes.
It's about fear-mongering, power, and control.
It's a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy, same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy.
They blame Facebook, they blame Google, they blame Twitter.
Really, they blame the birth of social media, which has disrupted their monopoly on minds.
The goal here is to scare blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions, ultimately into helping them regain control of our country's narrative, which they feel that they lost.
If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left, violent white government.
Miss Owens even took a shot.
At the ADL, it's rubbishy statistics.
What they won't tell you about the statistics and the rise of white nationalism is that they've simply changed the data set points by widening the definition of hate crimes and upping the number of reporting agencies that are able to report on them.
What I mean to say is that they're manipulating statistics.
Committee Chairman Gerald Nadler actually accused her of openly associating with purveyors of hate.
Yes, purveyors of hate by his definition is anybody that supports the president.
I support the president because he's done a tremendous job in helping the black community despite all of the rhetoric from the media and leftists.
I do not want him to be successful.
It's the black woman who made the most sense.
Democrats and lefties are preparing tyranny.
They are afraid to debate us.
They can't refute us.
Their only option is to silence us.
What a miserable admission of weakness.
If they can't persuade tech companies to shut us up, and they don't seem to have much trouble with that, they want the government to do it.
I don't think the current Supreme Court will let them get away with it, but it looks like there are people in Congress who want to make what we say illegal.
Will they jail us?
Put us in mental hospitals the way they did in the Soviet Union?
These are astonishing times.
▲
Export Selection