All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:04:22
Interview with an Israeli Journalist
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mr. Taylor, thank you so much for this interview.
Oh, it's my pleasure.
So glad you could come.
People call you the godfather of the alt-right, or the intellectual side of white supremacy in this country.
Which are you?
I'm neither of those things.
I'm by no means the godfather of anything, really.
I've been saying these things for 30 years now, and the alt-right, in my view, has sort of come and gone.
And I'm not sure even what that expression means.
People have called me the godfather of the alt-right, but I think that's because they like the term godfather more than anything else.
Furthermore, white supremacy has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm involved in.
I think the word white supremacist should be retired from the English language.
It's a historical term.
It implies that white people want to rule over people of other races.
I know of no one who wants to do that.
We simply want to be left alone to pursue our own destinies.
Who are we?
Racially conscious white people.
And there are more such people all the time.
People who realize that if current trends can continue in their own homelands, white people will become a minority.
And they will lose control of their own future, their own culture, their own way of life.
And this is supposed to be a wonderful thing.
We're supposed to be celebrating diversity.
But diversity in the United States, and increasingly in other Western European countries, simply means fewer and fewer white people.
Why should we celebrate that?
Why should that be something?
This is something that we should look forward to.
This is America, right?
It's an immigration country.
You have the Statue of Liberty and the basic idea of the immigration ethics is everyone can become an American.
It doesn't say anything about whiteness in the Declaration of Independence.
That's a very incorrect and ahistorical view of the United States.
The very first immigration law passed in the United States was in 1790.
That was the very first Congress.
Americans had to decide what sort of country are we going to be.
And they allowed naturalization only to free white persons of good character.
From the very beginning, the United States was meant to be an outpost of Europe.
And until 1965, we had an immigration policy that was designed explicitly to keep the United States European.
Furthermore, the Statue of Liberty, do you know its real name?
No. It's called Liberty Enlightening the World.
Liberty is not inviting anyone.
It was given by the people of France for the 100th anniversary of the independence of the United States.
It is shining a torch of liberty to the whole world.
It's not inviting anyone.
The idea that it is somehow a symbol of come one, come all.
That is a completely recent rejigging of history.
Although in the mid-19th century, this country accepted 40 million immigrants, many of them...
Jewish, of course, which were not considered exactly white by many, were not accepted to country clubs around this country, for instance, in the 1960s, sometimes in the 1980s.
And on the same Statue of Liberty, you've got that plague, that inscribing of Emma Lazarus, which is a classic ethos, an immigration ethos.
So we can agree that an immigration ethos has been created in this country, has been...
What's implied and has been manifested in immigration policy?
Those who have come as immigrants have tried to reshape the history of the United States as somehow a nation of immigration.
I think that's really rather self-absorbed on their part.
The people like myself who are descended from the pioneers who built this country, we don't consider ourselves immigrants at all.
We were settlers.
We established a Western European nation in what was really a Stone Age continent at that time.
Now, those people who built that country then, I think very generously, let others into that country.
But those who have come recently then deciding that their arrival somehow defines the original United States.
It strikes me as a rather arrogant point of view.
Of course, today it is that point of view along with others who have come from all around the world, not just Europe, who are in effect saying that the United States really had no value until they showed up.
To me, this is an astonishing kind of arrogance.
People who might come from India, for example, or Southeast Asia, or Africa, and then say, well, we bring you diversity.
They're implying that without them, we would be choking to death somehow on our own white homogeneity, that somehow white people built a miserable country, and this was not a great country until we were about to be overwhelmed by immigrants.
No, this is really an astonishing point of view, and to me it's equally astonishing.
Perhaps more astonishing that the majority whites who are descended from the founding stock should accept this sort of nonsense.
Are the descendants, the majority of whites in this country are descendants of the...
No, not the majority, but whites, whites, those who are descended from this and those who are really kindred people.
And you would have to admit that Europeans have assimilated really remarkably well to the original Anglo-American stock.
Whereas those two racial minorities that have been here for many, many years, long before the European ethnics came at the end of the 19th century, they have been here longer, but they have not assimilated.
I'm talking about the American Indians and the black population.
The American Indians were here before you.
Yes, they were.
But in terms of assimilation, they have not been a success the way Europeans have, even though Europeans may have come hundreds of years later.
I have to interrupt you, Mr. Taylor.
The reason that they did not assimilate is mainly because those pioneers fought Indian tribes, conquered their territories, and led to their annihilation in certain points, sometimes deliberately, sometimes occasionally deliberately.
So that's a good reason not to assimilate for the indigenous people of this continent, right?
Well, if they were a similar stock of people...
I think they would have assimilated.
And don't forget the whole idea that somehow white people or Europeans are to blame for conquering North America.
That forgets the entire history of pre-Columbian conflict here in North America.
You had Indian tribes that attacked and in many cases exterminated each other.
It was really a question of who was going to dominate.
And no one, no one says that the Indians did not have a right to defend their territory.
But somehow...
Now that it is dominated by Europeans, we somehow are not supposed to have that right.
This is really a crazy idea.
This is a double standard that's applied only against Europeans.
No one says, for example, that the inhabitants of North Africa are illegitimate because they conquered North Africa.
No one says that the Japanese are illegitimate because they took their country from the Ainu, the original inhabitants.
This is an argument that applies.
Only to whites when they have moved into new territories.
And you also mentioned the black population.
Yes. Which, of course, was brought here as slaves.
Yes, they were.
Yes, they were.
But they have not assimilated, and I think the problem is not the fact necessarily that they were brought as slaves.
Don't forget, there were indentured servants in the United States whose status was really not very different from that of slaves.
They did not pass on their slave status to their descendants, but they were property and could be bought and sold just like blacks.
Their descendants have assimilated fine.
To me, it is very clear.
The real barrier to assimilation is one that is racial.
It's biological.
It's not cultural.
And so long as people come to the United States from Europe, then they will assimilate after a generation or two.
In fact, you will find that when Europeans came to the United States, after about three generations, they became indistinguishable from each other in terms of likelihood to go to college, per capita income, Likelihood to marry outside of their ethnic group,
and so there was a real melting pot and a blending of Europeans, but that has not happened with non-Europeans.
I read a quote of you saying that every place that black people arrived, there was no civilization.
There could be no civilization with black people.
What I've said is that black people entirely, on their own powers, under their own capacities, I do not believe have ever created anything that could be called a civilization.
I think to have a civilization you at least have to have a written language.
And south of the Sahara...
With perhaps a very minor exception in Ethiopia, there was not even a written language that was devised by sub-Saharan Africans.
How can you have a civilization without a written language, without two-story buildings, without a mechanical device?
I don't think that you can call something like that a civilization.
It may be harsh to say so, but to me, there is no historical record of sub-Saharan Africans entirely from their own resources building what we would call a civilization.
The elements that you remark on have been explained by scientists that have studied it, unlike both of us.
I beg your pardon?
Unlike both of us, to be fair, and have explained that because Africa was so rich as it was with animals and with the ability to...
For people just to eat.
They did not need to build as they did in Europe.
So it was heavily explained, you know, by anthropologists and by others.
But you think it's biological, right?
You could take that very same explanation and say because the African environment was not demanding...
Evolution did not put a high premium on intelligence and planning ahead, and I believe that is the most plausible explanation for the IQ differences we find between sub-Saharan Africans and other populations.
By the same token, you're probably aware of the fact that East Asians, they evolved in a very harsh and demanding environment, and their IQs are somewhat higher than those of Europeans.
I believe this reflects Evolution that has taken place over tens of thousands of years.
After all, if you look at the physical differences between, say, a Khoisan, a Bushman and an Eskimo or a Dane.
It took a long, long time for an environment to produce remarkable physical differences of that kind.
It would be impossible for all of those evolutionary forces not to have some kind of effect on the human brain.
The human brain is just another organ.
It evolves just like other organs.
And for only the brain to remain the same would have been an impossible coincidence.
But now you have ventured into what one might call a scientific theory.
Yes. It can be disproven, but it was never proven to be true.
Most scientists say that it's untrue.
They are saying it's not biological.
It's you that are saying it is biological, and you're doing that in a political way.
In fact.
If you actually look into surveys of people who are Accredited, accredited scientists of mental testing, you will find that the majority will say that the IQ result differences between blacks and whites in the United States is at least in part due to genetic differences.
This kind of science goes on all the time, but the New York Times, Haaretz, will never report this kind of thing.
They want us all to believe that, oh, it's all environment.
Biology has nothing to do with it.
But if you look...
Carefully, into the actual science that is going on, you will find a very different story.
What about white people that are descendants of black people?
Are they white?
Oh, you can draw the line wherever you wish.
No, but you're drawing the line, sir.
It's very important because we're talking about definition.
Some people say that the whole whiteness thing doesn't really exist.
This is where I'm going, to be frank.
So, in this country, genetic testing has shown that many people have had great-great-grandparents that were black or Native American and others.
Well, again, when you talk about mixtures of that kind, You are in fact admitting that there are races.
There cannot be mixtures unless there are races.
Now, I am not an absolutist.
I would not say that if you have 5% African ancestry that you are not a white person.
If you consider yourself white, you look white.
I mean, these are very fine points.
Excuse me?
If you don't look white.
If you don't look white, if you don't look white, well, if you have a 5% African ancestry, it's very unlikely that you look anything but white.
20%. I don't know.
This is a theoretical discussion that I don't think is particularly useful.
I can make and take an arbitrary stand and say, okay, people who are...
90%, 85%, 75% European or European.
I don't know.
I don't think it makes much difference.
Most people in the United States have no difficulty determining whether someone in a crowd is black or white or Asian or perhaps Hispanic.
You were talking about brains.
I saw the interviews with you.
The thing is that they always come at you at 120 miles per hour.
You know, with slogans that you're being attacked with.
And I see those interviews.
So I'm trying to go into the definitions.
And this is really important.
Because if you think that races actually exist, and I put to you that these are, in a sense, imagined structures.
They have a source, historical source.
But in the end, nothing is pure.
Right? And you're saying that nothing is pure.
So everything is really dependent on the way that the face looks.
Right? No.
It doesn't matter if you have 10% or 10%.
If you look white, it's fine, right?
Well, tell me this.
If I were the dean of students at a university, and you were a black student, and you came up to me and you said, you know, we want to have a special graduation ceremony for the black students.
And I were to say to you, look.
Race is a social construct.
You can't define blackness.
How on earth can you have a black graduation?
You would go on a demonstration, you'd probably burn the campus down, and I would lose my job.
Arguments of this kind, saying that race doesn't exist, you can't define whiteness, they apply only to white people.
This, once again, is the typical double standard that people wish to apply to people like me.
If black people say, we need our own spaces, we need our own dormitories, we need our own celebrations, no one walks up to them and says, no, you can't have that because you cannot.
Define blackness to my satisfaction.
No one would ever dare say that.
This, again, is a double standard that applies only to whites.
Well, first of all, the argument stands.
But your argument stands.
But in the end, you're not really answering.
You know, you're bypassing it to a situation.
I'm a liberal, so I don't care very much.
I'm an all-time liberal.
So I don't care very much about identity politics.
And I can see why it's not very good for progressives.
I see the problem with identity politics in the left.
So I, you know, I come to you and I say, look, there are people that are today, you know, a quarter Jewish, a quarter black, a quarter white.
You know, some Native American inside, one part of 64 Native American like Elizabeth Warren, you know, and you're holding to a construct that is only the appearance of,
the appearance of whiteness.
It's not even about real whiteness that you're talking about, because you cannot judge, you know, you cannot check our brains, you cannot see anything like that.
Well, we can certainly check our DNA if we wish to.
And most people, as I say, have very little difficulty identifying themselves and identifying others.
There are going to be some hard cases.
And again, as I said before, the only reason that you can have mixed-race people is because you have races.
And these are a biological phenomenon.
They're not some kind of psychically invented phenomenon.
Some wicked racist white supremacist didn't suddenly look at Africans and think, well, they are of course biologically identical to me, but I'm going to invent some sort of social construct.
No, this is not an optical illusion.
There are all kinds of biological differences that are reflected not just in disease rates, maturation rates, twinning rates, myopia rates.
Also, these are very, very easily detected from just a few genetic samples.
So, it's a biological reality.
I'll argue, okay, where do you draw the line between different races?
How many different races are there?
That's like asking, well, how many colors are there?
Tell me, how many colors are there?
People will disagree, but people do not disagree that red is different from blue.
And in the same fashion, if you talk about Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans, or if you talk about East Asians, these are different races.
And how carefully and fine-grained your distinction between races is may differ.
But the point is, there are differences.
And these are differences that almost all human beings, aside from classical liberals like yourself, react to in a visceral and natural way.
And to me, the idea of building a society that is designed on the idea of ignoring these natural differences and the way human beings react to them in an instinctive way is bound to fail.
What about Jews?
Am I right?
I think European Jews are white, yes.
And Arab Jews?
I would say they're Arabs.
Arabs are Arabs.
They are officially some kind of sub-portion of Caucasian, but I think we distinguish between Arabs and Europeans for biological as well as cultural reasons.
But Arabs are Semites and Jews are Semites, if we're talking races.
Well, but Ashkenazi Jews have been living among Europeans for a long time.
Again, this is a kind of a technical discussion.
One could perhaps say, okay, Ashkenazi Jews who have X...
Quantity of European genes are white.
I mean, I'm not really interested in discussions of this kind because, as I say, most of the time, these things sort themselves out in a natural and instinctive way.
There are going to be hard cases, but we're really not in a position in which we're going to say, okay, Jew, not a Jew.
I mean, you have this problem in Israel.
Who is Jewish?
And you have these learned rabbis who say, okay, only these people can be Jewish.
You have reformed Jews who say, no, they can be Jewish.
There's some people saying Ethiopian Jews are Jewish.
This is a discussion that will probably take place, but no one...
Ethiopian Jews, for instance, would not be considered white, right?
No, they're not white.
But again, you can have all of these discussions, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as a Jew.
That is the ultimate point of your argument.
When you say, well, these people say these folks are Jews, those folks are Jews, those aren't Jews, and you say, oh, we'll throw up our hands, there's no such thing as a Jew.
Well, no, there are Jews, and I think that Jews certainly deserve a homeland that reflects their heritage.
I want to ask you specifically about that, because you took a lot of heat with some of your friends for making these statements, right?
Because many people have come to the conferences that you organized.
Did not appreciate your views about Jews as white people.
And any people that might support you or hear you or follow your website are explicitly anti-Semites and I would say white supremacists.
White supremacists?
Yeah, they think that whites are better than...
I don't know.
You defined in the beginning of this conversation white supremacy as aiming to rule others.
But I think white supremacy can...
As much as we'll be, you know, thinking that whites are superior to others.
Well... Anyway, my question is specifically about the Jewish question.
You maintained, and you have been maintaining for many years, that you are not an anti-Semite.
You are not accused of being an anti-Semite.
Oh, I've been accused of being just about everything.
Oh, okay.
I apologize for that.
I won't take that away.
But basically, you have been defending your views that Jews are white people.
Some Jews, yes.
European Jews.
And they are not part of the huge conspiracy.
As part of a replacement of the European origin of this country.
Or are they?
Well, let's not ignore the fact that Jews in the aggregate, certainly intellectual Jews, do tend to be very liberal.
And Jews have been at the forefront of some of the intellectual movements that have resulted in undermining the legitimacy of the idea of race or racial consciousness.
That does not mean that Jews are all of a sudden not white or that all Jews are the enemy of the white race.
But I think it is unquestionably the case that Jews have been very heavily overrepresented in movements of that kind.
At the same time, there have been Jewish scholars that have been very active in looking into the biology of racial differences.
You find Jews in many different parts of every intellectual spectrum.
But in the aggregate, they have promoted immigration, non-white immigration.
And they've promoted movements that would lead one to conclude that anyone who has my views is somehow immoral.
That, I think, is something that is an indisputable fact.
But again, that does not mean that every single Jewish person is an enemy of the white race.
Which is what some people would probably argue.
that because it's a...
On the one hand, you say that you do not want to expel people from this country.
You do not support violence, of course.
But in these conferences and in the places that you appear with, you see people supportive of the KKK.
How do you know that?
Well, I think that we can all say that David Duke was part of the KKK, wasn't he?
David Duke was at one time part of the KKK.
He attended two conferences, I believe.
He's not been to a conference in many years.
I don't know anyone who has ever attended a conference who was an active member of the KKK.
To somehow describe the conference as attracting KKK members is simply incorrect.
Mr. Spencer, that you have been affiliated with his organization, has been shown to do a"Heil Hitler" In a crowd after Trump's election.
You took it to heart.
I saw your quotes about that.
Yes. Well, he claims it was not a Heil Hitler.
But no, I think that's completely inappropriate.
Anyone who thinks that he's going to establish some sort of racially conscious movement among whites in the United States based on Hitlerism, I think, is completely deluded and wrong.
It's got nothing to do with American history.
That was a tactical remark, sir.
Excuse me, yes.
And it's entirely wrong.
But it wasn't a substantive condemnation.
Well, to the idea of establishing fascism in the United States.
Again, it's a completely wrong idea.
We have a history of White racial consciousness that goes back to the founders of the United States.
It has nothing to do with some sort of inherent anti-Semitism or a social organization that's based on a fascist organization of society and economics.
All of that is completely irrelevant.
But I'm talking about the company, sir, that you keep in those...
I can name websites.
You know, that are anti-Semitic.
Do I publish on these?
I mean, what are you trying to say?
You're trying to say that...
In these conferences, you yourself wanted...
In these conferences, you know, that there would be an arena free of anti-Semitism, of racist anti-Semitism.
And at a certain point, I think in 2006, it all blew up in one of them.
So I'm asking this because in the end, many say that you are simply the intellectual face.
You're giving the intellectual arguments for something which is much more sinister.
And in the end, it advocates...
It does advocate for violence.
The other fringes that you don't agree with, that you're not on the record with.
Look, I have to say what I think is the truth, and I have been consistently doing this for 30 years.
Am I somehow to start saying things that I do not think are the truth because other people have different ideas or that other people might take what I say and somehow twist them into strange ways that can result in something that I disapprove of?
Let me give you an example.
Let's assume...
That I am very concerned about climate change.
And I make all sorts of arguments as to the terrible effects that fossil fuels are having on the entire world.
And I'm very firm about this.
And then someone who reads what I say, or listens to what I say, then goes into the headquarters of Chevron or Exxon and starts shooting people up.
Does that suddenly mean that I was wrong?
No, it doesn't.
What you said, what you presented to me and what I have read from your writings is a scenario in which white people are endangered in this country.
They are a ruling minority.
They are endangered by minorities who are doing their best in order to sow the virus of diversity, therefore destroying this country as a mainly white country.
Whites are under threat.
This threat is existential to their survival and the survival of this country as it has been known.
Yes, you're putting it quite accurately.
Well, I've been doing my reading.
And in the end, if I were Dylann Roof, which shot people in that church and read stuff on CCC...
Well, I would say that's exactly what I need to do to save the country.
Do you think that helped?
I mean, strictly as a tactical matter, strictly as a tactical matter, setting aside all questions of morality, what Dylann Roof did was a catastrophe.
It was an absolute catastrophe.
It only strengthened opposition to ideas of people like me.
If it were possible, I would wave a magic wand and make all of those people and anyone who even thinks in those terms disappear.
Those people are doing a terrible disservice to the white race if they think that they are actually doing something helpful.
And substantively?
You just answered tactically.
And also the moral question.
No, I've never advocated illegality of any kind.
No, this is wrong.
If solutions cannot be found in a democratic way, then there are no solutions available.
And this country will become a country with a white minority?
That's fine by you.
It's not fine by me.
I'm doing everything within my power to at least preserve some portion of the United States that does have a European majority, both biologically and culturally.
And I think that is the only way to preserve some remnants of Western civilization here.
If nothing like that happens, then the United States will become some sort of Afro-Caribbean, Asiatic mishmash that will have a personality of its own, but it will not be the...
States that my ancestors founded
I think I have it's already already isn't well I and I have every right to wish to preserve something that my ancestors found just as Jews in Israel have
An absolute right to have a Jewish state.
Why is it okay for Jews to say, alright, we wish to remain Jewish.
We want to be majority Jewish.
And for that reason, we're going to give specialized immigration options to Jews but no one else.
Is that moral?
That is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about the United States, or France, or Germany, or Italy, or Japan, or Turkey.
I want to ask you specifically about the solutions that you offer, and what you're aiming at, but I want to press on the current condition.
If all democratic means fail, and people in this country do not choose the way that you are offering, and it doesn't seem like that after eight years of Barack Obama, and I will talk about Trump in a second, But if the trajectory will continue,
and democratically speaking...
So, white people in this country should just wait for this country to become an Asia-Caribbean entity, as you just proclaim it to be?
They just should sit in their houses and see the country changing?
No. No, they shouldn't sit in their houses.
But they should become active politically, in terms of intellectual activity.
That is what they should do.
That's the problem with white people.
They just sit in their houses and do nothing.
But if, if, if there is a legitimate debate...
An honest debate about the future of the United States and the people of the United States, including whites, decide, okay, who cares about a European heritage?
Then that will be the end of the discussion.
And that will be the future of the United States.
And you will not advocate, in any case, you will not advocate any call for arms, anything like that.
No. That would be...
Look, if you can't get a democratic solution...
You think you're going to get a violent solution?
No. If there is no agreement after having discussed all the options...
These people in Charlottesville did think that, I think.
Many people in Charlottesville thought that, you know, the solution might be violent.
Well, they're wrong.
Do you tell them that often?
I'm asking.
I don't know.
Oh, I think everyone would tell them that.
Anyone who is involved in any kind of racial consciousness movement agrees practically 99.9% that that kind of bluster and that kind of threatening is a terrible mistake.
A terrible mistake morally and tactically.
Maybe, Mr. Taylor, in the 1920s and 1930s Germany, there were people not maybe.
Absolutely. There were people exactly like you.
They were measuring people's skulls and they were explaining racial differences and they had what you might call groundbreaking studies that you might be reading today explaining the differences between races and measuring people's noses and everything.
And they did not advocate violence, but they did say...
You know white people are this and the other people are like that and white people might be threatened and then came you know a corporal from Austria and made these ideas into a holocaust.
So you might be playing just you know a side intellectual role here but the people that are reading you hear existential threat and we're very natural for them to do more than just I don't know go canvassing.
Once again, you are making arguments and you're applying them exclusively to white people.
There are people all around the world who do not want to become a minority.
The Japanese, for example, they have a debate about the possibility of immigration.
And they have by and large decided they do not want immigration.
The people of West Africa, for example, they do not want people coming in from the Middle East to become traitors.
And this does not lead to Holocaust.
Every argument you're making, not only about the definition of who is white, but the possible catastrophic consequences of ideas applies only to white people.
Do think about that seriously.
Whereas... All of these ideas of wishing to preserve a way of life, these are legitimate for all people.
And to somehow say that only for white people, that this can lead to this, this can lead to that.
White people are the people that are responsible for a Holocaust against my people.
And they are also responsible for slavery against black people.
And they are also responsible for what happened for Native Americans in this country.
Let's focus on Holocaust right now.
Are you somehow suggesting that whites are uniquely evil people?
No, no.
Okay. Practically every people in the entire world.
The Jewish people had slaves.
Asians had slaves.
Africans had slaves.
People throughout history have conquered territories and slaughtered the occupants.
Somehow it is only white people about whom this is brought up.
During the entire transatlantic slave trade, you may or may not be aware, an approximately equal number of blacks were taken by Arabs out of Africa into the Middle East.
Why are there so few blacks in the Middle East now?
It's because they were They were used as slaves, the men were castrated, and they have left no descendants.
But somehow, it is the slave trade across the Atlantic by white people that is somehow this great scourge of humanity.
Slavery still exists in Africa, but somehow it is slavery in the United States 150 years ago that all of humanity is supposed to weep over.
Again, you are talking in terms that Single out white people for special moral condemnation.
Do not accord them the rights that you unconsciously allow every other group and you are setting up rules whereby only white people are not allowed to take the simplest steps necessary to ensure their survival.
One of these steps is President Trump.
This is what happened in this country in 2016.
Oh, I think, well, President Trump...
The success of President Trump does, I believe, reflect An inchoate sense among whites that, yes, they are being blamed for everything that's ever gone wrong for non-whites.
And it also is a reflection that most whites do not want to become a minority.
And here was a president who wants to stop illegal immigration, send back illegal immigrants who are already here.
All of this is entirely legitimate.
Now, none of this was expressed in racial terms, and I do not believe that Donald Trump thinks in racial terms.
But he has an instinctive sense of what is fair and what is not fair.
When people come across the border uninvited and then go on welfare and become public charges, he thinks that's wrong.
When people who are illegal immigrants come to the United States and have children and they become U.S. citizens, he thinks that's wrong.
Many Americans think that's wrong, whether or not, like me, they think in terms of the demographic future of the United States.
So he has some instincts that I think are very healthy, but he's not by any means.
What about all those people who came to this country and became part of the armed forces of this country, entrepreneurs?
I see statistics about how illegal immigrants in this country help the economy substantially.
What about all these people that have contributed so much to the United States?
Will you keep them, first of all?
Can they stay?
I'm not talking about expelling anyone.
I think that the only fair solution is to achieve some kind of voluntary separation.
And if...
If it were recognized that it is perfectly natural, normal and healthy for people to prefer to live in a racially and culturally coherent community, then all of these things would coalesce in a way that would not result in any kind of terrible disruption.
It would be a long-term process.
But if people had the right to sort themselves out, they would do so.
And that to me is the proper solution.
What do you mean?
People who are like blacks in this country for seven generations or more?
We brought here, subjugated and brought here as slaves.
You can't get away from that, can you?
How about the millions who have come as immigrants?
There are plenty of them, you know.
More Africans have immigrated to the United States than were ever brought as slaves.
Were you aware of that?
But no, you're always thinking in terms of slavery, the wickedness of white people.
Don't you realize this pattern in your thinking?
First of all, I am not singling out white people.
My remark earlier was about something that white people...
You know, even the definition of white people, I'm using...
You know, your terms.
And that's the mistake.
I don't say that white people are responsible for the Holocaust.
Germans, and specifically Nazi Germans, are responsible for that.
I don't think that the whiteness did that.
So you're putting me in a place, in a spot that I'm really not in.
I'm not there.
I think that Nazi Germans could do that.
I think, you know, people in Rwanda were responsible for genocide.
So it's not really a racial thing.
I agree.
Well, then I'm glad you recognize that because whenever you bring up the alleged crimes of white Americans, you bring them up as if there was some sort of extermination of the Indians, slavery, all of these things, Holocaust.
I mean, you keep talking about these things as if they're somehow unique crimes committed by Europeans.
But anyway, we'll set that aside.
But slavery is a specific point because they did not choose to come here.
More Africans have chosen voluntarily to come here than were brought as slaves.
So we have here an American, a black American.
Or any American of color.
Yes. And he has been here for seven to nine generations.
Well, there are not very many of those who are not black, but anyway.
Okay. And his family has served in the armed forces for three or four generations, and they have fought in Normandy.
And he's been at the head of his class, and he's paid his taxes and never committed a crime or gone on welfare.
Yes, we now have the ideal black man.
Now, ask me your question.
My question is, and you're going to pass a law saying...
I would want to compensate you for leaving the country.
Oh, well, if...
If you want to set up that kind of incentive, then that would be a voluntary thing.
There's plenty of precedent for doing that.
Many black people in the United States will say, okay, we have done all of these things to contribute to the United States, but America is still a horribly racist place, and I'm going to go back to Africa.
If that's their view, then they should do so.
And if the United States, if it wishes, it certainly has the right to set up some sort of compensation program.
That's not something I explicitly advocate.
I advocate a kind of voluntary form of separation.
If that requires some sort of compensation, so be it.
But, again, this is...
So I didn't understand you earlier.
What does it mean in terms of policy, you know?
Putting no obstacles in the way of people who wish to establish communities that reflect their racial or cultural heritage.
In the United States today, there are all kinds of obstacles to that.
Not only legal obstacles, but all kinds of moral condemnation.
If you were to say, well, I would prefer to live in a majority white or maybe even 99% white community, then you're considered a moral leper, then they're going to look for every single legal loophole to make it impossible for you.
This kind of thinking has to change and if that kind of thinking does change then I believe that it is possible to establish voluntary communities where people do establish parts of the United States where they can be the majority.
So it's going to be a sort of segregation.
Voluntary, yes.
And most people live that way anyway.
You commented on this neighborhood.
Well, it's overwhelmingly white, and it's overwhelmingly white, I believe.
Because whether they admit it or not, most white people prefer to live around people like themselves, just as most black people do, most Asians do, most Hispanics do.
Let us accept this.
Rather than pretending somehow that this is an atrocious aspect of human nature, we must stamp out.
That's all I'm saying.
No, but you want these communities to be in a position in which if a black family wants to move in, it will be...
Voluntarily or by the rules of the community, supported by the state, it would be impossible.
We are always making decisions in our lives.
I can lock my door and I can decide who comes into this house and who does not.
As a country, we can decide who comes in and who does not.
And I see absolutely no moral difficulty in establishing communities in which people voluntarily decide these are the people we want and these are the people we do not want.
Based on the color of their skin?
Based on whatever criteria they choose.
If I can establish a community of left-handed duck hunters, all redheads, I should have that right.
There's a freedom of assault.
That is essential to any concept of human freedom.
Whenever you make a choice, you are excluding something.
And we should recognize that this is natural, normal, and entirely healthy.
To have a homogenous white enclaves, homogenous black enclaves.
Yes. Now, for those who wish to mix it up, who really do think that diversity of the kind that we're all supposed to be celebrating, that that is the be-all and end-all, God bless them.
Let them have their communities too.
All I'm saying is that people who believe that should not impose their views on others who have a different view of human nature and what is best for us.
So you mentioned this neighborhood, so it's overwhelmingly white, right?
But you didn't need to pass anything or to do anything or to have 30 years of life's work in order to do that.
You live in a white neighborhood, a relatively white neighborhood.
So why are you working so hard?
This country is still very much segregated.
I just explained to you that there is no way to make something that is explicitly white.
You would have a terrible moral and legal battle making something that is explicitly white.
And there is no way to protect any...
Enclave or institution or anything in the United States that is majority white.
In fact, not only can you not protect it, there is a constant drumbeat of people who say it's too white.
It's not diverse.
You have to change it.
That's the ethos of the United States, which is profoundly anti-white.
And that is something that I'm trying to change.
If that ethos is changed, if it becomes understood and accepted that some people have a natural, normal, and utterly morally unobjectionable wish to live in communities that reflect their ancestry and their heritage, that that's okay.
If there were that kind of mental sea change in the United States, Yeah, but the idea that if the black family moves next to your house,
you would want to stop that without knowing these people, just because of the color of their skin and because you have a historical unsubstantiated idea about who they are.
Scientifically speaking...
Wait, wait, wait.
Let's set aside the argument.
No, you can make it sound as arbitrary and as hateful if you wish.
But what I'm telling you is I should have that right.
And black people should have exactly the same right.
To say that...
You should have...
Let's be clear here.
You should have the right to say I don't want to have a black neighbor at all.
It doesn't matter who he is.
I should have the right to say...
I want white neighbors.
Black people should have the right to say, I want black neighbors.
And those who wish to live in mixed communities should say, I should have the right to have black, white, yellow, green, any neighbors at all.
All I'm talking about is a voluntary choice.
And the only voluntary choice today that is considered to be morally reprehensible is whites who wish to live in white communities.
Today, you must be well aware if a black person says, I want black neighbors.
I want my children to go to black school.
I prefer black culture.
Is that considered wrong?
No. We have Koreans, for example, Asians that go to all Asian church communities.
That's considered just fine.
It is only whites.
Again, I keep coming back to this point.
And you are consciously, or perhaps unconsciously, taking part in this.
You are setting up obstacles exclusively for white people.
And those obstacles...
If they persist, will be ultimately fatal to the survival of my people as a distinct people.
You know, what's the real difference between what you're saying and between classic racism?
Do you acknowledge that this is classic racism?
No, I don't.
You think that white people are better?
No, they're not better.
Okay, they have built civilizations and black people have not.
Wait, look, look, look.
East Asians.
Have higher IQs than whites.
They have lower crime rates.
Sorry, it doesn't mean that you're not a racist.
If you think racists, some of them are Philo-Semites, some of them are anti-Semites.
You know, racists come in many colors.
You think the main thing, the main thing in history and in a society is race.
This is the most important thing.
Not the character of people, not what they think or what they do.
It's race that is important in order to understand.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Don't put words in my mouth.
First of all, whatever the word racist means, it has a moral component.
It means that someone is morally inferior.
I reject that completely.
My views, I think, are perfectly normal, natural, healthy, historic.
And if you go back 60 or 70 years in the United States, virtually everyone agreed with me.
The country has changed in ways that I believe are ultimately fatal to the survival of my people.
So to call me a racist, ultimately it doesn't really mean anything, but...
It does have this sense of moral opprobrium.
By calling me a racist, you're calling me your moral inferior.
I completely reject that.
We can talk about the importance of race and what race means biologically, culturally, historically, but to call me a racist is really just a very silly way of somehow saying you are my moral superior and I reject that.
I'm not labeling right now.
Well, okay, then let's not use that word.
I'd not call you racist.
I ask what's the difference between what you're saying and between racism.
And I can really see no difference at all between these things.
Racism sees society through race colors.
It thinks it's the most important thing.
Sometimes think that some people are better because of their race.
It doesn't judge their character.
It doesn't judge what they are doing.
But basically, who they are according to the color of their skin, the structure of their faces, and therefore this is how it is.
I don't see why you're running from that definition.
Why won't you embrace this?
Because of the moral label.
Because it says, it says...
A racist in the United States is either ignorant or wicked or probably both.
And that is completely wrong.
That's why I never use that term.
It would be like people who are in favor of abortion rights, invariably referring to them as baby killers.
That is a morally loaded term.
And when racist is not sufficient for the purposes of people who wish to draw moral distinctions, then I'm a white supremacist.
All of this language is an unwitting admission that you do not have logical arguments to support your view.
It is a form of name-calling.
And I don't think it advances the argument at all.
My arguments are the arguments of the majority of social sciences and sciences at all.
I think that people are judged by, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their characters, to quote a great American you would have wanted not to live in this country, most probably, and what they do.
And by the way, it's very Jewish.
We judge people by what they actually do.
And then why is the immigration policy of Israel exclusively designed to favor Jews?
I'm not talking about immigration policy.
Well, immigration policy in Israel, Israel was not built as an immigration.
No, but it was built as a Jewish state.
It was.
Yes. Was that a mistake?
Was that racism?
Was that wrong?
I don't think so.
You don't think so?
Okay. Then you have conceded that a nation has a right to define itself.
In the case of Israel, it's defined religiously, but also biologically.
I'm sorry, being Jewish, it has a biologic lineage, but you can become Jewish if you would want to convert to Judaism.
And then according to Judaism, if you convert, you are as Jewish as I am.
And it's not a matter of race.
You simply need to convert.
Was Albert Schweitz...
Well, let's see.
Let's take any Jewish genius.
You can be Jewish, but not even believe you can be an atheist and still be a Jew.
That's biological.
The point is, Israel has defined itself...
It's a very good point.
The point in Judaism, for instance, that you somehow remark as a race thing, Judaism is both a religion and a people, and you can become that.
And if we were to think about it in race terms, we would completely reject that idea.
But actually, if you look at the Bible, and if you...
If you look at the ancestry of King David, you know, Judaism has accepted people from outside.
Not very often.
If they converted, it did.
So let's not talk about Judaism.
Well, Judaism is important because Israel is a nation that defines itself not in universal terms, but in very exclusive terms.
And you have agreed that this is legitimate.
Now, all I'm saying to you is that if France wishes to...
To define itself in exclusive terms, or Germany, or Italy, it should have that right.
And if the United States, as originally conceived by the people who founded it, as an outpost of Europe, if they should have the right to define themselves in exclusive terms as well.
And once again, you are saying, no, no, no.
Only you wicked white people do not have that right.
And that I reject.
I want to ask you, what is the trajectory that you see for this country?
So you said, what will happen if?
So I'm not re-asking that question.
I'm not asking you, realistically speaking, what do you think is going to happen in this country?
I don't know.
I can tell you this.
More and more white people are waking up to this terrible crisis that we face.
Now, of course, they face terrible persecution if they speak as I do.
You realize, of course, that...
No matter how reasonably I try to explain my arguments, I could never be elected to public office.
I could never be...
Granted tenure at a university, never even employed as an adjunct.
I can't even have a Twitter account.
I can't even have a Facebook account.
My YouTube videos are repeatedly banned.
I can't travel to Europe.
I'm considered some sort of wicked, horrible thought criminal.
All of this, to me, is suicidal and insane.
But more and more people...
Are agreeing with me, but at the same time they recognize what the terrible penalties are of openly saying about white people what all other groups say about themselves.
I believe we are in what is going to be the decisive decade in terms of the future of the United States and Western Europe.
If enough white people are prepared to face the consequences and to pay the price for standing up for their people, then there is a hope for us.
If there are not enough, then we will slowly be shoved aside, we'll become a minority, and my people, at least in North America, will face oblivion.
It's a choice that we have, and I hope that we make the correct choice.
You have a lot of experience and you also have a lot of experience with the people in these conferences and some of these websites, not all use the language that you are using.
You probably know that presenting it in these terms, even if you do not condone violence, will lead eventually to violence.
No, I don't know that.
You don't think it will?
I certainly hope it will not, but why can you be so sure?
For heaven's sake!
Because it has in the past.
When is it?
Well, look, look.
White people, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Because we experience it as a people.
Look, look, and you just said, you're talking about one experience in one European country.
And, look, and somehow you're saying, you're saying, wait, what you are saying to me is...
Just one Holocaust.
Wait, look, what happened to the Armenians in, what happened to the Tutsi and the Hutu?
There are, these things happened throughout history.
What happened to your people was a tragedy.
By no means do I condone this.
This is the sort of thing that human beings, when they run wild, sometimes do to each other.
But that does not mean that because I say what I say, that somehow white people are going to run amok and start killing people.
This is an insult to white people.
I don't think that Americans...
I'm trying not to use this term, white people.
I don't think Americans would do that.
Because I think this country is a country...
Of law-abiding and liberal people who have grown on the ethics of immigration.
And I think, you know, not wanting a black neighbour is...
Let's shove politics aside.
I think it's just to say that this would be a country that black people would not be able to live with...
White people in those enclaves.
It's just nasty.
I don't have another word for that.
That is your choice.
That is your choice.
Some people would say that your country, by not allowing black people to immigrate, is nasty.
Some people would say that your country, by not allowing Gentiles of any kind to immigrate, is nasty.
Immigration policy is completely different.
It's not different.
It's deciding who will be a neighbour.
Your immigration policy, every country...
I believe that.
Maybe I'm not in the same mainstream as some people you speak with in these interviews.
Every country has a right to define who will come into its borders.
The question of citizenship, which is something we did not mention, a word that we did not mention, a liberal value, citizenship, is a question of who gets equal rights when they are in the country.
Already inside the country.
So if your point is, I want to stop immigration completely to the United States, first of all, President Trump has done that.
He hasn't done that.
He has stopped asylum seekers.
I just saw the statistics of November or October.
Zero asylum seekers.
He's trying to stop all illegal immigrants coming through the border.
I'm not arguing about immigration.
I'm arguing about the people who are in the country.
The principle is the same.
It's not the same.
Yes, it is.
They are not citizens.
The people who are crossing are not citizens.
Who do you want?
In your country?
Who do you want in your house?
Who do you want in your institution?
Who do you want in your neighborhood?
These are all similar questions and the morality applies to all of them.
But to return to a point you made, which I think is profoundly illegitimate.
You say to me, you look me in the face and you say,"What you are saying leads to violence." That's what you just told me.
Now, wait.
What you are saying to me is,"My people have no right to survive." Because unless my people are prepared to say the things that I am saying, we will become a minority.
We'll be bred out of existence.
We face oblivion.
Do you not understand that?
You're saying to me, you are condemned to oblivion.
That is what you're saying.
What does it mean, oblivion?
Oblivion? Disappearance.
What will happen with white people?
What will happen?
They'll become a minority.
They will disappear as a distinct group.
Their culture will be trampled on.
They will be considered the people who made everything intolerable for everyone else.
Just a continuation of what we see today.
I find that intolerable.
And you're saying to me, because you have, in your wisdom and your bliss, insisted that what I see leads to violence, I must be shut up.
That's in effect what you're saying.
You're saying Twitter is right to silence me because what I see, what I say, will lead to violence and therefore it's wrong.
Don't you realize?
You are condemning my people to extinction.
Well, I don't see how they will become extinct.
They can marry white people, can decide to marry white people.
If I use your terms, Americans can decide who they want to marry and what communities they want to have.
And they can have in their houses, they can read European poetry and literature as they do in American schools today.
Every American school, including racially diverse schools.
Of course.
So I should cheerfully...
I look forward to being a minority and being a hated minority.
So that's what you're telling me.
I don't know what you should be looking for but I know what is the situation in this country and the statistics is very clear about what's happening.
And you're saying that surrender with a smile.
That's what you're telling me.
That's exactly what you're telling me.
And you're telling me not to surrender with a smile is immoral.
That's what you're telling me.
No, what I'm actually telling you is that I think that what you represent in the American experience is a fringe.
A fringe.
It may be a fringe now.
It's a fringe.
Most Americans have denounced it, have rejected it in the past, in the last 50 years.
And I think that you say us people and...
I don't think that you represent the people that you think you represent.
I hope you don't represent them.
But sure enough, if you would have represented them, the US would not have looked as it does today.
I agree.
And you are correct to say that many Americans turned their backs on any kind of racial consciousness.
Now more and more of them see the consequence of that mistake and they are regaining racial consciousness.
I can assure you that is what is happening.
But to your question, if I think this is evil, I think that, I don't know you personally, but I think that this line of thinking, which I have heard from...
You know, Greek nationalists, racists, explaining to me that, of course, people are different, and dogs are different, people are different, and they made that argument.
I remember meeting Nick Griffin, I think you know, and others.
I think that these things usually lead to evil, yes.
Okay, there you go.
White people are not allowed to survive.
No, I'm not talking about white people.
Europeans are not allowed to survive.
I'm not talking about European.
I'm talking about racial nationalists.
I don't know how to call it.
I don't want to label you.
Don't you realize, every one of your examples is from a European group.
Everyone. All of these evils.
Must India become multicultural?
And Emmanuel Macron are also white people.
And they are being supported by a larger populace of white people.
They do not describe themselves as leaders of the white people as you describe yourself as representing your people.
So these people are also white.
And sometimes I don't make the racial differences, the distinctions.
The reason that this conversation hits a wall is because you turn to I turn to white people and I turn to Americans because this is the citizens of this country.
But every example of future violence and evil that you despise comes from European people.
Whereas, if...
Absolutely not.
I'm Israeli.
No, I apologize.
I have to correct that.
I'm Israeli.
We have fought...
You know, several wars in the Middle East.
Most of the risk to my personal security will come from the population around us.
I don't attribute the evil of the world to white people.
I do not ensue in this identity politics of saying white people or black people.
I think generalizations like that are racial.
Well, my only point is this.
Whenever you talk about these horrible things that happen...
You are talking about Europeans.
And it is only Europeans whose right to survival you are undercutting.
If the Turks, for example, wish to remain majority Turkish, or if the Meles wish to remain majority melee, and they take measures to ensure that this happens, you will have no objection.
It's only white people.
And I'm sorry to be repeating myself, but your mindset is one that condemns only white people to oblivion.
Okay, I think we can take some...
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection