All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:04:59
From Dispossession to Instauration
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, this is Left, Right, and White.
I am Chris Roberts and I'm here of course with... Rairy Hood!
And this week... Getting into a good one this week.
Let's hope so.
We've both just had loads of coffee, so I hope you all have too.
This week we're going to talk about Wilmot Robertson, the founder of Instauration Magazine, and probably better known for his magnum opus, The Dispossessed Majority, and we're also going to talk about his later book, The Ethnostate.
Which is now a thing that people have heard of, which really wasn't true when he was writing it.
It's a phrase they throw around now, if only as a scare word, but it's the kind of thing most people have seen somewhere.
Yeah, Greg and I were just talking about this.
We believe that Wilmot Robertson was really the first American to start talking very seriously about an ethnostate for whites being carved out somewhere on the North American continent.
He wrote his book, The Ethnostate, in 1992.
And rest assured, it was not common parlance back then.
No.
And what's interesting to note about his book, The Ethnostate, is that it came out in 1992.
Before that, he'd written this book, The Dispossessed Majority, the first edition of which came out in 1973, but it had several updates into the 80s.
A lot of data in that book, too.
And I mean, that's what some of the updates were.
It's always population figures, demographics, just the hard numbers.
Absolutely, yeah.
The Dispossessed Majority is just, like, encyclopedic.
I mean, it is kind of like, you know, the Dissident Rights Encyclopedia Britannica.
It's like that, but for us it goes over so many facts and figures and a lot of just sort of, like, origin stories.
Like, if you want to know, you know, how Basques from the Iberian Peninsula ended up in Nevada, you know, you can read The Dispossessed Majority and he gets into the nitty-gritty of that.
The idea of racism and, like, how that even arose as a worldview.
Whether you consider it positive, negative, whether you like that term or not, but just
where these ideas even came from.
He has to be considered one of the foundational thinkers of the whole movement.
One of the reasons I wanted to do an episode on him is we'd already done one on Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried, and for me, Wilmot Robertson, along with Francis and Gottfried, are sort of like the trinity of influences for me.
I read The Dispossessed Majority while I was in college, and I was really just blown away by just how comprehensive the book is, just how thorough it is.
Yeah, and I went backwards.
I read the Ethnostate first, then the Dispossessed Majority, and only then did I start finding out about the magazine and everything else.
Okay.
Which is interesting, because Inspiration Magazine, which was published on a monthly basis from 1975 until 2000, was really, in a lot of ways, the original American Renaissance newsletter.
That's right.
even just like its format and its themes are really, Mr. Taylor clearly drew a lot from
Instauration before founding American Renaissance.
And Instauration Magazine filled this kind of void in American politics between kind of like
the end of mass resistance in the South and the end of like Dixiecrats
and segregationist politics in the 70s all of that got, you know, blown out of the water when that
battle was sort of definitively fought.
Or they switched sides, too.
I mean, like, you had an article on the website, a big feature about Strom Thurmond, about how opportunistic it was.
And you had a number of these figures, including George Wallace himself, famously, who just switched because politically expedient and kept his own power.
And so you had this ideological void.
You filled the void.
Absolutely.
Between the fall of the South at the end of the Civil Rights Movement and the rise of... I guess like the new right, the populist right of Buchananism.
Yeah, in the 1990s.
And with that, the popularization of IQ and welfare critiques from Charles Murray or Jay Philippe.
Yeah, where you're not basing it so much in Tradition, and you're not basing it so much in some sort of a romantic argument, let's say.
But it's, here's the data, here are the facts, here are the figures.
Like, look, these are problems we're going to have to deal with whether we like it or not.
So it's very dispassionate.
Yeah.
And even the psychological effects, and we'll get into that because he talks about that a little bit in The Ethnostate, is it's not sort of this fiery call to action.
It's more of a, look, this is how it is.
Yeah.
And if you put people in this kind of environment, any people, you're going to get bad things.
So it's pretty, it's not like Cray is like, ah, revolution everyone!
It's very, this is how it's gotta be.
Yeah.
Okay, so you've got your copy of The Dispossessed Majority cracked open here.
What are you itching to share with us?
Well, basically he said, this is like very early on, and he's talking about the idea of, now he takes the term racist and racism, which of course, you know, you don't use that word, but he just uses it and runs with it.
And he said, as far as can be ascertained, practically every society, people, or nation has passed through one or more racist cycles.
In spite of their endless internecine wars and political and economic rivalry, the ancient Greeks, according to H.A.L.
Fisher, quote, believe themselves to be one in race, language, and institutions, designating all foreigners as barbarians and generally treating them as such.
The massive Romans considered the Greeks corrupt weaklings.
Many Jews have clung to the idea of the chosen people even to this day.
Prototypal racist attitudes were exhibited by the Spanish conqueror and the American settler
toward the Indians and the Negroes. The traditionally hostile sentiments of the
Chinese toward the non-Chinese need no elaboration, nor does the white supremacy
once practiced by the French and British in their all but defunct empires."
And what he's trying to say is that what they called the American dilemma of race
was really more of a human dilemma.
This is something that has always been with us and that racism, and this is important especially now when you get into critical race theory, where they say, oh race was invented, you know, by some capitalist in a top hat one day to justify cutting workers wages or something.
It's like, no.
He was just sitting there at his desk pondering ways of rationalizing lowering wages and then Boom!
Right.
I suddenly noticed that, wow, there are physical differences between different groups of people.
Has anybody noticed that before?
I'll use that!
I'll bring that up and make more money.
It's just that simple, yeah.
And also these same people are leading the wave of mass immigration, because that's also racist somehow, but never mind.
That's a topic for another day.
He's saying that this is something, it's just a universal truth, and I think it's especially important that he distinguishes between, like, even when people are fighting wars against each other, even when you're slaughtering each other as the Greek city-states did, they still regarded themselves as part of a race, as part of a people.
And the people outside of that were somehow distinct in a way that even your mortal enemies weren't.
Yeah, well there's an African proverb that goes, me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins, me, my brother, and our cousins against the world.
I heard it was an Arab proverb, but the sentiment could be the same.
Well, the point is that it's universal, right?
And it's also very important that when he was writing this, this book, The Dispossessed Majority, was obviously written at a time where the question was, can America be saved?
Because the sort of movements that you had cropping up then were against the state.
Talked about a revolution against the established American order.
You did have something of a conservative pushback in the form of Nixon, who kind of clamped down on the New Left, at least its more violent elements.
And so, sort of writing in this context, Reagan was up and coming at this point.
And you had this idea that, alright, if we deal with this problem now, America can be saved as a de facto white nation.
Right.
And a lot of the facts and figures and the idea of the Northern European majority and everything else are in this book.
And what he talks about quite basically the entire book is why doesn't the majority have a sense of itself?
Like to him that was like the real American dilemma.
And I think that, you know, one of the things that he is still very relevant within the American conservative movement is he says that the political institutions, which so many people define America by, you know, this America is defined by an idea, or sometimes they'll say America is defined by institutions or the Constitution itself or something like that.
And he says, look, the highest refinement and expression of this political reflex was embodied in the activity and legislation of the British Parliament, which fostered a climate of political and economic stability unparalleled in history.
The comparatively stable social environment produced by such institutions was the basic precondition for Northern European leadership in government, art, science, industry, agriculture, and almost every other sector of human endeavor.
And then he goes on to say, this is what made America the preeminent world power.
But he says, but the irony was that by the time the United States had become the dominant force in world affairs, the American majority, capital M, the principal agent of American greatness, was no longer the dominant force in America.
And I think that really sums up What happened?
I mean, the moment where America really was the unipower, the post-World War II moment, was also the moment when Americans stopped running America, in some sense.
Or at least Americans had lost a sense of themselves and every time they justified a policy, it was no longer, this is good for us, but this is good because it's part of a global mission.
Or we have to do it to defeat the Soviet Union or whatever else.
There was no longer a sense of acting for ourselves in the world.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
Our international power really peaks simultaneously as our sense of domestic unity really starts to crumble.
And maybe that's how it always is.
Like in world history.
I mean, that could just be universal too.
I mean, the argument is that At the time, he talks very early on about why these things, this sense of race, for lack of a better word, comes up and it's usually because of an external threat.
I mean, you're defined by the other, right?
You're defined by the person coming against you.
And this is the argument why I think so many people are talking about white identity now.
I mean, nobody's raised this way.
God knows the schools don't teach this.
I mean maybe you're getting it in kind of a negative way now with critical race theory, but in schools 10-20 years ago certainly the line then was there's no such thing.
And we're just not going to talk about it beyond Martin Luther King was good and that kind of thing.
For most people race is kind of forced on them by others and that's what leads you to develop your own sense of identity and self and being part of something larger than yourself and maybe at the point when you have so much power you no longer need that you lose that sense and then decline from that point on is inevitable.
That's a really good way of putting it, actually.
Yeah, and Wilmot Robertson saw specifically for Instauration Magazine, he said from the get-go, the point of the magazine was educational.
The idea of the magazine was to teach whites to think of themselves as whites, and to realize and to understand that whites are under assault everywhere, which again is much the same mission of American Renaissance.
It's the same mission, yeah.
And it's the critical step.
The day we win is the day whites say we're white.
Yeah.
And you know, again, to re-quote that Sam Francis quote that's been paraphrased a million times, you know, they don't come after us because we're conservative or we're Christian or Republican or capitalist, it's because we're white.
Yeah.
If you don't believe me, you're going to keep getting that lesson in increasingly forceful terms over the next couple years, because we're not the ones telling you this.
It's the people in power who are telling you this, and the people in power who are telling your kids this, with critical race theory and everything else.
He simply was ahead of the game.
He saw where this was going a lot earlier than, I think...
Geez, even people like me, you know, would have been able to anticipate this.
I mean, I wouldn't have seen critical race theory coming even two years ago, but like, he's seeing this sort of thing going all the way back in the 70s.
Well, another important thing about Robertson was that he was always willing to say that
just the conservative kind of reaction or sort of counter-revolution or conservative
blowback just was not enough, was not going to do it, was not going to cut it against
the left.
That's why you didn't, I mean, that's why he started instauration and didn't just sign
on with, you know, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon or any of these things.
We want the Cold War, guys!
It's over!
Right, right, right.
He didn't want to just take these evasive sort of positions like, oh, well, this is
about states' rights or, you know, we're just against forced busing or affirmative action
It's just unfair to everyone.
Even mass resistance was in those terms a lot of times.
It wasn't like, oh, as whites, we don't want this.
It was, well, according to the authority of the county, you're not allowed to because whatever stupid legalism.
He's making the point like, look, well, he says this explicitly, no set of institutions will work for every single group of people.
The institutions grow out of the people.
The people don't grow out of the institutions.
And that's the rebuttal to Ben Shapiro's line about, oh, I don't care about the Browning of America.
I care about ideology.
It's like, well, the two go together, guy.
It's not.
And even if you do keep the existing institutions, they're not going to function the same way, and they're not going to be understood the same way.
Shapiro is so in his own bubble of the idea that everybody has their own ideology.
I mean, very few people could just say like, oh, this is my political ideology.
This is what I fundamentally, philosophically believe.
I mean, very few people even think about the world.
People are furiously drawing those grids right now to send in and put their exact spot.
We're going to get like 30 of these.
And sure.
I mean, you, you know, you and I think about these sorts of things and Shapiro and plenty of Shapiro's listeners think about these things.
Like Robertson would say, very few people have a political ideology, but everybody has a race.
A race is absolutely inescapable.
You can also change your mind about ideology, you can change your mind about most anything, but you cannot change your race with apologies to Rachel Dolezal and all that.
He gets into various critiques of the neocons and he gets into various other critiques of American institutional conservatism, but one thing we can use to kind of cut through all this, and this is especially relevant now, and it's incredible how prescient this is, The Great Awakening, which of course preceded Trump.
This started around 2014, driven by media coverage of Black Lives Matter, Mike Brown, hands up, don't shoot, which of course didn't happen, but it doesn't matter.
You know, most people will believe what powerful institutions in society tell them to believe, and what I mean by the Great Awakening is you had a dramatic shift in white liberals' attitudes about race, where you now have a bias against their own people, which you can find are the only group of any ideology and race that are like that.
You have a sudden change in attitudes about crime, sudden change in attitudes about immigration, and You now have a very strange situation and we've all seen the tapes of this where you have like a black cop trying to calm down some like screaming hysterical white liberal who is telling them that they're all baby killers and hate black people and the black cop is like, ah, like I'm black.
I'm pretty sure I don't hate myself.
And they're like, yes, you do.
Like you don't know what it is to be black.
Like I saw that on a video a couple of days ago.
But again, this is, and this was written what more than 50 years ago, give or take.
In spite of their savage overreaction to the slightest sign of serious conservatism on the American political horizon, most minorities are generally far more conservative, old style, than the majority. Minority whites may be liberals in the
voting booth, but they are often reactionaries in the living room.
They run their inner world according to rules and regulations they publicly decry in the outside world.
Now, of course, we've seen this too where you preach liberalism, but you practice conservatism in terms of
family, staying married, all that kind of stuff.
Their family life is authoritarian with the father still the powder familius and the children with home from college
still fial.
It is this fireside conservatism, this basically tribal psychology, which germinates the racism that has won so many minority victories in the ethnic scramble for power.
Modern conservatism, which lacks the racial drive of modern liberalism, has been and will continue to be of liberal help, to be of little help, in unifying the majority and rousing it to the high pitch of performance necessary to reverse its present decline.
Stronger medicine is required for those who are trapped in a racial conflagration that is getting out of hand, and who must fire with fire to avoid being consumed in the flames.
The only conservatism that can be useful to the majority in its present state of siege is a conservatism stripped of the dead weight of outmoded political dogma, one that appeals to the young as well as the old, to the heart as well as the pocketbook, to the powers of imagination as well as the powers of reason.
A conservatism, in short, Which vitalizes tradition and builds continuity as it concentrates on the care and feeding of the ethos.
And that's exactly where we need to be, because we're just having the same arguments over and over again, where we're saying, look, what is it that you're trying to conserve?
And ironically, the same people who keep telling us that conservatism is about, you know, saving these eternal values, these values which, as Paul Godfrey points out, seem to change every other issue of the National Review.
value of lowering capital gains. Right yeah at the end of the day that is the
only value that matters and even those people even the people who get their
capital gains tax lowered vote Democrat. They may live Republican but they don't
vote that way. At the end of the day if you say well what is it that you're
Unless you can say it's a people.
It's a concrete thing.
It's not some floating abstractions in the air.
It's this right here.
This concrete, tangible, literal flesh and blood thing.
Unless you're willing to say that, you're not even in the struggle.
You're just off following tangents wherever they go.
And you're just going to lose and lose and lose, and then you're going to keep going back, circling around to your donors and say, give us more money and this time, you know, we'll win with more t-shirts that say stop socialism or whatever.
I mean, when he says outmoded political dogma, I can't help but think of the fact that the conservative movement's message hasn't changed since the Reagan years.
They're still trying to sell the gipper to these people who weren't alive when he was alive.
It's not even when he was in office when he was alive, right?
Yeah, something that made a really big impression on me was when I was working for a mainstream
conservative group when Trump announced his candidacy.
And that summer of 2015, when suddenly, you know, I mean Trump announced, Trump announced
everybody thought, you know, this is a joke, this will go away.
And you started surging and surging and surging in the polls.
And I knew all of these people that I was working with at this right wing think tank
were all just like, man, these are just terrible people.
All of these supporters of Trump are just are just monsters.
And it was like, you really think that?
We knew that.
I guess we can both speak from experience.
I wouldn't say that it was near as universal among the people I knew.
Of course, maybe by that point I wasn't as insular in the conservative movement.
I wasn't dealing with any of that stuff.
But, you know, contrary to popular belief, I'm not actually on, like, the phone to the head of the RNC every day being like, listen, this is how it's gonna go.
Or am I?
Maybe.
But, you know, the thing that I was writing about for a long time was these people really do hate their base.
And I was drawing on some of the more Insular criticism, or some of the battles that people just don't know about.
You know, this guy getting cost a chair at this, like, non-profit because of, you know, some little campaign.
But pretty marginal stuff.
But with Trump, you really had a forthright declaration of war by Conservatism Inc.
against its own voters.
And it's a war that's still ongoing.
I mean, look at what Liz Cheney is doing right now, where just out of sheer self-interest, even guys like Kevin McCarthy are like, Can we just not talk about this?
We have elections coming up and she's like, no, these people need to be destroyed.
You know, we need to wage war against them the same way we wage war against Iraq.
I mean I guess the good news of course is that you know lose that one too.
Uh well I remember I worked with a I worked with a guy who's a very very devout evangelical and he
was always he's always kind of lowball preaching to me.
I remember him telling me, like, look, I kept it quiet that I was interested in the Trump phenomenon or sympathetic to it.
I was just trying to keep my head down and do my job.
And he gave me this big lecture, probably in like September of 2015.
About how all of these people who support Trump who claim to be Christians aren't, and that I should just not see those people as Christians.
Ah yes, the David French school of apologetics.
Right, and that only like, you know, good never-Trump Republicans like him are like the true Christians that I should think of.
You know, when I think of Christians I should think of people like him, and it's like...
See, these are the problems I don't have to deal with.
It's like, man, you know, you, you know, work for this institute, you know, that's at least, you know, purports to be defending, you know, all of these people, like, in the heartland, you know, in the Rocky Mountain West and the South, and they're all excited about this guy who's defending them and you're just going to sit here and be like, Yeah, well they're essentially paying my salary, but I don't even consider them Christians.
They're all going to burn in hell.
Right, because again, he's somebody who wants to advance outmoded political rhetoric about actually a people.
This is why talking about the dispossessed majority, I mean a lot of the faction figures, let's face it, are dated.
We could even get into it a little bit about whether the focus on Northern Europeans as such, which is particularly important when we talk about like the Anglo-Saxon controversy of a couple weeks ago.
I mean, shouldn't we be talking about like, well, it's actually Anglo-Saxon specifically, not Europeans or whatever else.
But in terms of conservatism, the arguments haven't changed.
It's still the same thing.
We're still having the same fight and these people haven't learned anything.
And they haven't, and the thing is that in their minds they haven't lost anything.
I think like, you know, because you do have to recall like what was the William F. Buckley conservative movement about?
It was not about defending the culture.
It wasn't even really about stopping socialism.
It was about defending the USSR specifically, or stopping the USSR specifically, and it did that.
And I think in their mind they still do have this kind of triumphal narrative where you had a bunch of guys running around not doing anything, then Buckley came, kicked out everybody who needed to be kicked out, and we've been marching from triumph to triumph ever since.
Yeah, although to believe in that you have to believe that, you know, the Soviet Union was defeated at least in part because of the magazine National Review, which is a very, very difficult case to make.
Maybe, but we are talking about people who To some extent, you know, people, what is the thing, where you stand is determined by where you sit, the old truth about bureaucratic politics.
I mean, if you are getting paid to work for a certain institution, you're going to believe that that institution is the thing that's holding the line between victory and defeat.
I have no doubt that a lot of people who work in the conservative movement get up every morning and say, like, I am literally the thing that's, I'm the thin blue line that's defending freedom or whatever it is, the thin gold line.
Basically, they still think that regardless of what happens.
To some extent, I think that being an American conservative means that you're still somehow in charge.
That you're still somehow in a right-of-center country.
That you still have a free market.
That the Constitution is still operating more or less how it's supposed to.
And we may lose a battle here and there, but the America of now is still the same America of Reagan or Eisenhower.
I think a lot of people still go along with that.
At least some of the older crowd.
I mean, if you disagree, I'd like to go at it.
I don't know if that's a sigh of, like, I can't believe these people.
Yeah, it's a sigh of I can't believe these people.
I do not disagree with you.
I wish you were more optimistic.
I was about to say that.
Yeah, I wish I could make this grand sort of counter-argument about why you're wrong about this, but you are really not.
Sort of refocus this at least somewhat.
Wilmot Robertson really was one of the first people You know, who was racially conscious, who was talking about all of these really profoundly, you know, kind of the low ceiling of conservatism, that this just wasn't going to appeal to that many people, that, you know, a lot of these arguments or, you know, a lot of these philosophical concepts, you know, about individualism or libertarianism are really pretty thin, cruel.
And that it's tied to a specific thing.
I mean, this one jumped out at me in regards to the trial, obviously the Derek Chauvin trial.
Now specifically, you know, depending on when you're listening to this, this is after he was found guilty of every charge.
This is the cop who's involved with the George Floyd thing.
But then this is also, when we're recording this, this is after a juror admitted.
And was seen in public wearing BLM material.
Well, before he was saying, oh, this isn't gonna, you know, make my view as a juror be biased or anything like that.
And obviously, this alone would count as a mistrial, but we're not gonna get that, most likely.
We'll see how this stands up.
But I quote from page 392, the more minority influence has been brought to bear on the American legal system, The more its breakdown is becoming apparent.
The English common law, which derived from Northern European folklore, functioned adequately, at times superbly, in the United States as long as the nation was dominated by people of English and Northern European descent.
When minorities became an important element in both the law-making and the law-breaking process, American law underwent a deep transformation.
The legal system, which used to be principally concerned with the intra-group relations of majority members, was now being forced to turn its attention to the inter-group
relations of increasing numbers of alien elements.
Theories of legal absolutism to the contrary, the law is not an abstract set of principles equally applicable to all
men, but an organic part of a people's culture with a style and
form uniquely its own.
That is why you cannot have a total demographic transformation and still have the
Constitution still work.
It doesn't matter if the Constitution is still legally in effect.
It's not going to be understood the same way.
It's not going to work the same way.
In Zimbabwe, the judges still put on robes and like silly wigs to pretend they're like British judges in London from like 1800.
Yeah, as they steal farm from white farmers.
But they're not English judges.
Like, their conception of the law is not the same.
And it almost doesn't matter what the law says.
I mean, we saw... Who was it?
Greg Gutfield?
Who said something along the lines of... Now, he may have been being sarcastic.
I don't want to say he was being cowardly.
He may have just been making a joke.
Or being slyly subversive, but he said, you know, he welcomed the guilty verdict because he didn't want his neighborhood to burn down.
And we do kind of have this sense now where, and journalists were openly writing about this, we needed this verdict because otherwise there was going to be violence.
Well, and they were saying that about the 2020 election even, like it would, you know, Trump needed to lose because if he won there would be riots.
Right.
They were even trying to make a law and order argument.
So if you like law and order, if you don't want crime to go up, vote Biden.
Yeah, let's see how that one's worked out with crime statistics over the last year.
I mean, you've done quite a bit of work on crime and it's just been skyrocketing.
It keeps going up.
Right.
And this is one of the other things that he talked about.
He said, if you look at why crime I mean he goes pretty far deep into including some territory that frankly is a bit unsavory and we don't want to talk about but just the relative scarcity of slave revolts and things like that and then he compares it to crime now and he basically says look
The bottom line is that the reason we have more violence is not because of conditions are so much worse for blacks now.
It's because there's no longer a group willing to push back.
Here's the line.
An undeniable cause of black violence has been the weakening of white resistance.
And that's basically what you see now with the breakdown of law and order in American cities.
And let's be clear here, the cops do not equal white.
In cities like Los Angeles, whites are kind of a minority.
And if you see the graduating class of the LAPD, it's almost entirely Hispanic.
But I think in some sense it's still sort of seen as sort of this white power structure or this Anglo-Saxon law code and therefore it can be defied and to do so is morally righteous.
We are already past the point where the law can be defended on its own terms.
And you even have conservatives, as you say.
Even conservatives are saying, look, we've got to give these people something, otherwise they're going to burn everything down.
In which case, well, why do we bother having a civil society?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We don't have laws at all.
And, you know, we've got to move on from this, but the answer, of course, is You get anarcho-tyranny, which is the law does get enforced, but only gets the law abiding.
Right.
Whereas other people are essentially exempt.
Yeah.
So, that's the situation we're in now.
One thing that I thought was especially interesting too, and again, one of the things that I think people who are In the movement, so to speak, talk about quite a bit.
We actually are kind of the, I effin love science crowd, but we actually like science, not like the religion of science, not like Reddit science, but like real science.
And one of the things people will always say is like, well, why didn't we ever go back to the moon?
Like, why can't we do all these things?
Why do things that we were able to do 60 years ago, we can't do now?
Even the Wall Street Journal just had a thing on The Eisenhower administration dealing with a pandemic, and they were actually able to turn around a vaccine more quickly than people were able to now, and there was more trust in institutions and everything else.
And part of it is just because, well, if half of your society is just spent trying to prop up people who can't support themselves, or a lot of it is people deliberately organizing against your society to try to win resources away, you can't accomplish great things.
And this is the thing that he was talking about, and I wrote on this in the feature this last week.
We forget, you know, before they tried the whole thing with hidden figures and saying blacks got us to the moon, at the time, that day, when Apollo 11 launched, the NAACP or whatever it was, was protesting it.
They did not want any part of it.
Most black newspapers were against it.
The definitive liberal minority line on the Apollo 11 mission was laid down in a rambling three-part dissertation in a mass-circulation magazine by the Jewish novelist Norman Mailer.
This was in Life, which is about as mainstream a magazine as you could get back then.
The author seemed to be saying that Neil Armstrong's epic flight was a wacky, wasteful, semi-Nazi adventure insulting to the aspirations of Negroes.
The Nazi taint presumably was due to the participation of German-born scientists in the space program.
Obviously Wernher von Braun.
A true hidden figure.
Yeah, a true hidden figure.
Actually, interestingly enough, there's some sort of weird alt-history of a different story of the space race.
And of course, in this better version, the evil Wernher von Braun gets pushed aside so heroic minorities can lead us there.
The Soviet Union actually gets there first because they're more egalitarian and all this kind of stuff.
I have no doubt that's the version that'll actually be taught in schools soon.
But again, we see this now.
Over this past weekend when we recorded this, that was when Elon Musk was hosting Saturday Night Live.
He's not a conservative.
He endorsed Andrew Yang for president.
His claim to fame is doing all this environmental stuff.
That's how he made his money.
Well, that's not how he made his money, but that's how he runs the thing now with Tesla.
But he has this idea of getting us to space, and you see a lot of journalists and people who shape opinions saying, no, we cannot do these things.
It is morally wrong to do this because people are poor, people are hungry, there's racial injustice.
And the exact same arguments were being made 50 years ago.
I mean, the logical conclusion is that we can never do anything Because there are ghettos.
And also that we need to keep importing more people to create ghettos.
Right, yeah, yeah.
All of this should be, you know, getting through that the things that he... Nothing has really changed fundamentally in terms of the argument since the 60s.
Really since the Civil Rights Movement.
It's just that conservatism has just been falling back to a new line of defense every couple years or so.
And things that were once unthinkable suddenly become things that even conservatives will defend or claim as having invented.
Well, you were joking on a podcast we did not terribly long ago that conservatives were soon going to be defending transgenderism.
And behold, it has come to pass.
I know!
We live in a stone-toss cartoon and I just want to leave.
We've got this Caitlyn Jenner thing being sympathetically interviewed by Sean Hannity.
I wonder what the boomers watching Hannity think about this.
I just want to grill conservatives.
Do you think somewhere out there some grandpa's like, you know, maybe I've made a wrong choice here.
But, I mean, again, it's not even... I mean, that's kind of a marginal thing compared to what we talk about, but it illustrates the point.
If you don't have anything concrete...
Ironically, the people who say, you know, we are defending eternal truths, if those truths are just abstractions, you're not defending anything concrete.
It has to be something real.
It has to be something that you can point to and be like, these are the specific things that we're going to defend.
And they have to be rooted in time and space.
Real time and space, as James Burnham would say.
Not just the realm of ideas.
I think that Robertson's most enduring contribution, though, has to be the ethnostate.
And it's important to understand where this came from compared to when the dispossessed majority was written, which is He wrote Dispossessed Majority 73 and so again it was okay we're going to retake America.
The ethnostate is very clearly it's all over and every group for itself it's time to bail out.
However, it should also be noted that he was writing this at The time of the USSR's dissolution and you had all these different peoples reclaiming their ethnic homelands and having independent nations including some that are fairly small in terms of population.
Estonia, Lithuania, countries like that.
The Baltic states which a lot of people may have argued once couldn't stand on their own but they can and they do.
Yeah.
And so he was writing saying Look, this is literally happening right now.
This may sound crazy, but just open a newspaper and this is what's happening.
Well, and he brought up that it was all peaceful, too.
That's another thing that they said.
There weren't these huge wars of separation.
There was nothing like the American Civil War or anything.
It just sort of dissolved.
How many people died in the separation between the Czechs and the Slovaks?
When people talk about secession, when people talk about independence movements, it doesn't have to be this bloody, fratricidal conflict.
It also doesn't even have to be the The breakup of India, where you had Pakistan and India, because that's one of those silent mass genocides you don't really hear much about, about how many people died during that.
But in Europe, here we have arguably one of the worst tyrannies that ever existed on Earth, and the captive nations, some places there were wars, yeah, Chechnya, etc.
But in what we would consider, I think, the more core European parts, They just split off.
And that was that.
Yeah, well, and even most of the Central Asian states broke off without any violence.
I mean, Chechnya is really the only kind of big exception, I guess, later with the conflict in Georgia.
And Ukraine.
But for all of the five stands, right, there was absolutely no problem with Kazakhstan, which is a very large piece of territory with plenty of oil and plenty of minerals as well.
Not a big deal.
It was just time for a divorce.
Yeah, national divorce.
And this is a concept that John Derbyshire and a few others have been talking about for... Actually, I've seen this along a lot of normal...
Mainstream blue check conservative types are saying time for a national divorce.
We can't live with these people Of course, they're referring to it in ideological terms.
Yeah, we can't deal with liberals and everything else, but you know if you actually Played this out.
It would the demographic breakdown very interesting I mean that would be an interesting question if you did have a split between liberals as conservatives, I think Liberals need white conservatives as a devil figure.
If they don't have them, I mean, I don't know if they can function.
Would they be able to have just governing these minorities without the hated figure to rally everyone around?
How do you keep a coalition of the fringes together, not just politically, but to like as a country?
That's a really interesting question.
I mean... Or would the Overton window just shift enough in sort of like, you know, the liberal remnant of the United States where, you know, people like Joe Biden would, you know, like Joe Biden would become The hated figure.
The head of the conservative party, whatever the equivalent of it would be.
Arguably, that's already taking place.
Certainly, if you're any of you listeners out there who are in the DSA, and I know there's a few of you, I can't imagine you're too thrilled with how Joe Biden is performing so far in terms of delivering on the great emancipatory promises.
Well, he starts this book, The Ethnostate, he says, the Earth peoples are being herded into an ideological pen
by advocates of globalism at the moment large unwieldy inaugurations like the Soviet
Union are disintegrating in the states and regions with older and
more authentic pedigrees.
So obviously, again, he's referring to the breakdown of the USSR,
which we should remember was around the time of the Persian Gulf War
and the famous invocation of George H.W. Bush.
Bush of a new world order which of course got all the the initial like conspiracy movement started.
I mean arguably I guess you could say John Birch but like what we think of today is the conspiracy movement the Alex Joneses and people like that and the idea of globalists literally trying to create one world government.
Yeah, I'm sorry to all of you listeners that you can't hear me just nodding my head vigorously.
This is like our seventh podcast and I still haven't broken the habit of actually verbally confirming that I agree with you.
It's because I'm right with everything.
If everyone would just shut up and listen to you, we wouldn't have any problems.
But I mean, to kick this one over to you, one thing that You might say it's a bit of a contradiction here is that, and we're seeing this now, and this is extremely relevant, the UK just had elections.
The Conservatives won territories that have been traditionally Labour since, I don't know, the Labour Party was a thing.
And yet you also still see an increasing push for Scottish independence again.
Yeah, they did well.
More breakaway movements and everything else.
But that's coming in the context of these guys want to stay within the European Union.
You're also seeing this with Ireland, too, where you still have, oh, we need to get the British out and everything else.
But, you know, we won't submit to London, but we'll submit to Brussels instead.
I would argue that this is a world of power blocks and empires that's forming.
This actually I think is a big split in the movement and count me as part of like the pro-empire block.
I don't think that a small state can survive on its own economically, culturally.
It has to be part of something larger and even these Baltic states are part of these like larger security arrangements and everything else.
If you have devolution If you mean true national independence it can't be along the line of like Scottish independence from the UK and then Scotland joins the EU.
Like that almost doesn't count.
Then you're just becoming a region of something else.
I mean I think what he's talking about here is something that's like an actually true independent country.
We are not tied down to any overarching structure.
Yeah, well, something he talks about a lot that I found particularly interesting was, like, there's this whole environmentalist perspective that he has on it where he brings up... The bio-region idea.
Yeah, that whatever ethnic state is formed is gonna have to be, you know, basically, like, ecologically sustainable.
Yeah.
He actually dives into, like, a lot of, like, leftist writings on this, like, Kirkpatrick sale, who's something of Yeah, he was one of the more influential guys when you had the Vermont secessionist movement, which for a while had a bit going for it.
And I think, you know, ultimately what we saw with these kind of, you still have it with kind of the Cascadia bio-region type argument and everything else.
The problem with left environmentalism and the idea of nationalism is it usually falls apart because the only people who tend to be interested in this type of thing tend to be white people.
Yeah.
And once you point that out, they immediately, you know, go into a purity spiral and the thing dissolves.
Yep.
I mean, Kirkpatrick Sale, I think, basically got excommunicated because he started, like, talking to the League of the South or something like that.
Yeah, and you gave a talk at the Abbeville Institute.
Yeah, which is kind of a defend states' rights, that type of thing.
And so that was enough.
You break away from the party line that little.
That doesn't take much.
Well, this is one of the joys of being on the right as opposed to being on the left.
Wilmot Robertson was allowed by his comrades and people who agreed with him.
We weren't mad at him for reading Kirkpatrick's Sail and citing him in the ethnostate.
He was allowed to explore all of these ideas.
We actually don't want rivers that are just full of oil.
Clean food is good.
Meanwhile, if you're writing on the left, leftists can never cite right-wingers because they get in such trouble from their compatriots, but rightists can cite from the left as much as they want.
It's just a much more flexible position to be in.
And Wilmot Robertson really took advantage of that, especially in his book The Ethno-State, because he even talks about the emerging anti-WTO movements.
Battle of Seattle and all that.
Now that seems like a million years ago, but...
I mean, I'm dating myself here, but I'm old enough to remember.
I've even got the book I was showing you before, though, with all the protest photos of all the anti-globalization protests and Comrade Subcomandante Marcos and all those guys.
The Zapatistas.
The Zapatistas, that's right.
And the original Battle of Seattle, which didn't involve attempts to start a little BLM commune in the middle of the city, but we're about trying to shut down trade negotiations and stuff.
And now that's basically a rightist thing.
I mean, you will be looked at askance in leftist circles.
Well, anti-globalism is now entirely a right-wing position.
Right.
And 20 years ago it was the opposite.
Yeah.
I mean, if you are against oligarchs Controlling your national economic policy.
You're on the right.
Yeah.
That's just how it is now.
And you can say like, oh, well, I'm still a socialist.
Oh, I'm this and that.
And it's like, OK, but what do you actually mean by that?
And then it quickly goes into the realm of fantasy and abstractions and everything else.
But if you say like, no, I literally want to break up this company or no, I literally want to nationalize this or, you know, run this on behalf of, you know, the nationalist regime, like you're on the right.
And even, you know, I don't know whether this is to his credit or condemnation but, you know, when Kevin Williamson writes these big brain essays like, oh Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are on the same team because they're both nationalists, I mean, he's right in the sense that
You know, Bernie Sanders once said stuff like this, but he doesn't anymore.
I mean, you've certainly seen this transformation with immigration.
It's one of the only things Bernie Sanders has actually flip-flopped on in his long, long political career.
It's also one of the only things that matters.
Everything else, like going back to the second whitest state in the Union in Vermont and telling him about how he's fighting for racial justice.
Very brave and very noble.
He's making the streets of Burlington finally safer for African Americans.
I can go outside in Burlington and not be like immediately murdered.
It's great.
Thanks to Uncle Bernie.
That's exactly right.
Well, the idea is that he's talking about devolution, which again, this kind of goes back to the old school conservative movement of power should be brought down to the lowest level possible.
I think Russell Kirk would have agreed with ideas like this.
Sure.
Maybe even Chesterton, people like that.
Absolutely.
But the question is, is it truly sustainable?
And if you get into the idea of an ethnostate and if you get into the idea of devolution, at what point do we draw the line?
Because if you say, okay, every nation should have its own political expression, its own state.
Let's take even the UK for example, and I'm not making this up, you know, not only do you have the independence movement for Scotland, but you've also got one for Wales, you've also got one for Cornwall, and now there's even one for Northumbria.
Really?
Yeah, because North England was the traditional labor homeland and therefore it has different interests and everything else.
Although I don't think labor did too well there.
They don't do too well anywhere anymore outside the major cities.
Yeah.
But, you know, you can take this pretty far.
I mean, I've seen like some groups in France where they're talking about, like, oh, Breton should break away and Alsace should break away and all these other things.
And you do have to ask yourself, like, well, Is the problem with the ethnostate idea just simply one of practicality?
Because once you break it down into, we can all agree, okay, Estonia is a nation and should be allowed to be free.
But does Spain have to be broken up into its component parts?
Because that's a debate that's happening right now with Catalonia.
And this is something that the EU has to deal with, because if you're going to let every single state be broken apart... I mean, at the end of the day, the fundamental structure of international politics is the nation-state.
And every national state was usually the creation of several component kingdoms or parts being welded together by force, usually a national army of some kind.
I mean, the nation is really a product of, for at that time, the left-wing romantic nationalist movements against, like, the empires and monarchies that controlled several nations.
So, I mean, if you look at, like, the 1848 revolution that tried to unite Germany, for example, that came from the left.
But now, if you said, okay, I want Germany to be united, when you said that after the end of the Cold War, like, that became the nationalist right-wing position.
And I'm not sure I'm fully persuaded by his argument here that we can just sort of opt out of these difficult choices by saying that everyone who wants to have their own nation can have their own nation because everyone's always going to want to have their own nation.
I'm with Robertson on this one, actually.
For me, call me naive, but honestly, for a lot of the, well, do you break Spain down to all of its historical regions?
I mean, in a lot of ways, the answer is, well, why don't you just have a referendum on it?
Why don't you just let people vote on it?
Of course, then you actually, if the separatists win the vote, you actually have to honor that.
Yeah, which has not always been the case.
One of the issues with these kind of referendums now, like what happened with the Quebec separatists in the 90s, they lost the vote because of immigration, basically.
Yeah, it was the leader, I can't recall his name at the moment, but the leader of the separatist movement that night said, we have lost because of money and the ethnic vote.
Yeah.
And was immediately blasted the next day.
But of course, the reason that ethnic vote even existed was because they had the bright idea because like, oh, we hate the English speakers so much.
We're going to import these Haitians who speak French because they're more authentically Quebecois than these English speakers.
And of course, you know, when it came time to vote, these people want nothing to do with you.
And this is what I would say is going on with Scotland and a lot of these other, and arguably Ireland even though it's an independent state, is you get this kind of like negative national identity where you have this one hated colonial thing that you're sort of allowed to denounce.
So you're allowed to denounce the English for example.
Yeah.
But then you give the country away to literally everybody else.
Yeah.
And so having an independent nation sort of, you know, what is Ireland today?
It's just another Yeah, sure.
Don't get me wrong.
I mean, I think a lot of the contemporary kind of separatist movements we see are...
It's just kind of just an exercise in almost rhetorical flourish.
It's just sort of there's a real self-Morrisism to a lot of it of just like, well, you know, we want to rebel against something, but we don't actually disagree with like the zeitgeist on anything.
Yeah.
And the same people are still going to be in charge.
I mean, it's not like you can't talk about what's happening in Scotland as like a nationalist uprising.
It's just like, we want these bureaucrats to run us, not these bureaucrats.
And, arguably, that's what's happening in a lot of other places, too.
Yeah, and this is not the kind of separatist movement that Robertson was talking about or endorsing, nor are these kind of separatist movements.
The Flemish!
They weren't even really happening.
Yeah, the Flemish might be an exception, though.
I mean, there are right-wing nationalists, separatist movements, and left-wing ones, and the right-wing ones, I think it's, you know, I'm certainly on board with them.
The Flemish movement in Belgium, the artificial, phony state of Belgium, which for some reason I have strong opinions about.
I was watching a stand-up comedian and he was joking about Belgium and he was like, who hates Belgium?
And I was like, I hate Belgium.
And you know, you also have this in the American context, of course, where people start talking about these various secessionist ideas where this region should break away or that region should break away.
And depending on which region and what the justification is, You might smile upon it or say no this is a bad idea.
Yeah.
I mean a lot of this really is a cover for ideology but again he's not talking about ideology and he says this very explicitly.
There needs to be the point of having a state of your own is that you can cultivate what makes your group unique and good and you know promote your own ideal of excellence.
It's not simply to just stick it to the other guys or to get the policies that you want.
It's not just like an election.
There is something deeper going on.
And that's where I think the real strength of The Ethnostate comes in, is that he talks about how There's a sense of unity that has been lost.
Throughout the West, individual and group identity is at risk because it is increasingly difficult for a citizen of a multiracial nation to feel he has much in common with a fellow citizen who, it is increasingly likely, may be of a different race and have emerged from an entirely different cultural background.
The more people differ racially and culturally within a country, the more difficult it becomes for members of these different races to believe they share a common peoplehood.
As a result, in a heterogeneous state, the basic psychological need of every human being, the firm sense of belonging, is in short supply.
And he talks about a word in German that kind of more common to Heimat, right?
I'm butchering the pronunciation here, but basically it's got a deeper sense of being tied to the land, to the nation, to the people.
And this is a place that is yours and as part of you.
Whereas for Americans, It's a bit more vague.
I mean, homeland is the closest we have, but that just doesn't have the same kind of poetic echo.
There's no place I can point to where I can say my ancestors lived here for a thousand years.
Right.
And maybe that's why for Americans, and you know him being an American too, we often see these things on racial grounds.
Because maybe that's our contribution to the global movement, is because we all ultimately face the same challenges, the same opponents, the same obstacles.
I would say at the end of the day, I have more in common with a white German, with a white Frenchman, with a white Englishman, than I do with a black American.
At least some black Americans.
Most probably, in terms of how they view the country and its history, certainly.
You know, like I'm sure there are black conservatives out there, or it's...
Our conception of certain things are basically the same, but probably not very many.
At least looking at voting patterns and who they regard to be heroes or villains.
Well, and I would also rather live in any white part of Europe than, like, any black part of the United States.
Right, and so do most liberals.
When Republicans win an election, they immediately say, I'm moving to Canada, or I'm moving to Scandinavia.
Nobody ever says, I'm moving to Mexico.
And he's... One of the things that Robertson is talking about here is he's saying, look, People need to have this, there's kind of a burden that's put on you living in diversity and I think this is true of people of all sorts, and everybody feels it, where they feel alienated.
from the surrounding society and when we see people who like shoot up their schools or we see people you know and there's no political motivation i'm talking about just like the oh he was mentally unstable or like oh so many more people are committing suicide and this and that and the other thing It's very hard to point to a single thing, but I think Marx was wrong in that alienation doesn't come from the economic process so much as it comes from the culture.
And if you don't feel like you have a stake in something, and increasingly you don't have a stake in the social or political order, then why should you care about it?
Why shouldn't you just try to opt out and screw everybody over to make as much money to guard yourself against it?
Yeah, I think the attitude of the increasing number of Americans.
Right, and what's really horrifying is that's what American conservatives now say is a good thing.
To be an American is to say there's no such thing as society and we should be totally on our own and we should be able to basically cut ourselves off from our fellow men.
But he's saying that's Different.
I mean, he's saying that he actually has a, almost a comparison to a sports team, where if you go into a game and every single game people were throwing things at you and booing and telling you how terrible you are, like you're not going to play very well.
To be a white person today in America, I mean, every morning you get up, I don't know how people who watch normal television do it.
I mean, I was like in a, you know, dentist office or something, and you'd see normal TV on, and they're just screaming about white people on what used to be the mainstream news.
So you got to ask yourself, well, what effect does this have on normal white people?
And when you see people breaking down, creating artificial, bizarre forms of identity, Coming up with these ludicrous explanations about why they're a victim or why they should be exempt from this thing or the other thing.
I mean, it's a response to psychological warfare.
Yeah.
And he saw this and called it for what it is and said the answer is liberation.
Right.
That's the point of an ethno-state.
Yeah, as much as it will also be nice to have sort of, you know, certain like political benefits like strong Second Amendment rights or strong gun rights, I guess is the case, would no longer be the Second Amendment in an ethno-state.
But really it is about that psychological, sociological component.
Yeah, and he says this is also what's going to cultivate excellence among each group.
If each group is thrown back upon its own resources and they're no longer under attack from within, from other groups, they'll be able to pursue the priorities they want.
They would prize things like intelligence.
You'll get a true meritocracy.
You're going to be able to pursue like great scientific ends or great cultural ends or whatever you're trying to do.
Again, he says, and this is a quote, and again this is something to really debate.
Separation and reduction into small-scale political units, not
accelerated coagulation into ever larger nations, empires, and spheres of interest should be the political
prescription for the future.
Whether that's possible or not, I don't know.
It is where we are though now.
I mean, I think if you said, okay, let's, you know, restart the Roman Empire or let's form some great Western brotherhood or whatever else.
I mean, that's a pretty tall order right now.
The best thing that I can say to do is, you know, tribe up with the people you have, create a group, create a network, and then start linking those nodes together.
And then maybe something will emerge out of that organically.
Ultimately, there's this concept floating around now, this idea of the civilization state, which I've argued should be sort of our ideal, what we want.
But, you know, that's, you asked me on one podcast, like, what's my ultimate goal?
Like, that's my ultimate goal.
Right.
But it may have to start out with, like, smaller movements just to get some kind of autonomy, just to get some sort of localism and some sort of freedom from the system that's, like, strangling us out.
I mean, I think that Why the ethnostate is worth reading is not to play like mind games of like oh we're gonna kick out this group or that group or one of these you know which are kind of like stupid and unseemly and that gradually devolve into like chess beating about like phony wars and stuff and it's just kind of
I don't know.
It's just not like a healthy thing to be thinking about.
What you really should be thinking about is how unhealthy the status quo is.
Yeah.
And how we can get out of that.
And how we can start doing that right now.
Right.
That's why the ethnostate is worth reading.
Not because like, oh we're gonna kick out these people we don't like and insert whatever group you don't like the most here.
It's more about what can we do.
It's about us, it's not about them.
Yeah, it's about us, it's not about them.
Right.
And this is the other, and you have to think about how Again, I'm just shocked, frankly, because I had read this before, but I reread it over the last week in preparation for this, and I was shocked at just how it almost predicts critical race theory, about how if you have this kind of society, no institution
It's not just that no institution will work, it's no institution can work.
So, the education system, for example, I mean, now we're at a point where they're eliminating advanced learning classes in the interest of equity.
So, like, we actually have to have... It's just criminal.
Right!
We have to have enforced stupidity.
And, you know, so a lot of parents are saying, okay, we're gonna do homeschooling.
And sure enough, you look out there and, well, we need to ban homeschooling.
Nothing can be good.
And we need to ban the family because the family gets some people on a higher footing than others.
Like we really, they are going there.
Like we really do need to be all at the same level of garbage basically.
Nothing can be good.
No one can be allowed to escape.
Everyone has to be stupid and everybody has to be trapped in the system.
I think of like the guy from the 60s, you know, the free speech movement.
You know, you have to throw your body against the wheels of this terrible machine to stop it.
He was doing that as a nightmare and that was like the left's like cry of rebellion.
Now that seems to be what they want.
But he's talking about education here and he says, look, The teachers and professors in an ethnostate infused with the same culture as their students will have much less trouble passing this culture on.
In multicultural, multiracial educational institutions, a great deal of instruction time is wasted watering down the curriculum and endlessly repeating the lessons to make them, quote, understandable to everyone.
Teachers must constantly be on guard against minority students taking offense at whatever might be taught or said in class.
When one people's hero is another people's devil, As so happens in multiracial classrooms, e.g.
Columbus, all heroes tend to be dethroned, except perhaps some historic figures who are less than heroic, but who are praised in order to heighten the self-esteem of minority students.
I mean, that's a pretty brutal analysis, but it's accurate.
It's a pretty good description of my high school, yeah.
Absolutely.
Well, we're hitting up against an hour here.
Unfortunately, for our listeners, most Wilmot Robertson's, I mean, not most, all of Wilmot Robertson's books are out of print and have been purged from Amazon, but you can find them on archive.org.
Which they're also trying to purge, but you can still get that now.
Yeah, and before that website is taken offline, you can use that to get at the dispossessed majority and the ethnostate.
But also, if you want to read some highlights from Inspiration Magazine, Peter Bradley over at Counter Currents has really some great essays, sort of giving good summaries and good overviews and greatest hits of Inspiration Magazine.
Yeah, and I would just close by saying that I think the ethnostate, that's oddly enough where to start even before the dispossessed majority because This is where we are.
We're no longer in a part where America as a whole can be reconquered or retaken or saved, however you want to put it.
We're at a point where we have to think of ourselves, whites need to think of themselves as whites.
Yeah.
You know, full stop.
But what does that look like?
What does that really mean?
What are we shooting for?
I'm not saying this book has the answers, but it raises the right questions.
And it's going to start the right debates.
And we have to start thinking about What this actually means and what we're trying to push towards.
What's our ultimate goal?
And you know, as you said, ultimately it's about us.
It's not about them.
So, I will end it with that.
▲
Export Selection