All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 19, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
09:50
It’s Official: Nationalists Are as Bad as ISIS
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
If you like this video, please send it to a friend, or better yet, to five or six friends.
Our videos aren't being promoted the way they should be, and so we're counting on you to get the word out.
Last Sunday, American Special Forces killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State.
His regime beheaded people on video, Made sex slaves out of captured women, destroyed archaeological sites, threw homosexuals from rooftops, and treated women like cattle.
You'd think liberals would be celebrating Baghdadi's death, but they seem oddly restrained.
The Washington Post's headline was, It's as if the poor boy had had kidney failure or something.
People yelled so much about this silly headline.
That the Post changed it to"extremist leader dies at 48." Oh, got that?
An extremist leader.
Who did, of course, deserve to die.
Well, who else does the Post consider an extremist?
Two months ago, the paper's editorial board ran an article called"Right-wing extremists are a global problem.
They need a global response." It came with a video illustrated by an AR-15 in Stars and Stripes.
The Post is talking about what it calls white nationalism.
Is it a global problem?
Is it a problem in Africa?
Or South America?
Asia? The Middle East?
I don't think so.
But the Post forges ahead.
A global problem deserves a global response with companies, academics, civil society organizations, and, most of all, countries.
Coordinating with the same commitment and sophistication as their adversaries.
Some analogs exist in the fight against the Islamic State.
And the Post identifies the most terrifying force behind this global crisis.
Are you ready for this?
It's a political party.
The Sweden Democrats.
They are the third most popular party in the country.
They're the kind of people the Post compares to the Islamic State.
Are we supposed to send in Delta Force and kill them all too?
Well, just a few days ago, NBC published an article that sounds just like the Washington Post.
It's called What's Needed to Defeat White Terrorism.
Tracking this evolving transnational hydra will require a highly specialized unit devoted solely to white terrorism.
Just like Islamist counterterrorism, it'll require field agents, social media monitors, liaisons with foreign security agencies and watchdogs, and the development of informant circles, all of which will have to be integrated into the wider matrix of homeland security.
Under the best-case scenario, creating this infrastructure will take years, not months.
So we have yet another comparison to the Islamic State.
A transnational hydra.
But while the government is taking years to put together the infrastructure to slay this beast, there are other things that we can do right away.
Because, you see, the Post article I mentioned earlier explained what gave rise to this global problem.
The Internet arrived, and subcultures that at one time were isolated figured out first how to find one another and then how to help one another.
It's not only the ideology that is noxious.
It's the tactics.
The Post goes on to warn that the goal is to drown out all dissent and to undermine democracy itself.
Wow, scary.
Well, so what's the solution?
Why, the solution is the very horrors the Post is thundering about.
Drown out all dissent and undermine democracy.
Censor the Internet to silence dissenters and crush...
Popularly elected parties like the Sweden Democrats.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking, isn't it?
But all the authorities agree the Internet is the problem.
A Washington Post article from August is called, Why do Facebook and Twitter's anti-extremist guidelines allow right-wingers more freedom than Islamists?
You see, people like me, so-called right-wingers, are just as bad as Islamists, so we should get the same treatment.
Maybe worse.
About a month ago, The Post ran an article called Do You Have White Teenage Sons?
Listen up!
How white supremacists are recruiting boys online.
It's that nasty internet again.
The New York Times doesn't like free speech either.
Earlier this month, it ran an opinion piece called Free Speech is Killing Us.
The subtitle, Noxious Language Online is Causing Real-World Violence.
What can we do about it?
What do you think the Times thinks we can do about it?
You can be sure it's not more debate and discussion.
In a video we posted last month, assuming it's still up, we reported that the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, didn't just encourage social media to censor content.
That's old hat.
He wants a company called Cloudflare to refuse to do business with extremists.
Cloudflare protects websites from being shut down with denial-of-service attacks.
An attack of that kind is a felony, but the top official of Homeland Security wants a company that fights those felonies to step aside and let criminals drive people off the Internet.
That's his version of Homeland Security.
You see, the problem is the First Amendment.
The government itself can't shut down people like me, much as it might want to.
So other people should do the job, even if a denial-of-service attack is a crime.
And logically enough, the New York Times has taken aim at the First Amendment.
Last August, it ran an article called The El Paso Shooting Revived the Free Speech Debate.
Europe Has Limits.
This article approves of France's limits on free speech and quotes from an official government guideline.
Racism, antisemitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions.
They are offenses.
In France, an expression of so-called racism is not free speech.
It's a crime.
And there are plenty of people right here in the United States who want to make what I say a crime.
Just yesterday, The New York Times came right out and said so in an article called Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law.
It's by Richard Stengel, a former State Department Undersecretary.
He says the First Amendment was written for a different time when it was assumed that the truth would win in the marketplace of ideas.
But, he writes, in an age when everyone has a megaphone, there's that nasty internet again.
That seems like a design flaw.
Yeah. Free speech was a design flaw.
He goes on to say, all speech is not equal, and where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.
You see, Mr. Stengel knows what's true, even if you don't.
And if what he thinks is true doesn't win in a fair fight, well, just squash the other guy.
Mr. Stengel has plenty of friends.
A study just published by the Campaign for Free Speech found that 51% of Americans also think the First Amendment needs to be updated.
48% of them think hate speech should be against the law.
And 54% of them think that the punishment should be jail time.
Well, the poll didn't define hate speech.
But the SPLC, which has been calling me a hater for 25 years, We'll be happy, I'm sure, to define it for them.
You see, white advocacy must never be discussed, just crushed, silenced.
More and more people want it to be a crime to explain that white people, just like every other race, have legitimate group interests.
And CNN and the Washington Post want you to think that people like me are a global threat that has to be fought with a huge international campaign of surveillance and repression.
It's incredible, isn't it?
But if what I say, if what other white advocates say is so wrong and so dangerous, wouldn't it be child's play to show why we're wrong?
Can't we be refuted with a few articles in the Post and the Times and a spot or two on CNN?
Why do we have to be silenced?
Why do people want to update the First Amendment?
It's because we're right.
They're wrong.
They can't win in a debate.
And so to quote from what the Washington Post accuses people like me of wanting to do, they have to drown out all dissent and undermine democracy itself.
It's at amren.com.
▲
Export Selection