All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
55:07
Israeli Journalist and Politician Interviews Jared Taylor
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mr. Jared Taylor, first of all, thank you for having us here.
We really appreciate it.
I'm glad you could come.
Thank you.
You are known by some people to be, they call you, the father of the alt-right.
Do you agree with this term?
Are you happy with it?
Well, I suppose people call me that because I've been talking about the question of race and identity for 27 years.
And that's far longer than the term outright has even existed.
But to me, the essential aspect is recognizing the biological reality of race and its importance as an element of individual and group identity.
What do you mean by that?
Biological reality of race?
Well, it's now fashionable in the United States to pretend that race is some kind of social construct, that it has no biological validity.
Of course, race is a biological phenomenon.
As you can tell, it's infinitely easy to distinguish a sub-Saharan African from an Asian, a pygmy from a Dane.
And this is for biological reasons.
You can distinguish races simply on the basis of the patterns of bacteria that live in their mouths.
And somehow to pretend that this is something that was invented by sociology just flies in the face of all of our biological evidence.
But why should the difference in the color of the skin or the race matter in other terms?
Social terms, economical matters.
What is the relation between, you know, the race, your racial category, and your, I don't know, other characters as a human being?
It's because different races have systematically shown different patterns of civilizational behavior.
And for example, blacks, sub-Saharan black Africans, they have shown a uniformly low level of cultural achievement in their homelands and likewise when they have moved to other continents in North America or in Europe,
likewise in Israel for that matter.
They do not...
Behave in exactly the same ways as the host populations in terms of illegitimacy rates, crime rates, and performance on academic tests.
Now, intelligence is the personality aspect that has been most seriously and extensively studied in terms of group differences.
And we have evidence accumulated over more than a hundred years that suggests that the average IQ for blacks, at least American blacks, is about 85 and the average IQ for American whites is 100.
That's a full standard deviation difference.
When you go to Africa, the actual IQs, tested IQs, are somewhat lower than that.
So on the basis of intelligence alone, although there is considerable overlap between the different racial groups, you're going to have, at the average, different kinds of behavior and different kinds of cultural and economic achievement.
Maybe that's the reason of the resources you invest in a community, you know, compared to another community, not because of biological elements, but because of education, social conditions, you know, condition of living,
etc. If you improve those, maybe you can.
That is the typical argument to point out that there are environmental differences.
But where do those environmental differences come from?
Different races create their own environments.
And the most definitive studies on the question of whether or not race is something independent of environment has to do with adoption studies.
There was a very famous Minnesota adoption study of blacks, black children given up for adoption, half black, half white children given up for adoption, as well as white children.
And these people were tested for IQ at various ages.
And it was determined that at the very young ages, environment does seem to have an impact on IQ, and the black children who were adopted by white middle-class families had higher IQs than control groups that were not adopted.
However, by the time these And what should be the political implications of this?
I mean, giving them less services, less budget?
Not at all.
All groups should not get education, for example, that is specifically geared to their abilities.
When all individuals get education that is tailored to their strengths and their weaknesses, everyone does better.
But the smarter people will go higher and go farther than the less intelligent people.
In the United States today, we are obsessed with the black-white racial gap.
Or the white /Hispanic racial gap in achievement.
Instead of worrying about that, we should try to raise everyone's test scores as high as possible, and we should pay no more attention to the racial gap than we pay to the gap between the highest achieving whites and the lowest achieving whites.
That gap is even greater.
But we accept this gap because we understand that some individuals are more intelligent and harder-working than other individuals.
This is not a scandalous observation.
However, when it comes to races, it is scandalous to state something that is borne out by the evidence as well.
Some groups are more intelligent than others, and we must live with this fact rather than constantly trying to battle it.
I would add that all of the evidence suggests that East Asians are on average more intelligent than whites.
It's not that whites are the most intelligent group.
We should come to terms with these biological differences rather than trying to build a society based on the myth that we all must be absolutely mathematically, geometrically down to the finest decimal point equal when we are not.
These kinds of ideas have more room in America, they're more accepted by people, maybe in the last year or so, because of some political developments in this country?
Not at all.
The idea of racial differences in intelligence had a kind of breakthrough in the 1990s.
That was during a period in which people such as Michael Levin, Richard Herrnstein, myself, and Daniel Seligman, Various people wrote books about race and IQ that were accepted and published in mainstream media.
Richard Hernstein is another example.
And there seemed to be a growing acceptance of the biological and statistical evidence.
But sometime around the year 2000, it seems, that the acceptance for these ideas became less and less widespread.
And I do not think for a moment that in the last year or two, you're going to suggest somehow that the election of Donald Trump has made it more possible to speak about these things.
I would argue that the contrary is the case.
Because people are so hostile to Donald Trump, because they are so determined to find him wrong, to find him a racist, to find him a fascist, because of this pent-up hatred for Donald Trump, any suggestion?
of race that goes outside the standard dogmas and orthodoxies is more likely to be attacked since his election than before his election.
Can you understand that maybe some of these ideas that you express here may create animosity towards minorities or towards certain groups?
Because if you say that they are sort of inferior, not intelligent enough, maybe they don't have a place here.
You can understand that this can lead to a hostile attitude towards them.
I'm not talking about inferiority and superiority.
There are respects in which I believe black people can be described as superior to whites.
In athletics, for example, when you go to the Olympics, the finals of practically all the track events are dominated by blacks.
I think perhaps musically or rhythmically, blacks may be superior to whites.
I'm saying that races are different.
And it is a mistake to assume that you're going to get equal representation in success in every field.
And we should give up trying to achieve that.
In terms of whether or not this produces hostility, I don't think that's necessarily the case at all.
In fact, I believe that constantly telling black people that they are just as smart and hardworking as white people, and the reason why, as a group, they're not doing as well, is because of white racism.
We keep telling this over and over and over again.
This produces hostility in the minds of blacks towards whites.
I believe that there would be much less racial tension in the United States if we accepted the way things are rather than constantly telling black people You are more likely to be poor.
You are more likely to be in jail.
You are more likely to have illegitimate children because of wicked white people past and present.
This is the best possible way to teach black people to hate white people.
I think recognition of the truth is always better rather than trying to conceal it and trying to live on the basis of an illusion.
And where do we us Jews fit in this scheme?
Do you consider Jews as a religion or as a racial group or a minority or an ethnical group?
Jews are both a religion and a kind of ethnical group.
I think Jews have always defined themselves in both terms, both as a religion and descent from a Jewish mother, for example.
As it turns out, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs, and I believe, again, this is for genetic reasons.
They are always scoring highest on the IQ tests.
In the United States, per capita incomes are higher, and I think that this reflects the inherent abilities of Jews.
Well, I can tell you that these kinds of ideas, if you tell them, you know, in Israel, some people who are not sort of, let's say, Ashkenazi origin may get extremely upset.
Well, all of us, as part of growing up and becoming adults, have to come to terms with the fact that we are not the smartest, best looking, most musical, most athletic person in the school.
Or in the county or even in our own families.
We have to learn that we are limited.
All of us are limited.
And it is part of becoming an adult to come to terms with our own limitations.
This should not make us angry.
This is just the way it is.
If I am in a race with someone and he beats me, it's not because I was cheated.
He was faster than I was.
If he scores better on a test, if he does better at his job, perhaps he's better at it than I am.
That's just the way it is.
Instead of recognizing this, if we say, oh, no, no, we must not talk about racial differences in IQ because that would upset black people, we are constantly telling them, you have been cheated.
You have been wronged by society at large.
And this only creates resentments.
And after all, I am perfectly reconciled to the fact that my group is, for genetic reasons, probably less intelligent than East Asians, less intelligent than Ashkenazi Jews.
Does that plunge me into despair?
Does that mean that I go out and commit crimes or have illegitimate children?
No, it's something that you live with.
I think, again, it's better to accept reality rather than to rail against it or to try to build a society that denies reality.
And non-Ashkenazi Jews, what about them?
Sephardic Jews on average have IQs that are somewhat less than Ashkenazi Jews.
I don't recall the precise numbers.
But there is a distinct population difference and you see that, I believe, in the stratification in Israeli society.
Not all groups achieve at the same levels.
And it is fashionable to pretend that this is because of environment or because of environmental discrimination.
I think we must recognize the biological and the genetic facts rather than always attempting to deny them.
So we should have, or you should have here, like different school systems for different races or different areas for living or what?
What sort of separation would you envision to take into account this racial difference between people?
The question of racial separation is a different one from treating people in ways that will...
Get the best results from them.
If you are talking about Israel and Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, there are going to be some very smart Sephardic Jews and some not so smart Ashkenazi Jews.
You just have to recognize that you're not going to get the same results with each group.
Try to treat each individual, give that individual as much in terms of resources and education as possible.
But just don't expect the same outcomes.
Try to increase everyone's level.
Don't expect them all to end up in the same place.
As far as separation is concerned, I believe in complete freedom of association.
And so, if white people prefer to live in neighborhoods that are white and prefer to send their children that are majority white, they should have that option.
This should not be considered something that is diabolical or evil.
On the other hand, if you have people that prefer to live in mixed neighborhoods, who want black neighbors, Hispanic neighbors, who want people from all around the world, that's fine too.
Let them have diversity if that's what they wish.
I think most people do not.
Asians go to Asian churches in the United States because that's where they're most comfortable.
Black people go to black churches because that's where they are most comfortable.
You must not criticize people for wanting a kind of coherence.
In their lives, a racial coherence.
In the United States today, wanting that kind of racial coherence is considered a great crime and a great sin.
We should stop considering it that way, and the government should get out of the business of trying to force people together.
If people are left to their own devices, they are likely to separate, they are likely to be happier, and when there is separation, there's likely to be less friction because there's less contact.
These ideas may shock a lot of people, maybe because of the legacy of racial segregation, slavery, even the Holocaust, you know, Nazi ideas, Second World War, this whole big thing of racial,
I don't know, racist policies, okay?
So, you must, I mean, you realize how angry it may...
I'm sorry if it makes people angry, but...
If you look at the history of the United States, yes, there was slavery.
Slavery was a terrible misfortune.
After slavery, there was segregation.
There was Jim Crow.
Now we have affirmative action.
All of these things are American society trying to come to terms with the fact that we have two groups living in the United States that are not the same.
It would be better to realize that this attempt to cohabit is not succeeding very well.
It would be far better for blacks and whites alike to recognize that we are much better taking responsibility for our own communities, for our own justice, for our own education.
That way no one can blame anyone else, as you're probably aware.
We have many instances in which a black person has some kind of physical altercation with the police and is perhaps injured or killed and this creates a huge problem.
If black people were by and large policed by black people and they did not have to come in contact with white law enforcement, all of these problems would go away.
The original problem with the United States was trying to build a multiracial society.
Homogeneous societies do not have any of these problems.
Take Japan, for example, or Korea.
These places are overwhelmingly one group.
In Japan, the whole question of racial discrimination doesn't even come up.
It's not a problem.
Unlike in the United States where...
Every time you turn around, you have to deal with some problem of were there enough blacks who were nominated for Oscars?
Have there been enough American Indians admitted to Harvard?
Every single decision becomes an agonizing exercise in counting ethnicities.
Japan, Korea, any homogeneous country doesn't have to worry about this.
How can you create a homogeneous society here in America?
It's all mixed.
You have people from all over the world, you know, many races.
How would you make it happen?
Well, clearly, that would be a very difficult thing.
But we should move in the direction of permitting people to establish local, homogeneous communities, if that's what they wish.
Currently in the United States today.
If a white group says, well, we would prefer that our neighborhood remain majority white, that is considered a terrible crime, despite the fact that in many of their actions, whites clearly show a preference for white neighborhoods.
If you ask a white person, please name a majority black or majority Mexican neighborhood you'd like to live in, they can't think of a single one.
So, we should recognize this desire as legitimate.
We should also stop an immigration policy that is continuing to dilute the majority white population.
We are getting more and more people from all around the world.
And all of the evidence shows that when people of different races, religions, languages try to live together, inevitably there is conflict.
So, I agree.
In the United States today, I'm not talking about trying to recreate an all-white America.
That would be impossible and I think it would be immoral.
But I think that we can put in incentives and recognize the legitimacy of people wishing to live in racially coherent parts of the country, societies, neighborhoods, schools, that sort of thing, I think is possible and perhaps it could expand to larger areas of the country.
You know, some people may interpret or analyze your ideas as sort of a green light or legitimacy to put up some very strict measures between races and to make like a very crude separation which may lead to violence.
You articulate those ideas in a very sort of civilized way here, but, you know, when you translate them into practical measures, it may lead to some very cruel realities.
The fact is, I am proposing voluntary measures, and you say that some of these voluntary measures could lead to violence.
In fact, there is a considerable amount of interracial violence.
And in the United States today, every year there are about 600,000 crimes of violence that cross black and white racial lines.
Of that number, about 85% are committed by blacks against whites.
That means that a black person is 25 to 30 times more likely to commit violence against a white The fact of living in mixed communities creates violence of its own kind.
There is an FBI report that comes out every year that talks about hate crimes.
Hate crimes are said to be motivated, at least in part, by racial differences, for example.
When the groups are separated, there are no hate crimes.
That kind of violence disappears.
Again, in that report, by the way, blacks are about twice as likely to commit hate crimes as whites.
But it is all very well to say that separation could lead to violence.
What I'm explaining to you is that mixing leads to violence of its own, which could be avoided.
Are you afraid for your safety or security because of your ideas and ideology?
Oh, there are people who have given us death threats, yes.
We prefer that our location not be so well known.
And this, I think, is a terrible commentary on the United States.
We pride ourselves on freedom of speech.
We are the land of liberty.
That's not true at all.
What I'm telling you, I believe to be eminently reasonable, eminently moral, fully in conformity with what we know of history and human nature.
And yet, if I were an employee of a large company, or if I worked for a university, I would probably be immediately fired.
This is the state of freedom of speech in the United States.
If we try to hold a public meeting, rent a hotel ballroom to discuss these things, there will be demonstrations.
There's likely to be violence against us.
We simply want to talk about the future, the demographic future of the United States and what is best for all races.
And yet, freedom of speech is so poorly respected.
That there is probably not a private hotel anywhere in America that would rent us space to hold a public meeting.
How accepted your ideas are among the American public?
I mean, how many people would you say adhere to your thinking and ideology?
That's impossible to say.
Most people, of course, would never dare say publicly what they thought.
But if you look at the way white people behave, look at where they live, look at who they invite to their dinner parties, look at who they end up marrying, look at who they spend their leisure time with.
I suspect that many whites, instinctively, deep in their bones, feel about race exactly the same way I do.
They wouldn't dare admit it to a public opinion pollster.
They might not even admit it to themselves.
But they share my views in an almost instinctual level.
Now, it is true that over the years, more and more people are explicitly embracing ideas of the kind that I've been promoting for more than 25 years.
It's because when people understand race, the world makes sense.
Africa makes sense.
Asia makes sense.
The United States makes sense.
Immigration makes sense.
Policing, school failure, economics makes sense if you understand race.
And people are frustrated by being told things that are obviously not true and we tell people things that are increasingly obviously true and so they accept them.
Internet sites like ours are growing in popularity all the time.
I believe that it is inevitable within 10, 20, 30 years that a very substantial number of whites will be saying the things that I am saying.
These things will be accepted as facts.
What then happens in terms of politics, I cannot predict.
But things will not continue as they are today.
Even though you had a black president in this country for eight years and he was...
Very popular, not only by the black population, but also by many white people, including the vast majority of the Jewish population in this country that voted for him massively.
Although he was black, you know, his father was even Muslim from Kenya, from Africa, you know, half American, etc.
How do you explain that?
I mean, Obama seems to prove you wrong.
What about 40% of white people voted for Barack Obama?
Does that mean that 60% of white people would never vote for a black man?
No, it doesn't mean that.
Many people who voted for Barack Obama's opponents voted for them because they disapproved of Barack Obama's politics.
It is not a contradiction to live in a society that has a black president.
Or a black secretary of state or a black Supreme Court justice and still in one's personal life prefer to live in a racially coherent neighborhood and lead a racially coherent life.
Americans who think as I do recognize that, yes, at some symbolic level, things like a black president Can take place?
Black congressmen.
There are blacks, there are people of all sorts of different races doing very responsible things in the United States.
That does not prove us wrong.
That is simply a progression of this trend of trying to ignore race, which I believe will ultimately come to an end and fail.
But we are still attempting to build in the United States a nation in which race can be made not to matter.
I believe that goes against human nature.
Race will always matter.
And more and more people, not just whites, but other people as well, are recognizing that we are much better, recognizing the importance of race, recognizing that people prefer the culture of people like themselves, and that we should allow that and encourage it rather than constantly trying to demonize it and condemning it.
I'm curious to know how you acquired your ideas.
I mean, what was your personal path to this ideology as a young person or?
I don't have a simple answer to that.
I grew up believing all of the conventional ideas about racial egalitarianism.
I went to college in 1968.
I was very much a liberal.
I believed that the races were all basically equivalent, that only because of oppression by white people were blacks more likely to be criminal, etc.
And it was a very gradual and reluctant process whereby I abandoned those illusions.
But I traveled in West Africa for a while.
I studied history.
I met people.
I read different books.
And gradually, with great reluctance, I cast off these illusions of egalitarianism.
And ultimately, I came to realize that if in the United States we continue to encourage immigration from people of all races, all continents, and if we continue to encourage miscegenation,
mixed marriages, eventually whites will become not just a minority, but 200 years from now.
Will there be any real white people left?
I debated a black professor about a year and a half ago on the question of diversity.
And he said diversity is a great thing in America because with non-white immigration and mixed marriage, in 200 years, there'll be no more white people.
And that's a good thing.
Well, I would rather there were white people.
I think white people like me have the right.
To continue to exist as a distinct people with a distinct culture.
All of this stems from the somewhat unorthodox understanding of race that I've acquired over the years.
But again, this was in little bits at a time.
Little things that...
Suggested to me that perhaps the races were not equal, that perhaps some sense of racial identity is an important part of individual and group identity, that multiculturalism, multiracialism causes friction, not strength.
These were all the result of small experiences that pushed me away from a conventional understanding.
All right.
Okay. Now, we're done for this sort of angle.
Let's try to have another angle.
Maybe the...
The success of the alt-right today, I mean, they are growing in numbers, or at least they're well reported and they're very present in the U.S. today, is sort of a continuation of your ideas, like the new generation, the younger generation,
they just sort of implement what you said all along during those years or so.
Yes, I think there's an aspect of that.
I've been saying some of the things the alt-right is now saying for quite a long time.
The alt-right, I believe, is a broader movement, however.
It's not just about racial identity.
People in the alt-right have views about sex differences, for example, or foreign policy, or generally they reject egalitarian orthodoxies of all kinds, that every culture is more or less...
Equally valuable, that every religion is equally true.
No, it is a movement that recognizes differences.
But the thing that I think is central to the alt-right, or what has come to be called the alt-right, is an understanding of the biological reality of race, the crucial aspect of race in individual and group identity, and also, to take it one step further,
a recognition that whites, as a group, have legitimate racial interests.
If you do not accept those points, it seems to me it's difficult to call someone a member of the alt-right.
You know, personally, I feel much upset by what you're saying.
Like, you know, I have a lot of family in the States, Jewish family.
My family is a Holocaust-surviving family.
And, you know, talking about race in this matter...
Sounds to me like something that I don't want to remember.
Like, you know, Nazi ideology, Hitler ideology, this racial segregation that leads to extermination, etc., etc.
Well, if it upsets you, that's one thing.
But is anything that I've said factually incorrect?
And let me remind you of something else.
Israel is a Jewish state.
And Yitzhak Rabin, not too long before he was assassinated, he was interviewed by an American journalist and he was asked what he considered to be his greatest achievements.
And he said that one thing that he had labored for all his life was to keep Israel at least 80% Jewish.
Now, for him, it is important that Israel remain Jewish because Jewishness is valuable.
Jewishness has distinct qualities and characteristics.
To me, Yitzchak Rabin's view of Israel has a perfect parallel with my view of the United States.
I believe that Europeans have a particular characteristic and way of living and it is just as legitimate for Americans To wish to maintain those characteristics rather than have them diluted by people unlike ourselves.
So, just as it is legitimate for Israel to remain Jewish, it is legitimate for France to remain French, Germany to remain German, Italy or Turkey or Argentina, any of these places has the right to maintain their cultural and racial and demographic integrity.
Democratically? By democratic means?
Voluntarily, yes.
What is strange is that what is considered perfectly normal and moral for Israel to remain Jewish is considered immoral if we're talking about Italians or if we're talking about Portuguese.
Why is it right for Israel to wish to remain Jewish, to have an immigration policy that restricts immigrants who are not Jewish, whereas it would be wrong for the United States to have an immigration policy that favored Europeans?
Well, because those people coming here...
Sorry? Well, because those people coming here, they become Americans.
They pledge allegiance to the flag and they...
Adore this country.
You know, this is the myth, the American spirit, like people from all over the world, they come here and they become Americans.
I mean, even yourself, I mean, your ancestors were not Americans.
Couldn't people become Israelis?
Couldn't people become Jewish?
Furthermore, when people come to France, they can convert, but it's rather frowned upon.
Israelis recognize that the spirit of Israel...
The spirit of America requires Jewishness.
I would argue to you that the spirit of America requires Europeanness.
And the same is true for all European countries.
When you have blacks who have been here ever since 1600s and who still do not feel like they are part of America, who take a knee for the national anthem, who turn their back.
On the symbols of America.
That goes to show you how difficult it is to turn just anyone at all into an American.
We have people of Muslim origin in the United States who have grown up here, who nevertheless become terrorists because the call of their religion, of their original origins, is so great.
I think that you would have a very difficult time arguing that once people reach a certain critical mass, say Hispanics or Mexicans in the United States, that they fully assimilate to an American ideal.
If you have a very small number of Muslims or Mexicans or Haitians, they have no choice but to assimilate.
But once they reach a certain critical mass, they retain the characteristics of their homelands.
And that's perfectly normal.
To say that they've all become Americans, I believe, is a very superficial and mistaken view.
Well, you have so many white Christian Americans that are involved in crime and terrorism and shooting and killing, you know, so many.
What about them?
I mean, crime is not always made by black or minority people in this country.
No, no, of course it is not.
And as a matter of fact...
There are distinct racial differences in crime rates in the United States.
Those who commit the least amount of crime per capita are Asians, then whites, then Hispanics, then blacks.
You'll find this pattern everywhere.
Virtually every crime, every city, every state.
This is not to say that a homogeneously white country would be without problems, but it would be without the problems that stem from multiracialism.
From conflict, from all of these attempts to take diversity, which is a source of friction, and try to pretend that it's a virtue.
You know, I must tell you, for my family or friends living in this country for many, many years, these kinds of ideas would be impossible to bear.
Like, impossible to accept.
And they would even argue that this goes beyond, let's say, freedom of speech, and this sort of speech should be banned.
Really? Well, then they are not Americans.
Had I been an American, I would...
In the United States?
I would do that.
If you were an American, you would think that my kind of speech should be banned?
I would support banning this, I mean, the publication or the expression of these kinds of ideas.
Because this...
That's my opinion, you know.
I'm asking.
I'm not the first one who tells you that, I'm sure.
Well, then I must tell you that your family who are living here, it is difficult for me to consider them Americans, because that is one of the principles of American society, is freedom of speech.
And furthermore, I believe not only do I benefit from freedom of speech, but what I'm saying is correct.
What I'm saying is moral.
And I think you'd have a very difficult time telling me what that I've said is either incorrect, factually incorrect, or immoral.
And yet, you're saying that I should be gagged.
I should be stopped from speaking.
How can you justify this?
That's my own opinion, and you have the right to say what you want.
This is a free country, and this is respect in this country.
If I were asked what should be done with these kinds of ideas, I would say that these are not legitimate ideas.
That is my own opinion, of course.
But then you're saying it's okay for Israel to say we wish to remain Jewish.
But it is so wrong...
On a national level.
On a national level.
Not on a racial level.
But it is so wrong for a Frenchman to say that France should be French, that that kind of speech should be banned.
Is that what you're telling me?
No. In France, you have many Jews and many Muslims, and they are all considered French people.
They all have the French nationality, and they are all good French people.
And that's it.
Every New Year.
Every New Year.
Who is burning the cars in the streets of Paris?
It's not white Frenchmen.
And being French in that sense is a technicality.
It is clear that the people who write"nique la France" on the sides of buildings, those people are not white French people.
Those are Arabs who hate France.
They may have a French passport, but they are not French.
And it would be just as legitimate as Israelis who are telling Africans who have immigrated illegally into Israel to ask them to go home and in fact pay them to go home.
This is preserving the Jewish quality of Israel and the French would be equally legitimate in preserving the French quality of France by paying for those people who write"nique la France" on the sides of houses to go home.
This phenomenon exists in France.
I saw it with my own eyes and there is even terrorism from French-based groups.
But maybe this is the reason of the social inequality, the discrimination, racism.
I mean, ideas like yours may invoke these kinds of feelings towards the establishment, towards society, towards the majority.
As you know, the French ideology is just like that of the United States.
You are not even allowed to pay attention to race for the census of France.
France has tried as hard as any nation to treat people equally.
You may say that it has failed, but if France has failed, if the United States has failed, if after 60 years we still have race riots, 60 years after the Civil Rights Movement, then no country can succeed.
We should recognize that this multiracial experiment is a failure.
If this were a marriage, we would call it irreconcilable differences and it's time for a divorce.
It's like Israelis and Palestinians.
Could you really try to incorporate all the Palestinians and live in one happy larger Israel with all the Palestinians?
No, you are much better off separate.
But you know, for instance, Ashkenazi Jews or Sephardic Jews, Oriental Jews as we call them in Israel, we have so many mixed marriages in Israel.
More than 30 to 40 percent of Israeli Jews are today of mixed marriage between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews.
And the children are...
Perfectly okay, you know.
Fine. It's because these are marriages between Jews.
Marriages between Jews and Palestinians, or Jews and Muslims, is a very different matter.
Well, unfortunately, many people would agree with you, unfortunately.
Well, are you suggesting that Israel would be better off if marriages between Israelis and Muslims should be just as welcome as marriages between Ashkenazi and Oriental Jews?
I think that communities and religions must be respected and should be respected.
And there are differences which are legitimate.
We are not equal.
But it should be a free style, free society.
Get to know a Muslim girl.
You want to marry her.
You're Jewish.
You're entitled to do it.
It's perfectly okay.
You should not be discriminated in any way.
And this should be tolerated.
Then eventually, eventually, if the numbers are large enough, and this goes on for long enough, Israel will cease to be Jewish and Israel will cease to be Israel.
This is a danger that all minority societies run.
And in the United States, if we continue according to your plan, my people will become not just a minority.
We will simply disappear.
We will be genetically swamped by people unlike ourselves.
And my way of living, my literature, my songs, the things that I admire, all of that will disappear.
Are you prepared to take responsibility for the disappearance of my people?
Our producer asked me to ask you, With the evolution of man, of human society, there was a mixture of races of people from, you know, during the ages, which created different races of human beings.
You know, we advanced from inferior races to homo sapiens, you know, the current human race.
And so it was this mixture that created and made us better.
You know, my English is not good enough to explain, but you would understand by Darwin, for instance, you know, this mixture of different kinds of Christians, you know, that creates later on.
On the contrary.
Excuse my English.
It is separation that created different races, not mixture.
It's only because people separated from their ancestral populations that you have Danes on the one hand, Pygmies on the other, Australian Aborigines in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is separation and separate evolution that created all these differences that are not merely physiological.
But also reflect differences in temperament, differences in propensity, and differences in civilizing capacity.
Separation created these things.
And amalgamation would then ruin all of this beautiful differentiation.
If, for example, what is happening in the United States were happening to Japan, would Japanese culture survive?
I want Japanese culture to survive.
I want Israel to survive in its own distinct and beautiful way.
Mixing, as you call it, that will put everything in reverse.
All of that beautiful variation will be all boiled down into one common element that I believe is an insult to us all.
Okay. I think we are...
You know, I have something, because as you know, I'm basically me.
I'm the one that is like totally against all your ideology.
It means that I can understand where you're coming from.
Okay? Yes.
But, in reality of today, of the world and the way that the world is now, there is hunger in Africa, let's say that it's because of them that they don't succeed and they don't know how to grow, and they move.
During all the history of human beings, since the age of ice, people don't have something to eat, they move, they're immigrants, they mix with the culture.
Israel is Israel.
If you look at this little place over there that change hands all the time only because of one thing.
It's a cross of road of exchange of money.
And because of that, a lot of religious mix.
How can you deal with that now?
This is reality now.
Very easily.
Look at how Hungary is dealing with it.
Look at how Poland is dealing with it.
They're members of the European Union.
But when Angela Merkel says, okay, you're going to take 30,000 Syrians, they said, no, we're not going to take any.
We wish to remain Hungarian.
That's all it takes.
I think our photographer is upset because, I may say so, he is married to a Muslim woman.
Her father, basically, he was one of the CEOs of the biggest pharmaceutical company.
Basically saved a lot of life.
He's Muslim.
Look, if people wish to marry Muslims, they're free to do so.
All I'm saying is that if we have people who wish to marry within their own group, and in the United States, Jews are famous for wanting their children to marry other Jews.
They don't want Jewishness to disappear.
I don't want it to disappear either.
It's one of mankind's great, beautiful creations.
But if we all mix, all of that will disappear.
Well, you know, personally...
Can I say something from an archaeological point of view?
Okay. So 30,000 years ago, the Homo sapiens and the Neanderthal people were crossing together.
Yes, they were.
Right. is that they met.
Now the Neanderthals were very strong and fitted for winter and the Homo sapiens were well known for their drawing in the cave and the art and the language.
When they mixed, something better came out.
Well, it's true that Africans must be more curious.
No, but it's not true actually.
No, Africans did not, no, Africans have no, no.
But there's no, Africans are the only group that have no,
Neanderthal admixture at all.
But how do we even know that it was necessarily better?
The Neanderthal admixture in someone like me is about 5%.
If it improved, it was a tiny, tiny amount.
It was just small contribution to the group that ended up dominating.
But mixes are not necessarily terrible, but mixes result in destroying the ancestral lineages.
For example, if all the blonde people in the world Mate with black-haired people.
Blonde hair will disappear.
I think that would be a pity strictly for...
An example at hand is that we're the Neanderthals today.
Strictly for aestheticism.
I'm not saying that we're better or the Africans are fewer or better than the other party.
I'm just saying that survival of the fifth means that when there were two groups, when they mixed together in one geographical area...
They survived better than...
The Neanderthals were eliminated.
They went extinct.
He's now going to take...
That's not necessarily true.
I mean, there could be...
Neanderthals could have been a better race, but they may have been numerically...
He just needs some of my reactions so he would shift the camera.
So I would...
I would...
Mostly nod, so that...
Well, I'll tell you, I think it's dangerous because history shows that it leads to violence and it leads...
My people were the victims of the most extreme violence originated...
From these racial ideas, you know, and we pay the price and we learn the lesson and we don't wish other people to pay the same price as we paid, you know.
So what you're saying is that the expression of the Japanese to wish to remain a majority and the expression of Israeli Jews to wish to remain a majority are equally dangerous and could lead to another Holocaust?
Or is it only when Europeans feel these things?
No, no, no, no.
It's legitimate to desire to have your own community or your majority of your people, your nation, etc.
It must be done democratically.
That's, I think, the number one condition.
And second, there are advantages and there are changes, cultural changes, economical changes.
That may change or alter these situations, and not necessarily they lead to a tragedy or a catastrophe, but they may lead to a different situation in the world, in a country, and that's not such a big tragedy.
I would rather prefer, or if you ask for my own opinion, I would rather prefer the risk of having a mix with people, with religions, than the danger of maintaining this cruel
separation. Voluntary separation.
Well, but some people would not agree to that, and then you would have to imply force.
Well, not necessarily.
And in any case, in any case,
Why are you doing this?
I don't understand.
I'll ask you a little bit.
The option, but you see, you keep overlooking the fact that Israel is created on the notion of separation.
A state for Jews, which will always be for Jews, always a majority of Jews.
This idea and, in fact, creating those borders is also a violent thing.
There are people who claim the right, the Palestinians who left, they think that they should come back.
And some of them still claim to hold the keys to their houses.
You are keeping them out by violence.
This is necessary for your survival.
I would agree that the ideal situation would be a world without borders, like the song by John Lennon, you know?
Imagine there is no...
Okay? Then Israel will cease to exist.
Israel will cease to exist.
Is that what you want?
No. I love my country very much, but there is a limit to what we can do in order to keep certain things.
And if by, you know, by daily life, by the routine, by the changing of time, things change in our country.
For instance, in our country, we have 25%.
Arabs. Citizens of Israel.
We have Russian immigration.
We have Ethiopians.
We have Sephardic Jews and Ashkenadi Jews.
We have people that look very differently from one another.
And this is a source for cultural and extreme richness.
This is a source of pride for us.
This is not a source of fear.
Then why don't you import Pakistanis?
Why don't you import Haitians?
Why don't you import Asians?
You'll get even more diversity.
But you will cease to be Israel.
Well, that's a discussion.
But, you know, in today's world, globalization, you would have people traveling and immigrating.
That's part of life.
I don't see how really...
Seriously, you can really stop it.
Then why is your immigration policy so restrictive?
Why is it only for Jews?
It's okay to have an immigration policy.
It depends where the limits are.
For instance, for refugees, for people who seek asylum, for people who are threatened, they have the right, like the most basic right, to have a refuge in a country, in a certain country, which is not theirs.
I believe so.
Well, but very few end up in Israel because Israel is concerned about its identity, and rightly so.
You may understand already that I don't agree fully with the positions of the Israeli government on that issue, so I'm not a good representative of the government, and I think we have a problem in Israel about that.
Anyway, you're here to interview me.
Yes, yes, yes.
Well, anyway, let me just repeat some of my questions on camera.
So I just repeat the questions.
You know what?
I don't have to answer?
Yeah, you don't have to.
You already did, just for...
Because we have only one camera, so that...
You know, I'm also...
I'm a politician.
I used to be a member of parliament in my country.
Is that right?
Well, two terms, yeah, for seven years.
Sort of the equivalent of senator in your country.
Left wing.
No, no, I'm...
It's called member of the Knesset.
Yeah, but is the Knesset unicameral?
Yes, only one chamber.
More legitimate to call it Congress.
Yeah, maybe.
Yeah, directly elected.
So, yeah, many questions.
I was asked the same all over again.
I know that you were asked this question before.
All right.
Very good.
▲
Export Selection