Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 24, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:31:43

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Interviews Jared Taylor

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, I'm Greg Johnson.
	Welcome to countercurrents radio.
	I am starting a new series of podcasts of live streams today called our cannon because I get many requests for lists of essential reading for race conscious white people and I've been drawing up a list.
	And I thought, well, I can do more than just drop a list.
	I can, where possible, interview some of the authors of these books.
	And one of the books that is at the top of my list is Jared Taylor's White Identity.
	So I'm having Jared come on today, and we're going to talk about 10 years of his book, White Identity.
	It came out almost exactly 10 years ago today.
	So, Jared, welcome to the show.
	Thank you very much.
	It's an honor to be invited by you.
	I wrote a review of White Identity in May of 2011, and I was thinking about the book in connection with drawing up a list of essential reading.
	And when I saw that I reviewed it almost exactly a decade ago, I thought, well, we need to begin this series with you.
	There's also a sort of special connection I have to the book because it was in February of 2019, we were both in Tallinn, Estonia, as I recall, and we got the news that White Identity and my book, The White Nationalist Manifesto, had been purged from Amazon.com.
	And as far as we know, they were the first two books to get purged, and then Amazon went and purged dozens, perhaps hundreds of other titles.
	After that, and I was kind of honored to be in your company, you know, get at the first wave of The Purge.
	And it is a book that belongs at the first wave of The Purge, to be perfectly honest.
	So, how did this book come about, first of all?
	What was the inspiration for it?
	And can you tell us how it was received, first of all, by the publishing industry?
	Well, I have to insist on a slight correction.
	I don't believe our books were necessarily the very first to be purged by Amazon.
	They had come under considerable pressure to withdraw a book in 2015.
	That was a pederast predator's guide, how to attract and bugger little boys.
	And at that time, they had said, no, no, no, we may not care for the contents of this book.
	But once we start banning books, that is a slippery slope on which we do not want to take even the first step.
	But then, not shortly after that, they did ban that book.
	But I believe that was perhaps their first.
	Then they went for some time still maintaining this idea that book burning is a bad thing.
	And then you and I were perhaps the initial part of the configuration.
	But I was honored to be in your company.
	In any case, the story of this book is, perhaps you're aware of a book that I wrote in 1992, or no, 1990, I suppose it was, called Paved with Good Intentions.
	It was really something of a neocon book, and it was criticized as such at the time by the great Sam Francis, but it tried to make the argument That despite all the howling about racism at that time, in those days it was racism.
	People had more or less not talked about white supremacy, which is de rigueur now.
	Systemic racism was only beginning to be discovered.
	And back in 1990, it was assumed that if society was racist, it required racist individuals, racist human beings, racist white people.
	Nowadays, the halls of Congress themselves emanate some sort of horrible miasma that causes blacks to fail, and we have to turn the country inside out to correct all of this stuff.
	But in any case, this is a book that pointed out when you compare Blacks and whites with equal qualifications and equal circumstances.
	The United States really treats them essentially indistinguishably.
	It was an attempt to show that this idea that racism causes failure is just does not hold up under any kind of close examination.
	And the book was was really quite popular.
	It was reviewed and all of the important places and It was, I'm proud to say, the number one choice for the Conservative Book of the Month Club.
	So those are the days when I was still somewhat respectable.
	Very shortly, I said goodbye to respectability when I started publishing American Renaissance.
	That was in 1990, but the book had come out just before that.
	Now, this book was something of a ten years on update.
	Of Paved with Good Intentions.
	Paved with Good Intentions went to great pains to explain that the problem with black failure is not white racism.
	But my editor at the time, a fellow named Kent Carroll, who was one of the founders of Carroll and Graft, my publisher, persuaded me that I had better not explain what the real problem is.
	The real problem that causes blacks to fail in so many ways is their own inherent limitations.
	And I suspect that, under the circumstances, Kent Carroll was right.
	Best not to talk about IQ.
	In a book that was, I hope, was going to change some people's minds.
	So this was something of a follow-on to Paved with Good Intentions, one in which I planned to take off the mask, so to speak, and I'm ashamed to admit that I wore something of a mask when I wrote Paved with Good Intentions.
	One example of this was, I wrote about the extent to which blacks in particular, and also to a less degree Hispanics and even Asians, make race the centerpiece of their identity.
	And they turn racial identification into a weapon.
	I suppose it was what we now call identity politics, but that phrase was not as popular then as it is now.
	And I said that if this continues, whites will forge racial weapons of their own.
	And I said this in more or less neutral terms that conventional conservatives could interpret as a warning of something that should not happen.
	Of course, even in 1990, I considered the idea of whites having some kind of racial consciousness, not a warning of something that might happen that I would be regretful about.
	Not only is it a good thing, it is a necessary thing if we are to survive as a people.
	But this was the kind of shading that meant that I'd always felt a little bit dishonest about Paved with Good Intentions.
	And in the preface that I wrote to it in about, I think it was the 10th year anniversary edition, I fessed up to the extent to which I had trimmed my sails in the face of the kind of criticism that I'd got from my publisher.
	But to answer your question about how the book was received initially by the publishing industry, I went back to my agent for Paved with Good Intentions, a fellow named Theron Raines, who had done a good job with Paved with Good Intentions, and I asked him to peddle a new book.
	And that was the book that eventually got the name of White Identity.
	Now, he spent two years trying to find a publisher, and he failed.
	And after he failed, I tried again with a different agent whose last name was Zach.
	And I've now forgotten his first name.
	I mentioned him in my acknowledgements.
	But he spent about a year and a half at it and it also failed.
	Now, I bring this up for two reasons.
	One, to explain that I wrote this book with a general audience in mind.
	I did not write it for people who I assumed already agreed with me.
	I tried to lay out the facts of race, of diversity, of the future of the United States, both cultural and demographic, in ways that people who do not agree with us would find persuasive and ultimately, I hoped, irrefutable.
	So that was the genesis of the book, to take, paved with good intentions, one step or two steps or perhaps three steps forward in an honest expression of my views, but with a general public in mind.
	Both of those literary agents failed.
	They were not able to find a commercial publisher.
	I should have saved the letters of rejection that we received, just the most contorted and crazy things.
	Now, it's always been my conviction that just as Carolyn Graff made pots and pots of money selling lots of copies of Paved with Good Intentions, I think that a brave publisher could have made a tremendous stink with white identity and made lots of money.
	But why did I not get Carroll and Graff to publish my second book?
	Kent Carroll was very frank about it.
	He said, look, we made a lot of money.
	We sold a lot of copies.
	But I can't tell you the amount of professional slack we got for publishing a dissident book.
	And of course, my second volume was considerably more dissident.
	So there you go.
	My book was unfit for commercial publication in the United States, but fortunately, as you know, we can now publish books without the help of some kind of mainstream publishing house.
	I think it's always better if you can.
	They have much more powerful distribution mechanisms than we do individually.
	But that is the story whereby White Identity eventually saw the light, as you say, 10 years ago.
	So, I guess the first question I have is, do you remember how many copies of Paved with Good Intentions were sold versus how many copies of White Identity eventually were sold?
	Paved with Good Intentions sold close to 100,000 copies.
	Now, it's difficult to keep track of the number of copies that were sold of White Identity, because we were selling some on Amazon, we were selling some here, we were selling some there.
	I just don't know.
	The numbers do not come close to 100,000.
	My guess is we sold several tens of thousands, but that's really a rough estimation.
	Back when When Amazon was selling our books, we sold quite a few electronically.
	We just did not keep numbers of them.
	I would say we were selling, oh, 30 or 40, 50 a week, both hard copy and the electronic.
	And that's after the initial substantial burst that was sold immediately after announcing the book.
	So it was selling quite well.
	Now, because of the Amazon ban, it doesn't sell nearly as well.
	But it is still available, as your viewers, I hope, will become aware.
	Yeah, and you can, viewers, listeners out there, you can actually find that book at amrun.com.
	So, I just put the banner up on the screen.
	You can follow Jared Taylor's work there and you can also buy his book.
	So, the first three chapters of White Identity, I think, are an absolutely crushing case for why diversity isn't a strength.
	Why racial integration, racial diversity, and cultural diversity just don't make a society better, which is this ridiculous dogma that has basically been imposed like a new civil religion in America.
	What are some of the essential arguments that you made in those chapters, if you recall?
	Yes, I remember.
	My approach was, because I was trying to overthrow an idea that seemed so widely accepted, I simply built up example after example after example of the fact that diversity does not work.
	As you point out, the idea that diversity is a strength or diversity is our greatest strength It's hard to think of a statement that's not explicitly religious, which is on the face of it just absurd.
	Just the slightest investigation into the facts will show you that that's not true.
	But as you know, that's now essentially a religious statement for us to insist that diversity, despite all of the conflicts it produces, all of the tension, All of the horror, ultimately, that results from diversity, for us to say, piously, and pretend to believe that diversity is a strength, this is an obligatory statement for anyone who wishes to be considered a respectable human being in the United States today.
	It's just an astonishing state of affairs, to the point where I sometimes wonder, and I mention some of these military people in some of those chapters, the people who tell us that the United States Army, its greatest strength is its diversity.
	Do they truly believe that because they've got Mexicans and perhaps black women, and because they have people from all around the world and Muslims with beards fighting in the ranks, that this somehow makes them a better army than the people who landed at Iwo Jima or the armies that faced each other at Gettysburg?
	Or for heaven's sake, the armies that faced each other on the Eastern Front, were all of those armies in the past full of miserable wimps because they were all white men?
	Were the Japanese just miserable wimps because they were all Japanese?
	No, the idea that our military gets its strength from its diversity, that's its main strength, rather than its technological armaments.
	And perhaps there's a certain amount of good training that goes into it.
	I think the United States military today, to the extent that it is dominant, is almost exclusively technological.
	The kind of silly brainwashing we have about how women are going to be just as great in the trenches, and there's going to be special forces operations, that you can have people from all races, transsexuals and whatever it is, and they're all just going to get along great, no problem with the esprit de corps, When you have the squad tart squealing happily at night in the tent next to yours.
	This stuff is just such utter, utter foolishness.
	To the extent that we do have an effective military, I think it's thanks to technology.
	But do these people genuinely believe?
	Do they truly, honestly, in their bones believe that diversity is such a strength for our military?
	I just find it difficult to think that people can believe such utter and preposterous foolishness.
	So yes, that was how the book begins.
	The book begins with what are very, very, I think, easy and obvious targets.
	This compulsion that so many Americans have.
	To pronounce this silly mantra of diversity being America's greatest strength.
	And of course the idea that somehow America was just this weakling, piddling country back when whites were 90% of the population.
	Is that really what we're supposed to believe?
	No.
	As I say, it's such an easy target that I almost felt bad about training so much heavy artillery on it.
	But I do believe that as a result, I utterly pulverized that idea.
	I absolutely agree with that.
	I remember you came to Clemson University sometime, I think it was 2006 or 2007, and gave a talk on diversity.
	It was interesting to watch the audience because I could tell that a lot of the kids there, the college kids, had never been exposed to any kind of critical thinking whatsoever, much less critical thinking directed at the central social dogma of our times.
	There was a lot of discomfort in that room.
	And honestly, the audience was probably more likely to be sympathetic to you than, say, a New York City audience.
	Or a Los Angeles audience.
	But still, there was a lot of squirming in that room.
	And I thought that was really healthy.
	People can go to four years, six years, eight years of college, and never be exposed to critical thinking.
	In fact, today, when you talk about critical thinking in the curriculum, practically everyone, especially people in the soft sciences, the soft disciplines of humanities, say, we all teach critical thinking.
	And by critical thinking, they mean liberal dogma.
	That they will not allow any criticisms to be entertained of.
	It's quite remarkable.
	The fourth chapter, I thought, was the heart of the book.
	That is on why diversity is not a strength.
	Because you really successfully show that, yeah, it's not working out the way it was planned.
	The idea that, for instance, the United States Army was better suited to fight in Iraq if it had more Muslims in its ranks.
	That kind of insanity obviously isn't true.
	So what is the explanation for that?
	And I was especially impressed, and it really influenced my own writing, In my manifesto, in my White Identity Politics book, to give pride of place to the work of Philippe Rushton, and specifically his work on genetic similarity theory.
	So, could you talk a bit about the core argument of that chapter, and why it's so important?
	It's interesting that you bring that up because I've always thought that the fourth chapter, which is a gathering of scientific findings on the way we as human beings react to primarily racial differences, but any kind of physical difference or even a cultural difference.
	The level, the deep level in the brain at which we process biological differences between human beings.
	This is a very, very important thing.
	And when you get people who study this, who will show, for example, people pictures of people of different races and gauge what's going on in the amygdala, for example.
	The amygdala is a small part of the brain which reacts to stressful situations.
	If a tiger were to leap through the window of where you are now, your amygdala would start firing and setting off signals like nobody's business.
	Well, the amygdala lights up when we see faces of people of different races, because we cannot help having a sense that we are in the presence of a stranger, and a potentially dangerous stranger.
	This kind of thing.
	Also, something called the fusiform region of the brain.
	This is a region that comes into play when we make expert distinctions between things.
	That is to say, a bird watcher who understands birds, when he is looking at different birds and telling them apart, his fusiform region is highly active.
	Well, when we look at faces of people of the same race as ourselves, our fusiform region is working because we are making fine distinctions between people of the same race, but whose features may be slightly different.
	When we're looking at people of a different race, our fusiform region is much less active because we don't have this expert ability to separate out Asian faces, for example.
	or black faces. Whereas because we are familiar with our own faces, with the
	people that we have grown up with, we are much better attuned to find to finding
	the important distinctions between them. There's something called the other race
	effect. We are much better able to remember the faces of strangers if they
	are of our own race.
	Even toddlers, you can tell that they can distinguish between people of different races by the way they react, whether it's a fair reaction or a friendly reaction or a sign of interest.
	When do you show them photographs of people of their own race
	or of different races?
	Now, I suppose you could argue that if you were to raise a white child in an all black environment,
	then his fusiform region would be attuned to black faces.
	And that way, white people would be something of a blur to him.
	And he'd be more accustomed to looking at black faces rather than white faces.
	However, unless you are completely to mix up the world in which we grow up, we are naturally attuned to a kind of familiarity and instinctive affection for people who show the same physical characteristics as ourselves.
	I remember another study that I quote, and I quote a lot of them in that chapter.
	And that is one in which if you take a silhouette of human beings and you remove the hair and all you have is a black silhouette and you show these silhouettes very quickly to people, they are better able to distinguish race than they are to distinguish sex.
	And remember, these are just pure black silhouettes.
	Obviously, for human beings, it's very important to be able to distinguish male from female.
	But our eyes, our eyes and even our subconscious brain, because these are shown very, very
	rapidly, we are better able to distinguish race than even we are to distinguish sex.
	So this consciousness of race and human differences is very, very deeply built into our human consciousness.
	And one of the things I think that is a strength about that chapter is the number of researchers in the field Who I quoted, who made this point, who said, look, it's all very well to say that we are taught to hate.
	Like that song from South Pacific, you've got to talk to be hate.
	Well, you've got to be taught to hate.
	Well, it's not a question of hating.
	It's a question of distinguishing.
	Of drawing some kind of important and very important fundamental distinction between our people and people who are not our people.
	All of this is very based to human beings.
	And it's interesting that you should single this chapter out.
	And I salute you for this because I think of all the things I pulled together, that chapter was the least obvious.
	When you're talking about examples of the failure of diversity or the natural tendency people have to segregate, the news is full of these stories.
	But you have to go digging to find the research that just that shows just how deeply biologically based this behavior is.
	And as I say, I was proud of that chapter.
	And I salute your perspicacity and having fastened on it as what I think is really, in some respects, the major contribution of that book.
	I agree.
	I think that it is a very important contribution.
	One thing that I liked about Rushton's work is that he shows that pro-social virtues, behavior patterns, are correlated with genetic similarity.
	And the best example of that is when you're around identical twins.
	And they're not They're not just similar, they're identical, genetically.
	And you find that they can complete one another's sentences, that they have similar tastes, even raised apart in radically different environments.
	They see the world very similarly, they react very similarly.
	They are a paradigm case of harmony between people.
	Genetic identity produces the maximum genetic or interpersonal harmony between people.
	Well, when you look at the happiest societies in Europe, the ones that have the highest well-being in a lot of objective categories, there are places like Denmark and Iceland.
	Those are the most genetically homogeneous societies in Europe as well.
	And so, you don't even have to talk in terms of the large racial categories.
	It's more fine-grained even than the races.
	The difference between an identical twin and a normal Brother or sister will lead to predictable differences in how they behave with one another.
	Your relationship to your immediate siblings is going to be closer than to cousins, just because of genetic similarity.
	And if you understand the importance of creating harmony in society, then the most harmonious society possible would be a society where there's very little genetic diversity at all.
	That basically refutes the idea that diversity is a strength.
	Right then and there, it's just cut off at the root.
	Yes, and one of the points that Rushden makes, of course, is the way that the happiest couples are those who marry people who are similar to themselves.
	I remember my grandmother saying to me, this was long before I was ever married, she said, you should marry someone whom, if people were to meet, they might mistake that person for your sister.
	In other words, someone whose tastes, whose appearance is very, very similar to yours.
	I think that was wise advice.
	How many people are advised that these days?
	But yes, people like being around people like themselves.
	And I remember there's another study that I quote at some point in White Identity in which it's found that not only do people prefer to be on a work site, have colleagues who are the same race, but they also prefer those who are the same sex, about the same age, same level of education.
	People prefer similarity.
	And of course, it's not difficult to imagine why.
	If you have something that you have to undertake, something that you have to work together on as a team, You don't always want to be having to explain things to each other, to have misunderstandings, to see things differently.
	As you say, this all, when you think about it, is really rather obvious.
	But yes, Phil Rushton, in his explication of RK theory, I thought that was a profoundly valuable contribution to understanding of race differences.
	That's not necessarily a topic we need to get into.
	But he had enormous contributions to make about the science of why this idea of diversity is just such poppycock.
	In my family, the bit of folk wisdom about marriage was that one should marry somebody who isn't your cousin but could pass for your cousin, which is the same basic idea.
	The greater the genetic similarity, the greater a chance of a good match.
	And there's a lot of truth to that.
	And yeah, people are not told that today.
	In fact, miscegenation is preached.
	I remember a lecture that Rushton gave where he refuted the idea that opposites attract.
	That's a cliché that floats around.
	One of the most amusing parts was where he showed slides from some newspaper column or something like that about people who look like their pets.
	And there's just slide after slide of Person and dog.
	And it was clear that people were choosing not just mates and friends and colleagues, but also dogs that even resembled them on some level, which I thought was extremely interesting.
	And the evidence that he showed that people have some ability to Assort themselves with people, or be attracted to people, have affinities with people who have similarities that they can't even be consciously aware of, I thought was really remarkable.
	And that is so interesting.
	At root, what we have to talk about is what we're comfortable with.
	When you talk about the amygdala, the amygdala reacts when you see people who are different from you.
	That manifests itself in a feeling of unease.
	You're not comfortable with these people.
	And I don't see any reason why white people simply can't say, I'm just not comfortable with this situation.
	Because everybody can relate to it on that level.
	I'm not comfortable with this situation.
	That's a manifestation of that deep biological drive to be around people who are like you.
	And of course, it's perfectly fine for people of other races to express that.
	The way I sometimes put it is, what do you call a black person who listens to Motown music, collects African art, and likes being around other black people?
	A black person.
	What do you call a white person who listens to classical music, who goes to the opera, who likes Shakespeare and likes being around white people?
	A white supremacist.
	It's a very simple matter.
	This kind of expression of the most obvious, normal, healthy preference for one's own kind, that's acceptable.
	So long as you're not white.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The next part of the book is a series of chapters on racial consciousness.
	There's a chapter on black racial consciousness, a chapter on Hispanic racial consciousness, and a chapter on Asian consciousness.
	And I thought these were really masterful at demonstrating that even though a lot of white people, including people who are sort of normie conservative types, Even though a lot of white people would like to become colorblind.
	This was when being anti-racist or non-racist meant being colorblind.
	We don't see race.
	We don't think of ourselves as being part of a race.
	We think of ourselves as individuals, as citizens of the world, and we treat everybody else as an individual.
	We have to treat them fairly, etc.
	The trouble with that form of race-blind universalism and individualism is that it's not reciprocated by other groups.
	Right.
	Can you say a bit about your findings in that area?
	I thought that was really quite remarkable.
	Well, it's something that I call a unilateral disarmament.
	The United States in the 1950s, 1960s, the idea was, as you say, to create a world or at least a country, a United States in which race could be made not to matter.
	We were all to be individuals.
	All of us were to be loyal Americans and just set aside this destructive racial form of solidarity that divides us into warring camps.
	The remarkable thing is the extent to which white people Did this.
	Certainly tried to do it.
	And I think if others had done the same kind of work at this, it's perhaps possible that the United States could have built a multiracial, polyglot, mishmash of a country.
	I would not have wanted that to succeed.
	But if racial consciousness had been obliterated among non-whites, the extent that it was obliterated among whites, Something along the lines of that vision, and it's a vision that still pertains among goofy conservatives today who say we can all become American, just got to get rid of this identity politics that these people are being stuffed full of.
	That was the idea of America.
	As you point out, the whole idea was to be colorblind.
	Now, of course, if white people are colorblind, then somehow they are white supremacists despite themselves.
	All of this has been turned on its head.
	The idea of building a country in which race can be made not to matter.
	No, no, no.
	Race will always matter.
	And race matters in ways that white people better not forget.
	And of course, you're familiar with all this critical race theory.
	This was before all of this came out after white identity.
	This was not a target that was even available for me to attack at the time.
	And I couldn't imagine such things actually cropping up.
	The idea somehow that white silence is violence.
	That by saying nothing, we are committing violence against Black people and American Indians.
	We must have superpowers for that to be capable.
	While you're asleep, Mr. Johnson, you are committing violence against Black people because you're being silent.
	No, this utterly cuckoo, cuckoo stuff.
	That is now prevailing.
	But yes, at the time, the 1950s, the 1960s, through the 1970s, although I think by the 70s and the 80s, the rise of black power movement, the idea that blacks were never going to just settle down and try to become honorary white people the way we had hoped that the noble Negro would back in the 60s, this was beginning to fade.
	But the original idea was, yes, we can overcome our differences, all hold hands, and we really were going to sing Kumbaya and build one America together.
	And it was a dream that I believe inspired many well-meaning Americans.
	And I think even residually, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it is an image of America that still inspires a certain number of white people.
	Transformation of white American racial consciousness is a remarkable thing, and you have two chapters in there where you talk about race consciousness in America before we drank the Kool-Aid.
	And I found that to be really quite remarkable.
	It was quite encouraging, frankly, because it indicated that within the United States, within our own history, within our own political traditions, within the lifetime of many people who are alive today, we had much more sensible attitudes about this.
	And I think that the change has been so rapid and so remarkable That demands explanation, but beyond that, the fact that it was possible for so many Americans to be sensible is grounds for hope, I think.
	There's a lot that we can build on.
	We have our own tradition of race realism and common sense in America that needs to come back.
	Yes, you're absolutely right.
	People like you and me, we are faithful to the original vision of the United States.
	The founders would find us entirely congenial in our views of race.
	Even someone like Dwight Eisenhower would find you and me entirely congenial.
	You have to get up until about John Kennedy, and I suspect after a couple of whiskies, he would find us congenial.
	All throughout history, white Americans took it for granted that their country was going to be an outpost of Europe forever.
	Now we did have a few American Indians, we did have a few blacks, but ultimately this was a white man's country.
	It was going to be a European civilization with a European culture and that was that.
	The idea that somehow we were going to set in motion these demographic changes to reduce whites to a minority and The idea that whites would be considered somehow the source of everything wrong with America, rather than the source of everything great and good about America.
	This would have been inconceivable to every American living, I think, up until certainly 30, 40 years ago.
	Just utterly inconceivable.
	And so, yes, on the one hand, it is encouraging to say, yes, we do have a tradition of healthy, sensible thought about race, of taking for granted what makes, what are the ingredients of a healthy America.
	And yet it's also discouraging to think that, well, yes, we had presidents of the United States, we had presidents of Harvard, we had the most, the best respected columnists, all saying sensible things about race, and yet all that good sense slipped away.
	That is a discouraging thing in itself, but as you say, and I certainly point this out when I'm accused of being a Nazi, for heaven's sake, that's the typical ignoramus reaction to someone who does not go along with all the contemporary foolishness.
	Say, no, no, no, I'm not a Nazi.
	I'm a Washingtonian.
	I'm a Jeffersonian.
	I'm a follower of Abraham Lincoln, for heaven's sake.
	No, no, no, no.
	I've got nothing to do with those people out there in Central Europe.
	As you say, we have a very healthy and sensible tradition, and that is the tradition that we must rehabilitate.
	I was asked about this once by a guy at an airport, actually.
	This was a couple years ago.
	I was coming back to the United States from a trip to actually attend American Renaissance, it turns out, and a friend and I were stopped and I was questioned.
	The Border Patrol guy.
	I shouldn't have been so talkative, but I just thought I'll get out of here very quickly.
	But anyway, he asked, so...
	What do you advocate?
	And I said, I don't advocate anything that hasn't been legal at some point in the history of the United States.
	As some, you know, including things that have been legal within our own lifetimes.
	And I think that's a very good way of putting it.
	We don't have to If we reach for anything too terribly exotic, we can look back at our own traditions and our own policies.
	Policies such as the repatriation of Mexicans that took place in the 1930s and 1950s.
	Of course, if you fall back on things that have been legal in our history, the one that the other side will of course pounce on is probably slavery.
	This is true.
	That's one that I don't think any of us would wish to hang our hats on.
	In fact, I remember being so amused the first time I saw that bumper sticker in the South that said, if we'd known then what we know now, we'd have picked the cotton ourselves.
	Bringing blacks, no matter what the circumstances of the United States, was a terrible, terrible mistake.
	And it was an immorality to go out and enslave people and bring them here.
	But, no, you're absolutely right to say that.
	What we stand for is an America that's not that distant in the past, and it's an America that lasted for a whole lot longer than this twisted, suicidal version of America is going to last.
	I can say that, I think, with complete confidence.
	Absolutely.
	One thing I liked about the use of genetic similarity theory is that it doesn't really require making any invidious distinctions between different racial groups.
	It just talks about how pro-social attitudes and virtues, social harmony, is rooted in genetic similarity.
	However, We can't just stop there.
	And that's a question that I would like to talk to you about.
	We can't just talk about differences.
	And the reason why we can't talk about differences and just say we're all different, let's just leave it at that, is because white people in America are under indictment because different groups Don't flourish in America because blacks are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in boardrooms.
	We are blamed for that.
	We are indicted for that.
	This is attributed to our ill will.
	This is attributed to our policies, our attitudes, even our unconscious attitudes.
	And therefore we have to reach for an alternative hypothesis.
	to explain this in terms of biological diversity.
	Yes.
	Could we talk a bit about that?
	Well, certainly.
	One of the major thrusts of American Renaissance, since I started it over 30 years ago, has been to point out not only are there biological differences, but when you look into them closely, you find differences both in intelligence and temperament that explain the different levels of achievement of the different races.
	This is a fundamental biological phenomenon that we ignore at our peril.
	And the other, but I'll get back to the first in just a moment, the other, to me, crucial element of racial thinking that's lacking in the United States today is the idea that white racial consciousness is a legitimate, normal, healthy, and even necessary sentiment.
	It's these two things, a recognition that not only are there differences, but there are differences that explain differences in outcome.
	And then the legitimacy of whites to wish to preserve their own peoplehood, their own culture, their own way of life, Their own continuity as a biologically distinct, culturally distinct phenomenon.
	But yes, the question of why do blacks fail in the United States?
	To me, the absolute libido with which so many Americans wish to blame themselves is, to me, one of the great riddles of history.
	Not just of our time, but of all of history.
	I don't think any people has ever, without the slightest grounds for it, accepted blame for the failures of a different and competing people.
	This has never happened before.
	Why have white people fallen for this?
	I know it is true that when white people talk about the wickedness of whites, they are, whether consciously or unconsciously, exempting themselves.
	They're saying, ooh, that white rabble out there.
	Not me and my friends, but that white rabble.
	They mistreat blacks.
	They're bad.
	They're part of the problem.
	And yet, as you know, The great gurus of anti-racism today say that no, no, no, even if you think you're being good to black people, without even realizing it, you're oppressing them.
	So this is a kind of indictment for all white people from which there's no escape.
	Gregory Hood describes it as a church with no salvation.
	All white people are guilty, but there's no expiation.
	There is nothing that we can do ever to cleanse ourselves of this original sin of racism.
	Apparently, According to people like Robin DiAngelo and maybe Ibram Kendi, who all know better than we do what goes on about race in the United States and what goes on in our hearts, in fact.
	The best we can do is be actively anti-racist, but we can never be non-racist.
	That is out of our reach.
	And it is what they call a lifelong journey.
	I love that.
	We're supposed to be on a journey.
	This wonderful journey to overcome our nature and to destroy whiteness.
	Throttle it at every opportunity.
	Now, how is it that white people have been tricked into thinking such things about themselves?
	This goes against all of the natural tendencies of human beings.
	And to me, I mean, when pressed, I could come up with three, four, five, maybe half a dozen different partial explanations for this.
	But none is to me satisfying.
	This is a terrible and perhaps, if it's not cured, ultimately a suicidal mystery to me.
	Yeah, one aspect of this cult of white guilt is its extreme grandiosity.
	The idea that we are responsible for the failures of other people.
	Yes.
	Basically, it's a strange form of patting ourselves on the back.
	Because in the end, we're the only people who matter in history.
	Yes.
	The old form of white supremacism, colonialism, the white man's burden, That had the idea that we were going to go and uplift the entire world and basically make them all live like us, and that was a noble mission.
	They've switched the valences to some extent, but the underlying grandiosity Of these people who think that we're the only people in the world who matter for ill now.
	It's the same.
	It's grotesque.
	And it should be insulting to every other group on the planet that we take credit for all their failures.
	That's right.
	There are some blacks who actually react in that way.
	They say, wait a minute, are we marionettes?
	Just because you think some sort of fleetingly malevolent thought about us, that just reduces us to crime and illegitimacy and drug taking?
	Who do you think you are?
	Now, I wish more black people reacted that way, but by and large, they seem to, they jump right on this idea because they realize that it puts Whitey on the hop.
	All you've got to say is, look, you people, it's all your fault.
	Look what you've done.
	And then you get corporations shelling out billions of dollars after their stores have been looted in the name of black lives.
	You have Joe Biden saying that he's going to make the centerpiece of his presidency, rooting out systemic racism.
	You certainly don't have many Black people saying, hold on, white man, you don't have half the power you think you do.
	And it's back to what I said earlier about this idea of Black silence is violence.
	We would have to have superpowers.
	We would have to have mental telepathic powers of an extraordinary extent for our mere silence.
	to be conducting physical violence against blacks or any other group.
	But yes, you're absolutely right.
	It is a kind of white supremacy stood on its head.
	And I don't again, where this comes from, where this comes from, why it appeals to something that seems to be deep in the white man's mind.
	There are many mysteries here.
	But Michael Woodley, he's a brilliant scientist, lives in Britain.
	I'm sure you've read some of his papers, some of his scientific papers about racial differences and the assessment of racial differences and all kinds.
	But he says white people love to feel good about themselves.
	By feeling bad about being white.
	There's some kind of twistedness about white people wanting to take on all of the sins of the world.
	And as you say, taking responsibility for the failures of every other human being that's not white past, present, future.
	It's an extraordinary thing.
	And again, I think that this is something that is utterly without precedent in the history of the world.
	No group of humans has ever behaved this way that I know.
	One thing that causes a bit of eye-rolling, and I think is misrepresented about your work, is your constant references to the high IQs, high educational achievements, low criminality, and high incomes of Asians in America.
	And I would just like to ask, why do you think that's relevant in refuting the claim that America is a white supremacist society or that IQ tests are white supremacist contraptions that are just designed to make people of color feel bad or something like that?
	Why are Asian achievements important to cite?
	Well, for the very reason you point out, if this were a rigorously white supremacist society, how would it be that Filipino-Americans or Indian-Americans or even Bangladeshi-Americans, on average, would earn more than white Americans?
	How could that possibly be?
	And when we describe the United States as a society in which everything is rigged in favor of whites, IQ tests, SAT tests, all the ways people get to the top, how come Asians do so well?
	It seems clear to me that all of these sorting mechanisms of the United States are put-a-dog-on fair, put-a-dog-on objective.
	And for that reason, Asians succeed.
	They do better on IQ tests, not because IQ tests have been maliciously rigged by whites so that blacks get bad scores.
	They've been rigged as fairly and as race and cultural neutrally as possible, and if Asians score an average of 103, 105, as opposed to an average of 100 for whites, it's because they're smarter.
	Now, do I take pleasure in this?
	No, I don't, but it's an objective, established fact, and I think it's useful to bring it out when Over and over and over, we are accused of having set up a society that privileges white people.
	That's obviously patently not the case.
	And so whenever we are told that in the medical field, for example, and this has come to the fore because of COVID, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately more likely to get COVID and die from it.
	We're told over and over that, oh, the American health system is just so viciously white supremacist, and we get statistics on the shorter life expectancies of blacks, for example.
	Well, it's begun to trickle out, of course, that Asians in America live longer than whites.
	What's less well known is that Hispanics, despite the fact they're less likely to have medical insurance than blacks, they live longer than white people.
	What's going on here?
	All of these things, I think, are important to point out in self-defense.
	In self-defense, we have to say, look, it's wrong to blame us for the failures of blacks, because look at the results for Asians in this allegedly white supremacist society.
	They're getting along just fine.
	Does white supremacy somehow look the other way if the non-whites that are doing well don't happen to be black?
	You can also make the same arguments about People from the Caribbean, black immigrants in the Caribbean, they do vastly vastly better than blacks who are the descendants of American slaves.
	Does white racism just somehow go on vacation if it turns out to be a Jamaican black?
	All of these things are important to point out in the attempt to defend Americans against this malicious and I think ultimately, if it goes on forever, ultimately Fatal to us charge of being responsible for the failures of others.
	But as you've pointed out, at some level many white liberals seem to take great joy in the idea that they could be responsible in this omnipotent way.
	So I don't know what the solution is.
	Of course, I do not want, I do not want the United States to fill up with Asians.
	I think Asians in some respects would dominate many institutions in the United States if we allowed them to immigrate.
	They would change their character in ways that we would find alien.
	If we're to be replaced by anybody, I suppose it's better to be replaced by Asians rather than Haitians or Guatemalans.
	But still, that does not give me any comfort at all in terms of the future of my people.
	And I'm sure you would agree, and I suspect most of our viewers would.
	There is nothing more natural and healthy than the desire for one's people to prosper and ultimately to survive forever.
	That is the natural sentiment people should have about their own people.
	Exactly.
	So if we point out that some people are better than others, just based on their biological traits, and some people are better than us, That alone doesn't imply anything politically.
	It certainly doesn't imply that we are now going to be advocates of colorblind meritocracy.
	That doesn't follow at all, because an essential Trait of what you're talking about what I'm talking about is racial loyalty, love of one's own.
	We don't have to be the best people in the world to love our own and wish to survive.
	And so it's necessary to talk about different levels of achievement.
	But the idea that we can only love ourselves if we're the best is absurd.
	We could only wish for the preservation of our race if we're the best is absurd.
	I've often pointed out the fact that the people of Irian Jaya, Papua New Guineans, It's probably very, very difficult to point to any kind of significant contribution they've made to world culture.
	What have the Papua New Guineans given us that we could not have gotten along without?
	I think probably nothing whatsoever.
	Does that mean that they have to go to the wall?
	No.
	Being Papua New Guinean is a very, very valuable thing for Papua New Guineans.
	No matter what their ranking might be on any kind of scale of achievement.
	And God bless them to the extent that they wish to remain good and proud and authentic Papua New Guineans.
	The other argument that I would make is, yes, I love my children more than I love anybody else's children.
	Anybody else's children.
	Is that because they're the smartest, the most musical, the most talented, the most athletic, the best looking children?
	No, it's because they're mine.
	And I make no apologies for this.
	It seems to me that it's perfectly natural for me to think of my own extended family, which is my race, in exactly the same way.
	Are we the best people on earth?
	No, we don't have to be.
	But we are my family, my family that I love with all my heart and for which I make no excuses.
	And the idea that somehow we are supposed to be ashamed of this or repudiate this, to me, it is just as absurd as asking me to love the children of strangers just as much as I love my own children.
	And I remember Jimmy Carter apologetically explaining that, well, yeah, you know, We couldn't get around the fact that he loved his own daughter more than he loved these starving Africans.
	And he felt bad about that!
	I think only, only a white person could convince himself that there was anything wrong in that sentiment.
	And obviously, it does not mean that if I love my children more than I love your children or anybody else's children, that I'm going to do anything bad to your children.
	I can become very, very fond of somebody else's children, but my children come first and I'll make sacrifices for them that I'll make for nobody else's children.
	And for this we have no apology.
	To me, the analogy between that sentiment and the sentiment that we should naturally have to our biological expended family is one that I see no difficulty with whatsoever.
	I don't see how you can poke holes in it.
	This is the natural way that healthy people feel.
	Folks, I have a few more questions for Jared, but if you would like to throw in a few questions, please go to entropystream.live forward slash counter currents.
	You can leave a question, comment or donation and we will get to those in the course of this stream.
	Jared, I want to ask you.
	Did you receive any particularly heartening responses to white identity politics?
	Did it get any interesting reviews?
	Did you get any interesting letters?
	Was it overall a positive experience or was it a discouraging one?
	Oh, as with being an open white advocate, it is an overwhelmingly positive thing.
	And the book was likewise overwhelmingly positive.
	I have met people like you, Greg, whom I would never have met if I had stuck to some kind of money-making undertaking.
	I've met wonderful people, committed people.
	And I also have the sense of having done my duty.
	And for some of us, that's an important and valuable thing.
	I'm sure I could have made a lot more money.
	Perhaps I could have been more influential in other ways.
	But having chosen the course of life that I have and having written that book, as well as some other books, I don't regret it for a moment.
	It's been immensely rewarding.
	In terms of just the specific reactions to that book, there is quite a famous person whose name I will not mention because it would be embarrassing to this person, but I understand that this person, who I will not even refer to with a gender pronoun, Read my book with great interest, and I feel sure that it has influenced this person's thinking.
	It's a well-known person whose name would be recognizable to every one of your viewers and listeners, but that name will remain unpronounced by my lips.
	That's one case.
	There have been a few others like it, perhaps not quite so prominent as that.
	But as I was looking over the book, this is a rather different thing.
	I just took a look at the book and took out a copy of it just a few minutes before this program began and looked at the folks who had written kind blurbs on the back.
	And there are four.
	And it was with great sadness that I realized that three of the four are now dead.
	Raymond Walters, a University of Delaware professor, a wonderful guy.
	He was, you knew him, a wonderful, wonderful fellow who was very much on our side in a dignified and charming way.
	Very courageous.
	Also Phil Rushton.
	Phil Rushton wrote a nice word for it.
	He too is gone.
	He was really one of the pioneer racial theorists and scientists.
	And then also Dr. Anthony Hilton, Tony Hilton.
	You may not have known Tony.
	I know him, yeah.
	Yes.
	Concordia University.
	Another wonderful, wonderful man.
	The kinds of people that I would never have met if I had not chosen this path.
	And then the only other person, I'm very glad to say he's very much alive, is Peter Bemolo.
	Those are the four people who wrote blurbs at the back of my book.
	And it's very sobering and saddening to think that a decade later, three out of the four are no longer with us.
	The approval of men like them and of someone like you, all of these things are extremely and profoundly heartening for anyone who chooses a dissident path.
	So, if you were revising this book in light of the last 10 years of experience, would you do anything different?
	The anti-racist dogma has mutated into this.
	This indictment that of every white person, even anti-racist white people is racist.
	That actually in some ways makes, it sort of drives one mad to try and actually understand it, but it certainly makes our work easier because it seems to be driving people into our camp because There's just no way that they can appease this mob anymore unless they just want to break down society and turn all of white society into just some giant penitential parade where they flagellate themselves and abase themselves really forever because it's a lifelong journey.
	It's a lifelong journey barefoot on On hot coals, flagellating yourself and humiliating yourself for angry people of color.
	It's not very appealing anymore.
	It's not a heroic vision.
	No, no, it's not.
	I was thinking, as I was turning over in my mind, the sorts of questions you might have asked me, what I would include, I would certainly include this just maniacal new form of anti-racism.
	Which you've described, I think, very, very eloquently, and for which there's no salvation.
	Not only are we walking on white coals, we have a crown of thorns crushed down on our heads.
	Once we've crossed the hot coals, just to climb up on a cross and get some person of color probably to crucify us.
	All of this is what's psychologically in store for us.
	I would also include something about the whole Donald Trump phenomenon.
	Donald Trump was a man of immense personal flaws, as we all know.
	And I personally think that his political career is probably over, the idea of his running again for president, but we'll see.
	I think one of the great, great services Donald Trump performed was to bring the other side out from under its flat rock, so to speak.
	The fury they showed at even the most commonsensical observations that ran counter to the prevailing orthodoxy, the frenzies into which that guy provoked them, They made it very, very clear that they're not opposed to just a particular political point of view.
	It made it clear as can be that they're opposed to us, us as white people.
	He had a brilliant capacity, and I think it was an utterly unconscious one, it was not a deliberate one, But he brought them out into the open with all of their snarling hostility towards Western civilization to the kind of world that you and I want to live in.
	So those are two things that I would have to include if I were to be revising white identity.
	In basis, though, the idea that all others have a racial consciousness, that for whites to abandon racial consciousness is unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world.
	And that for us to survive, we must re-establish some sense of racial harmony and unity.
	That message has not changed, and I'm afraid that that message will be a very important one, probably for decades to come.
	Someday, I'd like to look forward to the day when we can live in a world in which none of that's important anymore, in which it's all taken for granted.
	But that day is decades off, and so to that extent, I believe this book will be useful for many people for many years to come.
	We have a question from Man of the North, who writes in with 20 US dollars.
	Thank you very much.
	How can we break the conditioning of so many whites who won't take their own side in multiracial societies, which are rigged against them?
	Even in South Africa, a large percentage of whites refuse to acknowledge racial differences in crime and impulse control.
	We're in a race against time to awaken more naive whites.
	What are your thoughts on that, Jared?
	Well, that is precisely the project which I've devoted my life, and I would say you've done the same.
	We are doing our best to get the word out as persuasively and as attractively as possible.
	One of the ideas that I had 30 years ago was that, well, okay, the people who are talking sense about race, either they walk around with armbands, Sig Heiling, or they've got pointy hats and white hoods.
	As soon as these arguments are made reasonably, rationally, well then, they're so obvious and irrefutable, they'll just take off, there'll be no problem, and we will regain our society.
	That was the kind of silly idea I had.
	Well, it's taken a little bit more than that.
	And now we work in the face of this concerted attempt to censor us.
	But that is what we must do.
	And we can all do this, not just on the platforms that we still have remaining to us, but in our own personal lives.
	You can talk to your friends and family.
	And I think that that's some of the most effective evangelizing, if I can use a word from religion, that we can do.
	People who know us, people who trust us, people who may even love us, those people are going to listen to us.
	But that is our great project, is to spread the word.
	And I am convinced that if the organs of communication were not so rigorously closed to us in any kind of fair fight, our ideas would prevail because we are right and they are wrong.
	So Carson writes in and says, how can white identity overcome the differences of age, class, biological sex, religion, and even region?
	Well, all societies have fault lines, and it is true that white people historically have fought each other just as viciously as they've ever fought anybody.
	But in the face of the kind of threat that we face, It seems clear to me that we must unite along racial lines.
	Even the most healthy and homogeneous society is going to have differences of class, sexual differences.
	These things are inevitable.
	Some people will have a leftist orientation, a rightist orientation.
	When I talk about a future white society, it's one in which we're going to have liberals, we're going to have conservatives, we're going to have heterosexuals, homosexuals, we're going to have people of all kinds, but what will unite them is their essential whiteness.
	That does not mean that we will solve all of our human problems, but it does mean that we will have something that consciously unites us, and that will be the great difference.
	It will not mean heaven on earth.
	There will still be all of these cleavages, all of these rivalries, but we will have, and this is the fundamental importance, if we have a society of our own, we will at least guarantee a future for ourselves and our children.
	It will not be one free of conflict, but it will be our future, and that is the future that I'm working for.
	Exactly.
	We can have a society with all kinds of arguments and conflicts.
	We just don't want one with racial conflicts.
	That would be a nice thing.
	Gadeus Maximus writes in with 24 US dollars.
	What does Mr. Taylor think about Tucker Carlson going semi-Amran and V-Dare in his opening monologue the other night?
	I take it he's referring to his discussion of the Great Replacement.
	I think it's wonderful.
	I think Tucker Carlson is doing the Lord's work.
	And I just hope that he survives.
	His popularity is such that I think Fox News would face terrible criticism if they bowed to the kind of pressure they're under and took him off the air.
	I suspect that Tucker Carlson, I've never met him, I've never exchanged a word with him or email message.
	I suspect that deep down inside he understands the racial problem.
	I would be very surprised if he doesn't.
	But he has to navigate a very careful course.
	He has to say things that will outrage people without going into the point where Fox might feel compelled to take him off the air.
	But I think he's a profoundly important figure in American consciousness today.
	I agree with that.
	I think that he's very careful to hew to the race-blind, individualist view.
	The piety with which he quotes the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's one line that conservatives love about content of character, I think is wonderful.
	And I understand why he does that, but if he can stay within those bounds but still expose people to important truths, I thought it was especially important.
	When he had Heather MacDonald come on twice recently, and she basically said that we cannot explain black crime without, just in terms of racial discrimination.
	We have to look for the alternative hypothesis, basically.
	She didn't spell out exactly what that was, but I thought this is extremely important.
	And she laid out all the statistics.
	The reason why there are so many black men, especially having terrible confrontations and encounters with the police, is that they commit disproportionately so much more violent crime.
	She laid that out, and she said that we can't explain these problems that BLM is lamenting simply in terms of white racism.
	We have to look at blacks as well.
	I thought, this is very important.
	He, you know, she, he took her right, he gave her an opportunity to state something that was very important
	and I hope that it opened a lot of people's minds.
	I think Heather MacDonald is a national treasure.
	If all she ever did was talk about the facts of crime, that in itself is a wonderful, wonderful service to the United
	States.
	I Somebody, I can't remember what the organization was, recently did a poll to ask people, how many unarmed black men did they think that the police killed every year?
	And they had the option of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000.
	10, 100, 1,000, 10,000.
	An astonishing number, thought that as many as 1,000 or 10,000 were unarmed black men
	were killed by the police every year.
	Of course, the real figure, depending on the years, nine or 15, something like that.
	But the fact that so many people were convinced that, I mean, between 100 and 1000 was definitely the most popular figure.
	But for people to think that there are 1000 people who were killed in this manner.
	This just goes to show you the utter, utter depraved indifference to truth that characterizes the mass media today.
	For so many people to have such a completely distorted view of what is, in fact, a very important fact in contemporary American society just goes to show you the kinds of idiocy we're up against.
	And it is as part of that fight for sanity that Heather McDonnell, I think, plays an absolutely irreplaceable role.
	So, folks, if you have other questions and comments and donations and you would like me to share them with Jared, we have about 15 more minutes, I think, before we should wrap up.
	Go to entropystream.live forward slash countercurrents and we will definitely get you in the course of this stream.
	Also, if you are on DLive, we do take DLive tokens, lemons, ice cream, Ninjaginis.
	If you want me to say the word Ninjagini or Ninjet again, you're going to have to donate them.
	And, of course, you can add some questions as well, and we will definitely get to those.
	So, back at Entropy, we have a question from Carson, 10 US dollars, thank you very much.
	The coalition of Asians and blacks against whites is the same kind of pinch or grasp as the upper class and the lower class against the middle.
	How do we break free from this tactic?
	That's a very interesting and important question.
	And it's one that I did not expect to have to be asked.
	Asians have traditionally been pretty sensible about all of this.
	Asians, at least an older generation of Asians, they were grateful to be in the United States.
	They didn't whine too much about the Asian exclusion zone during the Second World War.
	They were glad to be here.
	They were happy to live in a country where their efforts were met with rewards.
	And their children, by and large, were the same.
	But now the idea that when there is a wave of attacks on Asians, for whatever reason, I don't know if it's actually more than usual or just getting more attention than usual because blacks have been preying on Asians for decades.
	In any case, you get this series of attacks in Oakland and also in San Francisco and to some extent in New York.
	And then you have Asian activists blaming this on white supremacy.
	This to me, perhaps I'm naive, but I was surprised by this.
	Once again, we now are in the face of people who seem to think that we are 10 feet tall.
	How on earth is it that you and I, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, how are we manipulating black people into attacking Asians?
	What is the possible mechanism by which we can get such a preposterous outcome?
	I don't know.
	Asians have ordinarily been pretty sensible about this stuff.
	And this is a theory that probably would not have occurred to me had I not read it.
	Some Asian fellow who was a student at Yale was writing about how, yes, we Asians, we have made it pretty far in American society.
	We go to the nice schools.
	We make nice money.
	We get nice jobs.
	But the one thing we don't quite have yet is the luxury attitudes.
	And one of the luxury attitudes is this notion of America as riddled with white supremacy.
	And until Asians adopt this idea, and then part of this idea would be that, you know, if blacks misbehave, that's all the fault of white people.
	If they attack us, that's all the fault of white people.
	That this luxury attitude, this is one of the things we must adopt in order to swan into the Ultimately, top part of the ruling class.
	I suppose that must be part of it.
	But Asians have generally been pretty sensible.
	And to me, it's difficult to know to what extent this kind of lunacy about blaming white people for the fact that blacks are attacking Asians.
	I don't know how typical this is of Asians.
	But alas, it appears to be representative of at least a portion of this aspiring elite that Asians are part of.
	Yeah, that's very interesting.
	Of course, since Black Lives Matter started rampaging a year ago, almost now, we've had an out-of-control crime wave in America.
	Black Lives Matter Basically demands that it be safer for black people to commit crimes.
	And many municipalities across the nation, especially ones in blue areas, blue tumors, or blue states, have gone along with that.
	And so there is an out-of-control crime wave.
	A black crime wave, and of course if more blacks are committing more crimes in large urban areas, they're going to be encountering more Asians and committing more crimes against Asians.
	And this is the fault of white people, we're being told.
	In certain ways it is, because it's white people primarily who are knuckling under to these mobs and saying, yes, it sounds like a good idea to defund the police.
	But it's being demanded by BLM primarily.
	And I think that just as there are a huge number of blacks who are being murdered now, Because of BLM and the Ferguson effect and so forth, which Heather MacDonald has been so great writing about.
	I think more Asians are being swept up in this and they need to put the blame where the blame belongs, and it belongs with the left.
	It belongs with BLM.
	It belongs with their enablers, and it doesn't belong with me or Jared Taylor.
	Unfortunately, we are entirely innocent of this problem.
	Well, some of this is not just black crime of a general sort.
	Some of the most shocking incidents were ones in which black people, certainly in Oakland, and also there was a case in Manhattan, approached elderly Asians.
	And in one case in Oakland, I believe it was, this guy knocked a fellow down and killed him, knocked him down hard.
	And the case in which a black man approached a woman outside an apartment building in New York City, just knocked her to the ground, beat her and stomped her and then walked off.
	These things are expressions of some kind of real viciousness, real hostility.
	Now, I think there has been black hostility against Asians for some time.
	To what extent does this have anything to do with anybody talking about the China virus?
	I don't know.
	I'm not convinced that has anything to do with it.
	And I'm not convinced it necessarily has anything to do with the larger crime wave, only insofar as blacks increasingly get the message they can riot and loot and get away with anything, that the police are really pulling back in a substantial way.
	But some of these crimes, they really are Just hostility, just viciousness.
	Are they racial hostility?
	Hard to tell.
	In some cases, some of these blacks have said, you know, go back to where you came from.
	I don't think anybody has said you virus or something like that.
	But it's in the case of just this gratuitous nastiness.
	And it's not just, of course, for Asians.
	Blacks have been showing this kind of behavior for whites.
	Pushing white women onto the subway tracks in front of an oncoming train.
	You get several of these cases every year.
	And then they'll always blame it on mental illness or, you know, what's wrong with this poor guy?
	We have to feel sorry for him.
	He was troubled.
	Yes, troubled.
	They're all troubled, troubled.
	Well, their trouble is what they are.
	They're not troubled.
	But this sort of thing is not particularly new.
	But what is new, what is new is Asians going along with this idea that somehow it's not the fault of black people.
	It's not the fault of Asians.
	It's our fault.
	It's the fault of white people.
	In the old days, in fact, one of these guys who was leading an organization that was trying to call for Black and Asian solidarity in the face of white supremacy.
	Of course, it's in the face of all these black attacks on Asians.
	He said, older Asians have got it wrong.
	They seem to think that the problems are black.
	No, no, no, no.
	They haven't got it figured out.
	But we young guys, oh boy, we know the score.
	The problem is white supremacy.
	Where does this come from?
	This is, frankly, again, maybe I'm naive, but this is a surprise to me, and I need to dig deeper into where this silliness comes from.
	And Gadius has the question, is Mr. Taylor growing a General Lee beard?
	Do you want to comment on that?
	A General Lee beard.
	A General Lee beard.
	As in Robert E. Lee, yeah.
	Yes, yes.
	Oh, there's no other General Lee.
	Well, before we went public, Mr. Johnson was commenting on my facial hair, and I said that, in all things, I find my inspiration and my guide in Leon Trotsky.
	This is my Leon Trotsky beard.
	It was actually Greg Johnson also wondered if this is a tribute to Robert E. Lee.
	In fact, it's just a whim of my wife's.
	It's always simple as that.
	We'll see.
	We'll see if it survives.
	So I don't really have, I don't have a noble and inspiring answer to that question.
	I could perhaps say that, oh, it's my Kaiser Wilhelm beard.
	I don't know.
	But Robert E. Lee, Robert E. Lee, he had a more of a full beard.
	He didn't have just a goatee like this.
	So I suppose if I were really going the Lee Jackson route, it'd be a full beard and not a partial beard.
	Well, you're just getting started.
	So Ziggler1 has donated one ice cream.
	Blob Esquire, an ice cream.
	Armchair Kirk, one diamond.
	Mad Maths has donated six lemons.
	Thank you very much.
	Back over at Entropy, Exocet has donated 20 US dollars and just says, thank you.
	Well, thank you right back.
	I very much appreciate it.
	Jared, let me ask you, looking back over the last 10 years, not just at this book, but over the events of the last 10 years, Are you more or less optimistic about our cause and our people today than you were when this book was published?
	And why?
	Compared to 10 years ago, I am more optimistic.
	Compared to, say, four or five years ago, I'm less optimistic.
	I thought the run-up to the 2016 election was very encouraging in many ways.
	And then we had a number of very unfortunate setbacks.
	The death of George Floyd, likewise, was a serious setback.
	But ten years ago, essentially nothing seemed to be happening.
	And part of the idea of writing this book was to hopefully make some things happen.
	Now, the left does seem to be ascendant in so many ways, but as you were pointing out, the leftist ideas are so preposterous on the face of it that simple reality is driving people into our arms.
	The more white people are told it's simply by breathing the air, they're poisoning it for everyone else.
	You just can't tell people that over and over without some people realizing this is preposterous foolishness.
	So the left I've been saying this for years, the left is overplaying its hand, but I think it's overplaying its hand in an absolutely spectacular way that cannot continue.
	And as I mentioned earlier, Our country, and even before we were a country, our people on the North American continent had a healthy understanding of race for far, far longer than we have suffered from this foolishness.
	And I do not believe that this form of suicidal foolishness will continue for nearly as long as our people have been on this continent with a healthier idea.
	Something is going to change.
	I can't predict how this future will work itself out, but it is impossible for me to believe that what, 160 million white people are simply going to walk off the stage of history and let others take their destiny in their unkind and unfeeling hands.
	So perhaps it's just a testimony to my own natural optimism about things.
	But as I say, compared to 10 years ago, I'm more optimistic.
	We have had some setbacks in the last four or five, but long-term, yes, We will prevail, ultimately, because I think what is good, true, honest, and in conformity with history and human nature will prevail, and that is the side that we are on.
	So, Chris writes in with 15 US dollars.
	Thank you, Chris.
	His question is just how long will this multicultural experiment last?
	I don't know.
	I hope it ends soon, but I really don't know.
	It has staggered on for a long time.
	Look at how long communism staggered on.
	Communism was a complete misreading of human nature.
	The idea that we could live from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
	It sounds great!
	And a lot of very sincere, I think, well-meaning people fell for that nonsense.
	But humans don't operate that way.
	And the idea that white people are going to bear the cross of all the failures and sins of others, we're going to stagger on forever thinking that.
	No, that's not in conformity with human nature either.
	But communism lasted what, 70 years?
	70 years in the Soviet Union?
	If we start multiculturalism, say, I don't know.
	Of the worst sort.
	1980s.
	How many years?
	70 years.
	We shall see.
	People write about how history is speeding up.
	Well, certainly since George Floyd died, it's speeded up.
	I think it's been going backwards in a remarkable rate.
	But if it can speed up in a remarkable rate going backwards, I think it can certainly speed up going forward at a remarkable rate, too.
	I would like to count our 70 years on the road to nowhere beginning in 1965 with the immigration changes.
	Maybe that's a little more hopeful to backdate it, I guess, a bit.
	Unknown Californian writes in with 10 US dollars.
	Has Jared ever seen his portrayal in the Murdoch Murdoch cartoons?
	Oh, yes, yes I have.
	I can't say I follow them ardently, but yes, I see that portrayal.
	I'm quite flattered that the Murdoch, Murdoch author seems to have a high opinion of Well, that's great.
	I have not seen that portrayal, so I'll definitely have to look it up.
	And I'm just checking to see if we have a few last questions here.
	No more lemons?
	People are throwing lemons at us at a great rate for a while there.
	I'm not quite sure whether to be flattered or insulted.
	Well, there was a real influx, and if you want to send more lemons, diamonds, and ice cream our way, gelato even, please go ahead.
	I want to ask, Jared, just based on, say, objective measures of web traffic and so forth, between now and 10 years ago, how much bigger is your audience, or is it bigger than it was 10 years ago?
	Oh, unquestionably bigger.
	And I'm not very good at keeping these numbers in my head.
	My staff is much better about tracking these things.
	But just the other day, Chris Roberts, our special projects guy, he wrote an analysis of our web traffic, comparing us to the past and also to some of our competitors.
	We get almost as much traffic as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	We do better than Harper's Magazine.
	We get an awful lot of traffic despite the very clear kind of diversion and shadow banning that we get from all of the search engines.
	So by one estimate we get about 400,000 people coming to our website every month compared to the print edition of American Renaissance that shut down, I believe that was in 2012.
	We never got more than 4,000 subscribers for a monthly magazine.
	So now we're looking at 400,000 people.
	Our reach is vastly, vastly greater than it was.
	And this despite all of the efforts to tilt the table against us.
	So I'm quite encouraged by our traffic.
	Yeah, we've certainly seen great increases in traffic.
	February of last year, we had about one third the number of unique visitors that came in February of this year.
	That's great.
	Yeah.
	In March, it was down a bit.
	But it was double what we had a year ago in March.
	I think this month will be a very good month.
	Just looking at the stats day by day, I think it's going to shape up to be a very good month.
	So, there are a lot of people coming our way, even though, yes, we are constantly being monkeyed with by, especially Google.
	They're the major search engine, and they're the evil search engine.
	They're the ones who are doing the most to hide our results, and yet, people still find us.
	They still fight their way through because they want to get to the truth, and we have the best explanation of what's going on.
	The inquiring minds want to know and they find their way to American Renaissance.
	They find their way to countercurrents.
	If you want to visit American Renaissance, just go to amren.com.
	It's across the bottom of the screen.
	You can follow Jared's work there and he's also on Telegram.
	Jared, I want to thank you for coming on.
	We've been going at this for 90 minutes.
	I think it's a really great conversation and a great way of starting a new series on our canon, essential reading for race conscious whites, for white identitarians.
	So thank you very much.
	And I really would love to have another conversation with you in the near future.
	It's been a pleasure and an honor.
	Thank you so much.
	And I wish you every success in all of your ventures.
	Well, thank you.
	Tomorrow, we will be doing another live stream, our regular Sunday stream.
	It will be starting one hour early.
	And it will be the standard CounterCurrents Brain Trust that we have now going, which is Greg Johnson, me, Frodie Midyard, and Millennial Woes.
	We will be here on DLive.
	We'll be streaming on Odyssey.
	We just started that last week.
	We will be answering your questions and talking about current events as usual.

▲