All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:02:24
All the Crime Fit to Ignore
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this is the latest edition of Radio Renaissance.
Actually, Paul Kersey and Jared Taylor are unavailable this week, so Greg Hood and I, Chris Roberts, will be filling in for them.
I understand this might be a little confusing since Greg and I recently started doing our own podcast, Left, Right, and White, but this week you will get two podcasts.
It's just that both will be hosted by the same folks, which I understand is a little unusual, so I hope you'll bear with us.
But you're listening to Radio Renaissance right now, so we're going to keep it pretty focused on news.
Something I wanted to talk about is crime, which America cannot seem to get enough of lately.
One particularly horrific story, complete with a video that you can find on the AmRen website, is the story coming out of Washington DC in which two black teenage girls carjack a Pakistani immigrant who is driving for Uber Eats.
Now, apparently they used a stun gun on him and then carjacked it and crashed, and this guy died in the crash.
Now, in theory, given what we've been hearing so much about in the news, this should be absolutely front-page stuff, because it is another brutal attack on an Asian American, right?
Pakistan, that's Asia.
Normally when we talk about Asians, we mean East Asians, but all the same.
And, again, this is just some Random poor sucker.
The age difference in this crime I find particularly brutal.
How old do you think this driver was, Greg?
What, 30s?
40s?
66.
So, two teenage girls carjack a 66-year-old man.
I mean, so they take on an old guy with a stun gun.
I mean, there's never been a less fair fight recorded, like, in human history.
Before you go on I just want to say how CNN reported this and I quote CNN
Police said the girls 13 and 15 Assaulted an uber eats driver with a taser while carjacking
him which led to an accident in which he was fatally injured
Look at the phrasing there. I mean they They had nothing to do with it, really.
Who could have predicted?
It's just a simple carjacking of a senior citizen.
We have to look at the root causes, like President Trump's rhetoric, which has somehow led to this.
That's right.
He said something about coronavirus coming from China once, so obviously that's the reason this Pakistani guy got killed.
So, this is just so terrible, and CNN's headline would be so different if it were two teenage boys who had done this.
Of course, and I'm kind of cribbing for man culture here, it's impossible to imagine two teenage boys carjacking from a 66-year-old Pakistani.
I mean, it's just not really a white guy crime.
White men will beat the crap out of each other or do more sort of elaborate crimes like a bank robbery or something.
Something that's the combination of pettiness and brutality in this with this huge age differential where there's like there isn't an ounce of fairness to it is just so signature of so much of the black crime we see in the United States.
Especially directed against Asians.
I mean, this is the thing that the media doesn't want to talk about.
They say, oh, this anti-Asian hate.
Well, who's doing it?
And we see these videos over and over again.
And of course, the way the reporters get around this is just by not mentioning the videos, not mentioning the suspects.
So you get things like, oh, New York man attacks Asian, or Minnesota man attacks Asian.
Well, and the people publishing these stories on CNN and what have you are very aware that, like, I don't know, 80% of their readership won't make it past the headline.
They will just see the headline in their Facebook feed or Twitter feed or whatever and not look into the details.
They're always banking on that.
Steve Saylor has done a couple write-ups about New York Times headlines versus the body of the article of what happens if you actually read it and get all of those details.
It's usually like paragraph six or seven before you actually find out what's going on.
Because first they gotta give you the inflammatory headline and the inflammatory opening sentence.
Then they give you three or four paragraphs of context, which is usually them whining about President Trump.
And then they're like, oh, and by the way, this is what actually happened.
But what's more important is what, you know, Brooklyn ethnic studies professor or whoever said blah blah blah.
That's right.
And this is how it always is.
Maybe this is one of the big questions is are they being cynical about it?
Do they consciously know what they're doing and are consciously trying to manipulate and know they're lying?
Or do they truly believe their own propaganda?
I mean obviously I think the second scenario is much worse.
If I had to take a guess I would say that for most of the liberal journalists putting together stories like these and writing these very delicately worded headlines and such is that For them, most of the time, like take this story for example, the one about this Pakistani Uber Eats driver.
I think in each instance, they know what they're doing, but that they believe that this story is exceptional.
So like, they'll be writing this story out and they will know that the perpetrators are black, but they'll think to themselves, well, In general, it's whites.
You know, this is one of the few occasions that it is blacks.
So because this is sort of aberrational, this is an outlier, this is an exception, like, it's okay for me to be kind of deceptive in my reporting about it because I don't want, you know, the right wing, I don't want Breitbart to be able to use this outlier.
I don't want to let the right wing press.
You know, make a mountain out of a molehill of this one exceptional story so I'm okay with kind of papering over it.
Right.
But I do think they genuinely believe that most of the time it's whites, and I think their sort of liberal faith, their liberal certainty is such that no matter how many exceptions they see, they are able to convince themselves non-cynically, just as like an article of faith, that each one is an exception, each one is unusual, so each time it's justifiable.
To kind of paper over it in such a way that the headline makes it seem like something that it's not.
Well, this is why so many of them were taken in by the Jussie Smollet.
Smollet?
Smollet?
I'm not even sure.
Smollet.
I think it's Smollet.
I'm thinking of how Chappelle pronounced his name and how he got a bunch of heat for even doing that.
How did Dave Chappelle pronounce it?
He called it Juicy Smollet.
Well known French actor and you know he was in his bit he did a obviously you know Dave Chappelle is comedian he did this bit on that whole thing and just made the point that People knew this guy was clearly lying.
But journalists didn't know that, and celebrities didn't know that, and let us not forget the current Vice President Kamala Harris did not know that.
They all came out and said, nope, this is absolutely true, this is a crisis, we need to do something about it, there are mobs of White guys in red hats screaming MAGA country attacking people at 3 in the morning in Chicago, and if you doubt this, the problem is you.
In Chicago, of all places, really.
Well, and also, think of just the...
They really do live in a totally separate reality.
Like, they did a poll on how many innocent or unarmed blacks were shot by police last year.
And liberals were saying numbers like 10,000.
Yeah.
And the real number is, like, barely.
You had, I think, even as much as a third saying, like, at least 1,000.
Right.
And it's just not even close.
Yeah.
But again, when you're... And this also just has something to do with the way the media operates now.
There always has to be a villain, there always has to be a crisis, there always has to be something sensational.
So you have to pivot from cops are going around shooting black people in the streets for no reason, to white nationalists have attacked the Capitol as part of a deeply thought-out, organized plan to take over the government, to Trump is plotting some ridiculous evil to hand over the country to Russia, and people are constantly in this Being fed hysteria.
And I think that's also why, unfortunately, we see it on Twitter, we see it in everyday life, we see it on videos and everything else.
So many Americans, particularly, let's be blunt about it, affluent white female liberals, awfuls, are on the brink of a meltdown 24 hours a day.
It's especially interesting with these reporters, too, when you see how often they're posting about their mental illness, how they have post-traumatic stress syndrome, how they're doing.
It's like nothing has happened to you.
I mean, you're probably the most privileged class that has ever existed.
Yeah, this goes back to my long-standing but not completely fleshed-out theory that there's a connection between Like, if you're a white person and you hate, you know, whites, and you hate America, and you hate Western civilization, you hate our history, generally that hatred is present on a micro level as well.
It doesn't just apply to these big concepts.
Generally, when you meet those kinds of people, I think a lot of personal issues going on as This is something Lance Welton at VDARE.com has written about, somewhat, of white liberal women who are generally the wokest also have the highest self-reported rates of depression and self-harm, suicidal ideation, all of that stuff.
Self-medication and alcoholism.
And one of the ways you can see that is on Twitter where you will look at the Twitter
feed of some liberal journalist who's always talking about how white nationalists are running
everything and what a terrible place America is.
And they will also tweet, like, oh, it's been two years of me being single.
I just can't seem to meet anyone.
Nobody deserves to be this lonely.
And then the next day, they'll be like, gosh, I'm on a new class of antidepressants.
Why do none of them seem to work?
Will I ever be happy?
And then the next tweet is this super self-righteous of, like, I wish the South had been crushed
even more during the Civil War.
Reconstruction never went far enough.
I mean, that's, you know, if Reconstruction had been done, you know, more brutally, then we wouldn't have the problems we are having today.
And there's just a lot of, there is, there is this connection between hatred of the civilization and the race you are a part of, and just hatred of yourself on a personal level, which I find Really depressing, really sad.
I feel bad for them.
Maybe I shouldn't, but it's just hard to see these people who are clearly in such pain and then they seem to deal with it by just lashing out against everyone around them.
Right, the neuroticism is really off the charts and what's also amazing, again as Steve Saylor points out, they keep acting like somebody else has been in charge of these sorts of issues for the last 60 years.
We're all still pretending that there's this WASP upper class that's truly suppressing all these different groups.
That hasn't been true my entire life.
That hasn't been true really this century.
Certainly not for the last half century.
Yeah, and there's definitely a lot of double-think going on where it's, on the one hand, oh, we're oppressed, we're so marginalized, we need help, we're on the brink of suicide and mental breakdown, and I can't pay the rent, and why do landlords even exist, and all this kind of stuff, and then in the very next breath...
This person said something outside, I will now get the Chamber of Commerce or whatever Fortune 500 company to fire them as quickly as possible.
They have a direct link to... because this is the brutal truth about journalism today is mostly it just consists about tattletaling on powerless people.
I mean, when's the last time we ever saw like a real investigation into something important rather than just trolling somebody's Twitter feed and being like, can you believe what this guy said?
Why is he still allowed?
Yeah, that's what Glenn Greenwald is calling it, uh, tattletale journalism.
And his big point is that, uh, the reason you see a lot of it is that it's just much easier to do than to, than to launch like an actual, like long form investigation into some kind of, Crime or cover-up or conspiracy that takes a lot of a lot of effort a lot of discipline and a lot of patience I think the key might actually be patience meanwhile writing a little blog post about How some low-level staffer in I don't know the Delaware GOP Retweeted I don't know you or something or or liked a tweet sent from like the V Dare account and
is much much easier. It requires no patience, no discipline, not a whole lot of skill. You've just
got to troll through Twitter until you find something that you know people who read the
Daily Kos would freak out about. And to be fair, I mean I'm going to perhaps be overly fair here,
one of the things that I do for us, for Amran, is looking through and just seeing these leftist
posts insane stuff and saying can you believe what these guys are saying. Of course one of
of the big differences is that these are usually from verified accounts.
They have tens of thousands of likes, and they're usually threatening violence in pretty blunt terms.
Something along the lines of, white people should be killed.
No, this is not an exaggeration.
This is what I actually think.
Everyone's like, hooray!
Right.
One of the things that I think is also driving this is just the nature of the business at this point.
It's not just that it has to run on sensationalism, but it's just a 24 hour news cycle.
There can never be a moment where you aren't putting out new content.
And the fact is, if you want to do a real story, you actually have to take real time and look into things and figure out what's going on.
You also have to go in there Not knowing what the story is going to be.
You have to do the research and see if there is a story.
And the reality is this.
Every journalist, and this is why I just don't think it's worth ever talking to them.
Every journalist already knows what the story is going to be before they start writing it.
They already know what the headline is.
They already know what the takeaway is.
They already know what the intended outcome is.
So, I mean, there's no reason why they even need to look into anything.
Every story at this point is just an opinion piece.
I mean, heck, CNN yesterday, and this was, again, this is hard news, this is their straight thing, is they said it's impossible to tell a baby's gender at birth.
This is just, you know, experts say, white experts, I don't know, but experts, this is just where we're at now.
This is the hard news.
This is the straight news.
This is not opinion columns.
This is just how it is going forward.
And that's why I think every time you see a news story from anywhere, from any source, you really shouldn't be taken any more seriously than this is an activist, probably one with some weird neuroticism, giving his or her opinion, or whatever other pronoun they want to use, On something that they probably don't know a lot about.
Giving Z's opinion.
Yes, Z. We'll just use Z to cover everyone.
Well, this gets us into the whole substack thing, right?
Perfect.
I was about to bring that up.
There's been a lot of chatter about Substack over the last maybe two weeks.
That's what's now being called the Substack Wars.
So for those who don't know, let me just explain a little bit about what Substack is.
It's just substack.com.
It's kind of this new platform that really makes it easy for you to have a blog that is both paywalled and a newsletter.
So you set up an account on Substack the same way you would for a blog on like Blogspot or WordPress or Tumblr or whatever, but it's easy to create like a paid subscription service for it and It just does email blasts of your latest content whenever you want.
Now, Substack has become really popular for more heterodox journalists, like what a lot of people call the anti-woke left, or what I've called in the past the anti-anti-white left.
Like Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald, those types of people.
Yeah and even people who are kind of not quite so beyond the mainstream but were simply too critical of either the riots over the summer or the coverage of the riots over the summer.
So like two famous people who moved to Substack recently were Andrew Sullivan because he got pushed out of his position at New York Magazine because he was just too critical of the George Floyd riots.
Yeah, that thing back when he ran the New Republic where he gave favorable covers to the bell curve.
Yeah, he's never managed to live that down, that's right.
And then Matt Iglesias, who is certainly a very woke liberal writer, I mean generally not very heterodox at all.
That's like the most banal guy I could think of.
Yeah, yeah, but he has a sub stack now, and he left Vox a few months ago.
It should be clear, in a lot of cases, when a journalist or a writer at a major publication
leaves, the exact circumstances of their departure aren't clear.
Generally, if somebody says it's exactly because of X, Y, and Z, you're being lied to.
The person leaving often has to sign a nondisclosure agreement or just thinks it's in poor taste to talk about exactly what happened.
But basically, the beauty of substack is that if you're already a known quantity, like if you already are a relatively famous personality, you have a large following on Twitter, you're well-established, at that point, because of the internet, you don't really need to get a full-time staff writing job at a major outlet.
If you have half a million followers on Twitter, the way I believe Matt Taibbi does, it doesn't really matter if Rolling Stone magazine is writing you bi-weekly checks or
something because you can just start charging for your own work and create this newsletter,
which again, Substack makes it really, really easy to do that.
So there's been this huge migration.
We can't even have a Twitter account, so leave aside Substack.
These guys can get away with it.
Sure, sure.
So you say these guys can get away with it.
There's now a push from leftists who do not like these heterodox leftists to not be able to get away with it.
Now this gets into what I've called sort of the second tier of cancellation or deplatforming or what have you.
The first wave of cancellation is the most basic.
It's what everybody knows about.
You send a tweet, or say a thing, or write a thing, you get mobbed on social media, or somebody records you, you get fired from your job, or you get kicked out of school, or what have you, and that's that.
Now, for writers, if that happens to a writer and a big enough deal, you're established, obviously this doesn't work if you're just getting started out and you're 23 years old, but if you're in your 40s or 50s and you get fired from a magazine for being too politically incorrect, You already have an audience, and you can just take that audience with you somewhere else, which is exactly what Glenn Greenwald and all of these other people we've listed have done.
For whatever reason, they just ended up all kind of using Substack because it's easy to use.
Humans are herd animals.
Once one thing becomes popular for one writer, they all kind of want to get in on it.
This is upset a lot of the very people who pushed all of these heterodox writers to Substack in the first place.
I mean, they're angry that they don't have control whatsoever over Substack.
I mean, in their perfect world, there could be sort of like a, dare I say, like a conspiracy where If a writer goes too far off the reservation on politically
incorrect questions, then nobody will hire that writer and then they will have to stop
writing.
They'll have to go and get some sort of non-writer job.
So the fact that they are all moving to Substack, and many of them are becoming quite successful,
I mean a few of these writers, through the subscriptions they've gotten on Substack,
are now making more money than they did as staff writers at the various publications.
At the same time, many of these publications are closing and shutting down, firing half their writers and everything else.
I mean, you are seeing a lot of these, you know, journalists posting their L's where they're like, oh, after 20 years of dedicated service, i.e.
complaining about tweets, like, I need a job, will someone help me?
But the people who are good don't need to do that.
They just start their own thing and people will follow them.
Yeah, that's right.
Again, we might see a lot of the inner resentment and neuroticism playing out here, where it's just the hatred of somebody who can be successful.
It's like, well we can't have that, we've got to drag them down.
That's correct, because you're seeing, less so now, but last week and the week before, it had really reached something of a fever pitch of people demanding that Substack de-platform various controversial You know, quote-unquote controversial.
I mean, these writers are not white advocates.
They're not even right-wingers.
They're just people who think that... Yeah, they'd flap their wrists and go crazy trying to denounce us.
Oh, sure!
They would want us in the camps right away.
Yeah, I mean, you know, Matt Iglesias and Andrew Sullivan have absolutely nothing positive to say about American Renaissance or Videre, but...
They do have at least mild criticisms of, you know, abolishing the police, or... Andrew Sullivan has read the bell curve and agreed with part of it.
That's enough.
Yeah, that's enough.
You can say it all at once, but like, and yet it moves.
I mean, there's nothing, there's nothing you can do about it, and if you admit the truth once, you know...
After such knowledge, what forgiveness?
Yeah, that's right.
In the case of Andrew Sullivan, it was admitting the truth once, and that was in 1994, I believe.
It was an Atlantic cover story, right?
Well, the Atlantic did Camp of the Saints, that's right.
Andrew Sullivan was editing The New Republic, and in 1994, he published a huge excerpt from The Bell Curve, which was a best-selling book.
It was super popular.
It's not like he was elevating Some fringe tractor right and he published people's
criticisms of it as well But he also published positive things about it again. This
was in 1994. So it's been it's been 26 years Later, yeah 2026 so people I mean people who were born when
this happened now cannot and I can rent cars like yeah And people still bring this up.
People still use this as a reason why Andrew Sullivan should be pushed out of the mainstream, say, well, this is why nobody should care what Andrew Sullivan thinks.
There was even a New York Times op-ed over the summer titled, I still read Andrew Sullivan, but I won't defend him.
Which, again, cited this bell curve thing.
So now there's this push to get Substack to change its community guidelines and its rules, and its rules do explicitly forbid hate speech, right?
Which is why American Renaissance and Vider could never get on Substack.
Not that we really need to get on Substack, I mean, we have our own We have our own website.
Substack is kind of for people who don't have their own website.
We don't have that issue.
But this of course is, dare I say, problematic because the definition of hate speech is not clear.
Whatever journalists want.
It depends on who you ask.
It's elastic.
It's been expanded.
It can contract.
It's different in Germany from what it is in the UK, etc, etc, etc.
So the argument is that Substack isn't, like, enforcing its own policies regarding hate speech.
And there's now even a push by some journalists who are not on Substack to boycott Substack.
A handful of less famous people have now left Substack saying that we should not give these people any money whatsoever.
And interestingly enough, one of the main reasons for this doesn't even have to do with race, but has to do with trans issues.
Everything trans is now becoming That's the dividing line.
Rapidly as controversial as everything regarding race, it's starting to feel like people are
getting cancelled for saying this or that about trans issues as often as people are
getting cancelled for talking about race.
I think maybe in some way it's just because trans stuff is so new that less people are aware of the exact rules and what lines you cannot cross.
Which means that you can actually have more power over people because you have people crossing lines they didn't even know existed.
Exactly.
Which gives you an opportunity to screw with them.
Which I would argue is pretty much All journalists do.
And that's like the only reason they exist is to just kinda...
Well, and in terms of assigning power, something that's become very in vogue for left-wing personalities and writers is that they themselves will become trans.
They will announce that they are non-binary, which means that you're neither male nor female, or that you are gender-fluid, which means sometimes you feel like a male, sometimes you feel like a female, Or they will go full trans.
What's really interesting is that a lot of, maybe not a lot of, but some just like ardent, like hardcore feminists are now coming out as trans men.
And you're talking about how, you know... Wasn't that Ellen Page or something?
Yeah, the actress Ellen Page.
She's just another straight white male, so I don't see why we have to pay attention to them anymore.
And once you, you know, if you're a journalist, And you transition, suddenly you get this huge new amount of power because now you can say that anybody who critiques you, anybody who has any kind of issue with your writing or thinks you're wrong about something, you can say, like, oh, well, you're just bigoted and biased against me because I'm trans.
You're deadnaming me.
Deadnaming, I think, is apparently a way you can get people kicked off if you call someone by their old name.
Right, so for listeners who don't know, And God bless you for not knowing.
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
So, when you transition and you change your name, so like we'll use the example of this actress, Ellen Page became Elliot Page.
So now you have to call Elliot, Elliot.
They literally just put on a baseball cap.
What happened?
and cut her hair.
And calling Elliot by Ellen, the act of calling a trans person by their prior name is referred
to as deadnaming.
And deadnaming is considered extremely, extremely offensive.
And that'll be enough to get you kicked off Twitter.
Yeah, you can't actually permanently get banned from Twitter, from what I understand, for just deadnaming.
What's interesting about this is that it presupposes that there's a hard definition of male and female identities and that there are certain things that are distinctively male and distinctively female.
And, you know, again, years ago I used to talk, this was back in college, if we were having a discussion about race or something like that, and this is back when you could still talk to liberals about these sorts of things, I would say, well look, I understand that the boundaries might be a little fuzzy sometimes.
I understand that there might be exceptions or this or that.
But you wouldn't deny that there are differences between male and female.
Like, these are real things that have consequences.
And people would go, well, yeah, obviously.
But now you can't even say that.
They would say no.
You're, I mean, it's kind of the endgame of modernism.
You're really this self-created being who can, you have no inherited traits.
You're entirely self-created.
You can be whatever you want to be.
You can change from moment to moment.
You're not restricted by anything, be it tradition or even biology.
And so, it's just going to keep going farther and farther and farther and farther because the idea of any kind of restriction on you, even when imposed by nature itself, is considered almost fascist.
Nature being the ultimate fashion.
Yeah, that's right.
And this is sort of the problem with race, too, is that once you... I remember there was some... it might have actually literally been David French who was arguing about trans stuff two or three years ago.
I'm sure he'll flip his opinion on that very shortly.
I mean, what is the conservative schedule?
Usually, like, what, two, three years behind?
Whatever the leftist vanguard is, is when National Review starts saying that this is actually a good thing and we came up with it.
So we'll look forward to that in a couple years.
Elliot Page is a true conservative.
That'll be a cover story on National Review before you know it.
But he was arguing about, he was anti-trans stuff at this point, and he was talking about as a Christian, I believe this, and everything else.
But the funny thing, of course, is then when he was talking about race and immigration, he cites that one Christian verse, ye are neither Jew nor Greek, for you're all one in Christ Jesus.
But that same verse also says you're neither male nor female.
And so if that's the thing that you're using as a defense, like as a Christian, I believe that I'm allowed to say sex differences exist, the same anti-racist Christian arguments can be used against sex differences.
It comes from literally the same source.
Well, I'm not as cynical as you.
I don't know.
I have a hard time believing all these evangelicals will Make some kind of accommodation for this new trans phase that we're seeing.
I mean, they caved pretty quick on gay marriage.
I mean, you and I, we talked about this.
I mean, never really something that I thought about very deeply, but I remember when I worked in the conservative movement, a lot of my more religiously fervent friends, I mean, this was the thing.
This is what they really cared about.
When I first came in, this is when people were talking about a constitutional amendment.
They would ask me, like, what do you think?
And I'd be like, well, you know, I don't really care, whatever.
But these guys would be like, no, this is important and I'm willing to die for this and everything else.
But the minute the Supreme Court ruled, that just instantly collapsed.
You've got me there.
And now I'm the one being like, hey, this has gone too far.
And they're like, well, no, we should just be nice.
We're getting a little off track here.
I don't want to turn this whole podcast into a gay marriage and trans thing.
The reason I bring up the trans issue is that, interestingly enough, that's more than any kind of racial question.
It's trans-related rights and discourse and political correctness that's really being used.
Like, as the wedge issue in these intra-left disputes, I mean, disputes between leftists, all surrounding substack.
And what I think this is worth paying attention to, and why this is worth following, is that this kind of chronology isn't entirely different from what you'd see, like, on the dissident right.
I mean, take for example, like, Peter Brimelow's career.
Yeah.
Like, he was in the mainstream for a long, long, long time.
Up until, like, the 90s is really when he starts to get pushed out for talking too explicitly about race.
Ironically, after he writes the best-selling book.
Yeah.
I mean, writing the best-selling book... So, he wrote a best-selling book arguing for immigration restriction called Alien Nation in 1994, I want to say it came out?
About then, yeah.
Right around then.
Right around the time of the Bell Curve, actually.
Yeah, there was this chunk of time right after the Cold War when you could write books on really controversial stuff and have them published by mainstream houses.
Yeah, Pat Buchanan making serious runs for the GOP nomination.
That's right, that's right.
But in any event, so Peter Brimelow is totally in the mainstream, he's got this best-selling book, all of this stuff, and as the 90s move towards the 2000s, Peter Brimelow becomes more and more of a persona non grata Within the conservative movement, which is why, which is part of the reason why he starts his own website, VDare.com, which was founded in like, I think, like on the last week of 1999?
Give or take, yeah.
So, boom, suddenly he can do his own thing.
He's not beholden to his editors at the National Review.
He's not beholden to, you know, a boss at a think tank at Heritage or AEI or anything.
And then what eventually happens, you know, fast-forwarding 15, 20 years later is VDare.com itself, because it's not beholden to any of these gatekeepers, suddenly just gets deplatformed for more and more stuff.
Right.
Which is what telltale journalists will do, is they will note like, oh, VDare.com is allowed to operate on Facebook, we should get them kicked off.
They're using PayPal, we should get them kicked off.
So that's kind of the second wave of cancellation, is even once you become your own boss, you have your own website, You can write whatever you want, you can publish whatever you want to publish, you've achieved that level of independence.
Because of the nature of the internet, you're dependent on a lot of these...
Things to protect you from DDOS attacks, server space, payment platforms, that kind of thing.
You're dependent on all of this internet infrastructure in order to accept payments and to have a domain to be able to promote your stuff on the social media platforms that everybody uses.
You need to appear on Google searches, all of this stuff.
So once you go independent, the second wave of cancellation is tattletale journalists getting you kicked off of all of that.
And the dissident right has been going through this for the last five years.
But now, with Substack, we're seeing history kind of repeat itself, where there are these heterodox leftists who dissent on one or two, like, important questions within the left.
They're still very progressive people, you know, they still hate Trump.
Hate us.
Yeah, they still hate us.
We'll never connect the dots.
Issue by issue, they're still generally very left-wing, but there will be one point of
dissent that is just considered unforgivable by huge swaths of the left.
One of the more controversial left-wingers who has a substack right now is this guy named
Jesse Singel.
His big thing is he's reported on trans issues a lot, and he is willing to interview people who operate gender reassignment clinics, where they do the operations, and he'll interview them and ask, how old should somebody be for them to legally be allowed to make this decision?
And some of the people who do these operations, who run these clinics, will be like, They have to be 18.
You can't just let kids make this decision.
And Jesse Zingo will just report the fact that somebody said that, and he will just get lambasted by other leftists being like, oh, Jesse is such a bigot.
He doesn't want six-year-olds to have the right to begin hormone therapy regardless of what their parents think.
That's so discriminatory.
That's so bigoted.
And this is how it kind of happened with immigration and race, too.
Right, right.
If you reported a certain thing, or even reported somebody else saying a certain thing, you're giving a platform to it, therefore you're complicit.
Right.
I mean, what this really shows, too, is also just the lie of the marketplace of ideas, because Given a marketplace of ideas, we win.
Every time.
We saw this in 2015.
I mean, the reason they had to go this route is if you give people a choice, they're going to go to us.
You know, Sullivan's Law is what?
Every institution that is not formed explicitly on conservative principles inevitably becomes leftist over time.
Hood's Law is basically any free speech platform, if it is truly dedicated to free speech, becomes far-right over time.
Yeah, because ultimately they have to fall back on... I mean, I truly think people are as right-wing, using that phrase very loosely, but they're as right-wing as they're allowed to be.
And if you don't have somebody looking over their shoulder, if you don't have somebody saying, you can't say this about race, you can't say this about immigration, you can't say this about identity, people are going to go with their gut instincts and also with what The data tell us.
What's Robert Conquest's adage?
Every man is a reactionary on a subject he knows.
Yeah, I said that on Twitter.
Everybody's far right about the things they care about.
Even the anarchists, when they take over an area, what's the first thing they do?
They build a wall and they build checkpoints that let people in and out.
So I mean that's also one of the things we have to talk about with this current border crisis which we have to obviously touch on because that's the one thing that's really swallowing up the Biden administration right now and might make it harder for him to do what he wants on infrastructure and things like that.
So the Biden administration has had pretty confusing takes on what's happening with the southern border.
When Biden was campaigning and before he took office he basically said Come to America.
I'm going to repudiate all this Trump legislation.
People took him at his words.
They literally wore Biden-Harris shirts, marched up to the border and said, let us in.
The problem is we're having a giant pandemic.
That a lot of the people who are getting moved up are being moved up by smugglers and cartels and criminals and everything else.
There's just the simple humanitarian concern that if you have a giant mob of people moving together and nobody has food or places to put them, a lot of them are going to start dying and everything else.
And so everybody showed up and you have this humanitarian catastrophe at the border.
And so conservatives are saying, Well, you know, you brought this on yourself.
We had this situation under control and you created a crisis out of nothing.
The Biden administration has been going from, there is no crisis, this is conservative disinformation, to there is a crisis, but it was actually Trump's fault.
Then it went back to, actually, there is no crisis.
This is just a challenge and a circumstance and we're handling it.
But now, of course, the left is weighing in.
And I think it was yesterday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said that the real problem is the language we're using about these things.
Because if you call it a surge, a surge of migrants coming up towards the border, that's white nationalism.
Oh, is that problematic?
Yeah, that's problematic.
I hadn't heard about this.
You know, the pretense is that these people have a right to be in the country anyway.
And so if they're coming up and you use language that presents it as a threat, or even as just something noteworthy, you're part of the problem.
And I think this is also going to force the Republicans to be... Look, we all know that given their own Given sufficient power and given their being able to do what they want, the Republicans would pass amnesty.
I mean, Lindsey Graham has already talked about putting together an amnesty thing, going back to the years before Trump, but they can't do it now in the face of what's going on.
What's interesting is that Republicans are a lot less likely to be pro-amnesty so long as the president is a Democrat, which is to our enormous advantage right now.
Republicans are always better in opposition.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They really are.
And they know that the base is worked up about this.
Number one issue to Republican voters according to every poll.
This is something we really do have Donald Trump to thank for, is just making this a permanent kind of black and white issue for Republican politicians.
It would be really different.
I mean, I would agree with you that Republicans in the House and the Senate would be chomping at the bit to pass.
Amnesty, if like Jeb Bush were president right now, or if Marco Rubio were president.
But Republicans are just so diehard, you know, they just are obsessed with being the party of no, and just opposing anything and everything any Democrat president does.
Just so completely.
Which can be very useful.
So if Biden wants to push for this, he's really going to have to fight tooth and nail for it.
I mean, they might get rid of the filibuster.
Here's the thing, guys.
I mean, yesterday you had Biden's big thing on infrastructure.
And everybody was making fun of President Trump because, you know, that was the running gag, right?
Infrastructure week.
This was going to be the week Trump does something about infrastructure.
But he would say something and we would get some stupid controversy about white nationalism or whatever else.
Actually, I think the first infrastructure week thing was the Charlottesville protest.
Like that was when he said, yeah, and so then that got swallowed up and he couldn't do it.
So everyone's saying, well Biden, unlike Trump, is actually going to get this done.
But then when you actually break down what this so-called infrastructure really is, very little of it has to do with roads and bridges and things that, you know, things that we would consider to be infrastructure.
And the Washington Post even had an article on this saying that some in the Biden camp wanted it that way because those types of projects are too closely identified with white male working-class voters and that's not the type of people they want.
So instead we have a lot of what's called quote-unquote care infrastructure, which is public schools and various programs, free quality and renewable energy and all this kind of stuff, which is basically, you know, we're gonna take billions of your money and just give it to our constituents and our NGO heads and everything else.
So there's an infrastructure project, yeah, and your taxes are going to go up, but we're not actually going to get any infrastructure.
You're not going to see roads and bridges repaired.
You're just going to see a lot of money wasted on nothing.
I mean, we saw the same thing under Obama when they did this whole big thing.
Right, I was thinking about Solyndra.
Yeah, and nothing... I mean, you know, we spent more than...
When he was president, he had spent more than any other president up to that point.
And you looked at it and you were like, what did we get out of all this?
I mean, can't we at least have like cool golden statues or like roads or just something concrete other than like a vague program at a university that churns out lunatics?
And I think Biden, he's going to have to put all his political capital behind this infrastructure thing.
And that's going to make it a lot more difficult for him to push through amnesty.
And the Republicans know that anyone who's serious about 2022, or who wants to make a run forward to 2024, has to at least be seen as being tough on immigration.
At least has to be seen as a potential heir to Trump, because that's what the Republican base wants.
And though many elected Republicans, and I say this from experience, truly hate and despise their own base, they really do hate their own voters, they still need the votes.
Yeah, well the joke is that the elites of both parties hate their base, but only the Republican party fears its base.
Yeah.
They're less willing to tangle with the base than the Democrats, who do.
I mean, the Democrat elite does, I would say, ignore its base more often than the Republican Party does.
Things could always actually be worse.
This is where we get into the, I guess, the different backgrounds between me and you, because you follow these kind of intra-left fights closer than I do.
And for conservatives out there, I mean, people think, oh, Antifa and Chapo Drophouse or whatever, you know, Patreon Socialist.
Like, they love Joe Biden.
It's like, no, they really don't.
They're really not happy with this guy.
And that's also why I think this Republican messaging of, Joe Biden is a radical socialist, it's just going to completely fall flat because the actual radical socialist, nobody believes that.
Yeah.
I mean look, the brutal reality is that there was a recent poll that showed Biden's approval rating was 61%.
Now let's assume, I think this was an AP poll, now let's assume that's a little inflated, but I'm pretty willing to bet that he's over 55% because the average person knows that they got to check He's hearing good things from the media about the virus and infrastructure and everything else.
And again, as you pointed out earlier, nobody really reads behind the headline.
And he's got the media and the entertainment industry lockstep behind him.
And so, from their point of view, they're like, oh, we've got this pragmatic guy who's getting things done.
Yeah, I mean, how low can a president's approval rating ever be?
You know, all of the major media outlets, aside from Fox News, just douse you in praise constantly.
Especially without capitalism.
Do you think somebody like that is ever going to have an approval rating as low as 45%?
Something really dramatic is going to have to happen, like some kind of economic collapse.
I mean, that would make him into a hero.
I think that would make him like 80% because he would go down there and mutter something vague about being compassionate and, you know, actresses would fall all over themselves about what a great man he is.
You know, meanwhile, you'd be reading stories about, like, Republican militias are gunning down survivors.
Well, I mean, one of the great Twitter blow-ups this last week was somebody accused her father of being like a clan's member, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, who had like personally murdered like dozens of Vietnamese fishermen in like the 70s.
And you just saw these reporters like, yep, we're gonna go with this.
And they look into it and it's like, oh wait, like actually there's no evidence for any of this.
When we ask ourselves, why do they keep falling for these race hoaxes, not just Jussie Smollett, but also what was it, Bubba Wallace, the NASCAR thing, where you had a garage?
It was a garage pull and they sent what, like a dozen FBI agents?
That's right.
And you could look at it for two seconds and be like, it's a garage door handle.
We've all seen them, if you've ever worked as any kind of a mechanic or anything.
That's right.
These things every college campus we get God at least one or two like race hoaxes a month that turn the campuses into just screaming meltdowns probably less of them now just because some of them aren't even open but The narrative is so powerful and the mythology is so powerful that people feel the need to act as heroes and protagonists in this grand story of overcoming racism and fascism and everything else.
And so even if they're in power, even if they have control, even if they actually do have what we would call privilege in the sense of legal benefits through affirmative action or just the type of ordinary things people like you and I no longer can take for granted, like access to financial
platforms that these guys have, they still have to portray themselves as oppressed. They
still have to portray themselves as fighting against the establishment, even when they are
the establishment.
So getting back to the border issue, while I don't think that they are going to be able to
formally pass an amnesty, what I do think they'll be able to do, what Biden will be able to do,
is essentially what Obama did, which is create a kind of de facto amnesty through catch and
release where there's you know there's currently the surge at the border.
Hey, don't say surge!
There is currently a higher-than-usual number of people at our southern border.
What's going to happen, and what's already begun to happen, is the system is overloaded and they're just releasing them because we have a humanitarian Democrat president They're being released into the United States and not just being sent back to Mexico, especially since a lot of the people showing up aren't actually Mexicans, they're Central Americans.
Right.
I think Mexican immigration is actually almost at a net outflow at this point, but the bulk of it is Central American.
Yeah, Hondurans, Salvadorians, etc.
So they're going to be released into the U.S.
with a court date to be processed, and what, I mean, maybe 20% of them will show up for that court date?
Extremely generous.
Yeah, so, and then once, you know, once they miss it, once they miss the court date, they're
just going to be lost into the system at large.
I mean, ICE isn't going to go and try and deport these people.
ICE is too busy, as is trying to get the worst of the worst, and Biden's not going to make
this some kind of like priorities to like fix this.
So we'll have this kind of de facto amnesty, which I mean is worse.
what America's immigration system has been for, you know, like 30 years or so.
Ever since Reagan.
Yeah, like, well, if you get through, like politically it's impossible to formally give
you an amnesty and grant you citizenship and all this stuff, but like, we're largely just
going to leave you alone unless you commit like a particularly egregious murder, in which
case we, you know, we will deport you, but then you'll probably be able to just sneak
back over again and commit another murder.
So we're going to have this de facto amnesty.
This surge, dare I say it, will continue.
People are just going to be let in after some kind of nominal processing.
They're going to maybe give them a face mask and make sure they're not dying of COVID as they cross over the line.
And what's weird is that there's going to be Probably like this, this convergence where you're going to have this huge new influx of people with really limited English skills, uh, and really limited job prospects, not just because of their own lack of skills for like an American economy, but also just because like lots of stuff is still closed because of COVID.
I mean, unemployment for everybody is, is really high.
I mean, this isn't, this isn't like a great time for the American economy.
So bringing in lots of people who don't speak English and aren't very versatile in what they can do for employment, it's not a great idea.
So.
Also makes any pandemic or contact tracing completely redundant.
I mean, like, a SWAT team will gun you down if you, like, try to open a gym.
And these hundreds of thousands of people, no problem.
And Biden's definitely going to have, like, national security forces concentrate way more on, like, you know, people who are violating COVID than illegal immigrants.
Yeah.
And then later, about a year from now, we'll start getting the news reports like, there were higher death rates in this community and this is why white supremacy is to blame.
Even with that, there's going to be nothing for these new immigrants to do and per usual, immigrants from Latin America, when they come into the United States, they're broke and they have limited opportunities so they go and live where it's cheap.
Just generally, like, the ghettos of the major American cities, which is a great way for them to learn how to start doing all kinds of crimes and such, right?
They start integrating into the worst aspects of American culture, which is like the black underclass.
Yeah, what's happened to the major cities in this country over... I mean, again, if we had... I've always said there's no such thing as journalists.
Journalism is the tactic, but...
Dare I say, if we had people who wanted to report news, just the collapse of American cities, just the complete undoing of all the progress that had been made in the 90s and the 2000s is the biggest unreported story out there.
I mean, you drive through Philly, you drive through New York, you walk around in LA or something like that.
I mean, it's just a complete train wreck with homeless camps everywhere and crime and decrepitude.
Small businesses, the ones that haven't just been absolutely crushed by riots and COVID, the ones who punch, they're falling apart.
And what's so frustrating about this is that you know there's going to be no political change.
Yeah.
It's like the ANC in South Africa.
I mean, they're just going to be there forever.
Yeah, well, I mean, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this summer is going to be really, really rough because we're going to have this influx of people The economy is not about to turn around between here and July.
So many police departments have had their budgets cut and also lots of police are just retiring early or quitting.
Or doing the bare minimum.
Regardless of what the verdict is for Derek Chauvin's trial, there is going to be a riot after that.
It's going to be a deadlier version of what happens on a college campus when your team is in the NCAA Finals.
Win or lose, you're throwing some bricks, but this is what's going to happen with this, only it's not going to be drunk college kids destroying everything.
It's going to be people with murderous intent.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Again, you were talking about how journalism is a tactic, not a profession.
Well, one of their tactics has been to not report just this surge in crime nationwide.
They'll report these anti-Asian attacks while not really talking about the perpetrators.
But even those attacks, like this wave of black on Asian violence, is just part of this overall spike in all kinds of violent crime across the country.
I actually, I did a piece about this for American Renaissance in January, just on the increase in murder, like city by city.
And the spike is really shocking.
I'll go over a few of the cities now.
This is comparing the increase from 29 to 2020.
So New York City, 45.3%.
Los Angeles, 35.3%.
Chicago, 56.3%.
Houston, 42.4%.
Phoenix, 52%.
Philadelphia, 40.2%.
San Antonio, 18.1%.
Dallas, 19.5%.
35.3 percent. Chicago 56.3 percent. Houston 42.4 percent.
Phoenix 52 percent. Philadelphia 40.2 percent. San Antonio 18.1 percent. Dallas 19.5 percent. And
this spike has continued into the new year, like into 2020. It's gonna be really hard to find
month by month murder numbers for most major American cities, but in a comparison when
possible for January of 2020 to January of 2021.
and you still see these huge spikes like January to January for Chicago is an increase again for
murder 45.7 percent for LA and that's on top of how bad Chicago was getting before that right
I mean Chicago is all yeah Chicago's been horrible for for years but it's it's only getting worse
the January to January comparison for LA is an increase of 35%
For Philadelphia, it's 31.6%.
I mean, this is the thing.
If you actually look at what BLM did, it basically got a lot of mixed race people millions of dollars to do stupid academic projects, and it got a lot of black people killed.
That's basically what it did.
I think this summer is going to be worse.
We're riding this huge spike in crime.
In reaction to that, all of these cities have done the opposite of what used to be called the broken windows policing.
The idea being that it's important for police, especially in ghettos, to prosecute and arrest
people for really small crimes like jaywalking and loitering, fare evasion on the metro,
things like this.
I said that when people know that they can get away with that, it creates this generalized
atmosphere of lawlessness, and then that just sort of snowballs into bigger crimes.
I think that's absolutely true, and that's definitely what we're seeing, because across
the country all of these cities have in fact decriminalized marijuana and fare evasion
and all of these little things.
And Baltimore just said they will no longer prosecute prostitution, which is great.
Another low-level thing that, oh, the arrests were racially imbalanced so we're just going to throw the whole thing out.
Shoplifting, they're under a certain amount of money, they're just saying we're not even going to bother with it, which of course then makes it impossible if you're a small business to do something.
And this is also the undercurrent of what's happening with a lot of this black on Asian violence, is when you have this atmosphere of general lawlessness, the petty assaults, and people getting attacked on public transit and things like that.
The most recent video that I saw was a black man attacking this Asian, just pounding away on him.
And all the responses underneath are, why didn't anybody stop and help?
Why didn't anybody stop and help?
And it's like, what, are you crazy?
Because if you stopped and helped, you'd be the one arrested.
Like, you would be the one who then the media would descend on and be like, oh, vigilante takes the law into his own hands and this is the problem.
I mean, it's not just that.
Lawbreaking is being tolerated.
It's almost being encouraged.
Yeah, when it's got a political front, it is being encouraged.
And that's, again, the big issue of, like, call me paranoid, but... So there were, like, no consequences for any of the people who rioted, like, all last summer.
There's going to be another wave of that because of Derek Chauvin's trial.
Right.
Amidst this huge spike in violent crime generally, while we've stopped prosecuting all of these low-level offenses and while the police are having their hands tied and their funding cut and all of these things, what do you think the Biden administration is going to do?
There's no countervailing force to push back against this.
There's no Rudy Giuliani lying in wait to enforce order.
That's not really happening anywhere.
The idea, I mean, you know, it's American politics, anything can happen, but the idea of, like, somebody along the lines of Giuliani emerging in, like, Portland, Oregon, or Minneapolis, Minnesota, is looking pretty tough, especially when you have the media, you know, the media sort of enforcing this narrative of, like, oh, well, it's not even Right.
black criminals who are the ones attacking Asians. It's all of these evil white people.
And the media then also being like, oh, well, it's really good that we have decriminalized fair
evasion because that makes things easier for black people because they don't have money to ride the
bus or the metro or something. Right. I mean, that's also why this infrastructure plan is going
to be DOA, even if they actually get it through, because it's all right, now we'll have even more
dysfunctional institutions that don't work.
I mean, the issue is not that we're not putting enough investment, the issue is that the stuff we have now can't work.
Right.
And just go on the subways in New York City, if you don't believe me.
I mean, it's an absolute disaster.
It's something out of one of the films from the 70s.
Well, in Washington, D.C., now they have homeless camps inside the metro stations because you can't get them for fare evasion because that's been decriminalized.
And what's going to happen?
I mean, I don't think there'll be any political change within the city, except for the worst.
But there will be some political changes, and what those political changes will be, will be white liberals moving out of the cities into rural areas and voting to turn it into the areas they just left, and also disarming gun owners.
Like, those will be the two big pushes, because when they have crime, they'll just blame it... Well, we've seen what it is.
If a white guy commits a crime, you blame it on his race.
If somebody else commits a crime, you blame it on the gun.
Right, or root causes, and poverty, and all of these things.
European imperialism.
1492 was the root cause.
We can trace it all back to 1492.
Everything was perfect before that.
The 1492 project.
They just haven't gone far back enough.
Well, all to say, I think this summer is going to get really, really interesting in the worst possible way.
Really, I mean, once I think the resolution or the verdict comes in for the Derek Chauvin trial, we're going to be kind of Off to the races at that point?
Yeah.
Another long hot summer.
Why don't we close on that with just a couple brief comments with the trial.
I've been following it somewhat and there definitely seems to be, the one factual thing that has come up is whether he was actually on his neck, George Floyd's neck or not, or on his back.
Because there are some photos that seem to indicate that knee was on the back.
And then there's also the medical examination saying like, look, you know, this is what he died of.
It wasn't of the police officer's action.
The amount of fentanyl in the system is about three times what can be considered a lethal dose.
We've also got the testimony of the man who, I guess ironically, started the collapse of Western civilization by calling the police to report a counterfeit bill.
That's right.
And he testified that Floyd was acting erratically, couldn't get his words out, was obviously on something.
Now, the contrast to that will just simply be the prosecution is going with very emotional narratives about just look at his picture and everything else, just look at this video.
There are some things where you have people saying they didn't let medical personnel come in for some reason.
And there's probably some actual stuff we have to look at there.
But I think the biggest thing is like I just I don't even know why we're even bothering with a trial.
I mean I think like as a country they're just gonna offer up this guy regardless of the facts.
I don't I don't think there's anything that could come out a trial that would exonerate the guy because I mean the New York Times literally ran an article saying Here's what we know about the jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial.
So, I mean, that was kind of a shot across the bow of like, if you...
The worst job in America is to be a juror in that trial right now.
Yeah.
I got people like us would never get selected, right?
Yeah.
There are real perks to working for American Renaissance.
If I ever get summoned to jury duty, all I have to say is where I work.
They will escort me out the building.
I can go back to doing important stuff.
Well, I mean, this is the thing.
They have to know that, I mean, if you even have a mistrial, every reporter in the country is going to dox everything they've ever done, everyone they've ever been friends with, where they work.
I mean, their lives are going to come to an end, and it's basically going to have a target on their back.
And everyone's going to say they have it coming.
I mean, it didn't shock me, because nothing shocks me, but I did have to just kind of, so we're at that point, when the New York Times literally has, this is what we know about the jurors so far.
Well, and for listeners, we've got a new writer covering the trial day by day, so if you want to just check the site regularly, they're covering it pretty well.
But on that somewhat depressing note, I think we'll wrap up for this week.
Yeah, we'll close it here.
I hope you all didn't miss Jared Taylor too much.
Thanks for listening to Renaissance Radio, everyone.
▲
Export Selection