All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
48:11
Interview: Why Are Americans So Polarized?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
First of all, tell me what it was about Donald Trump and his supporters that seemed to you suddenly a step forward, something beyond what you would understand in a normal way.
It was surprising to me that, because I was aware of the Tea Party before them, which I thought was sort of similar, but the themes of race...
that seemed to arise in this large and unshakable Trump contingent were new to me.
I didn't know that they were that broad and that strong in the
What makes you think that race motivated either Donald Trump's campaign or his supporters?
This was something that was repeatedly attributed to him, of course.
But I think you could find very little in Donald Trump's own statements or the statements of the vast majority of his supporters that would be specifically racial.
Can you attribute to him a single statement that seemed to you to show that he was driven by some kind of racial motive or racial animus?
I thought that his...
His hostility towards immigration was a new tone in American politics, or at least American presidential politics.
And, yes.
Well, his hostility was almost exclusively towards illegal immigration.
He talked about a wall with a great, big, beautiful hole in it through which legal immigrants would be welcome.
But in any case, I'm not here necessarily to talk to you about Donald Trump.
I think that Donald Trump was vastly misunderstood by his opponents.
I think one of the things that the major media did was to find that people like me were supporting Donald Trump.
And then the tactic was to say, well, look at this loathsome white supremacist, so-called, who supports Donald Trump.
Well, he too must be a white supremacist.
And the idea was to paint Donald Trump in the most racially derogatory terms by a left liberal point of view.
And I believe the intention was to cause people to be afraid of him and not vote for him.
Then when he became president, the media were stuck with this creation, this Frankenstein mantra they'd created of someone who was hostile to blacks or hostile to Hispanics, hostile to Jews, hostile to homosexuals.
And yet he has Jews in his family.
He's never said anything that was hostile to homosexuals.
The idea that he's some sort of raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, I think.
It's completely crazy.
It's a figment of the left's imagination.
The idea that he was some sort of proto-fascist, that he was going to bring America towards some kind of right-wing dictatorship.
Utterly, utterly incorrect, and I think almost a projection of some of the secret desires of the left.
I think the left today wishes that it could dispense with certain aspects of democracy, pack the Supreme Court, get rid of the filibuster.
Who cares about bipartisanship?
If we have enough people to railroad through something without a single Republican vote, who cares?
Let's do it.
I believe that that temptation is far greater on the left than it is on the right.
But in any case, Proceed with your questions.
Okay. With regard to his statements after the Charlottesville incident and saying that there were very fine people on both sides of that conflict,
would you similarly say that that was a misunderstood statement?
Very much so.
He was talking about people who were defending the maintenance of the Robert Lee statue.
He repeatedly, repeatedly denounced white supremacy or Nazism or bigotry of any kind.
This seems to have had absolutely no effect on people.
He said, yes, on both sides.
There are people with fine views, people who oppose the statute, people who are in favor of the statute.
But he, again, over and over, he has condemned any expression of racism or white supremacy.
But the left never gives him credit for this because they have this idea of Donald Trump the monster.
And if he says one thing, if they refuse to believe it, they'll say, well, he never meant it anyway.
So they will hang on to something and deliberately misinterpret it.
Right. To what do you attribute the unshakable popularity of Donald Trump?
I think it has primarily to do with the idea of America first.
The United States should be for...
And Donald Trump himself has repeatedly said that he wants an economy and an America that is good for people of all races.
He repeatedly bragged about the fact that under his economy, the unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics was lower than it had ever been.
He couldn't shut up about this.
I think he genuinely thought this was a great thing.
Also, in one of his talks, he said that Black Americans have always borne the brunt.
Of unfair, unnecessary prejudice, and he very much wanted to be a president for all people.
When he says these things, the people that are on the left end of the political spectrum simply shake their heads and say, ah, he's lying.
They seem to be able to read his mind.
I think that Donald Trump...
On the one hand, he did have an instinctive sense that some people assimilate better into the United States than others.
Muslims, for example.
Does the United States really benefit from large numbers of Muslims?
I don't think it does.
I think most Americans have some instinctive sense that people who believe that religion...
And there are many variants of that religion, but we must not forget that some of those people genuinely want to kill non-believers.
Is America really better with large numbers of Muslims?
I think it is not.
The idea that diversity of any kind, people from Bhutan or Tierra del Fuego or Haiti...
From the moon, anybody and anywhere makes us stronger.
This is a fantastically idiotic myth.
But Muslims in particular, I think a very strong case can be made that they do not add to America's strength.
He has an instinctive sense of this.
But if you were to ask Donald Trump, is it important for the United States to maintain a majority white population?
I would think he would have no answer to that.
He's probably never thought in racial terms.
He has instincts, and he would have policies that are congruent.
I do think in racial terms, I think that the United States was clearly built by Europeans.
It was built by Europeans with the idea that we would remain the majority, the unquestioned majority.
And the idea that somehow the United States is going to be better if Europeans were displaced by Asians, by Africans, by Muslims, of all of these different people from around the world, that would never have occurred to any American probably up until about the 1950s and the 1960s.
But then to say that the entire project of America is based on the assumption that anyone can be an American, and the more varied they are, the more they may have hostilities among themselves towards each other.
None of that matters.
Every religion, every language, hey, they all just go into the pot and mix them up with a wooden spoon, and they become Americans.
This to me is a fantastic and utterly ahistorical concept of the United States of America.
Now, did Donald Trump think in racial terms?
I never saw any indication that he did.
However, in the United States today, if you are not...
If you are not constantly apologizing for apparently the endless catalog of sins of whites, then you are a suspect person.
You are a racist.
If, for example, the people who are protesting critical race theory, ooh, they're all secret white supremacists.
So, so long as you don't kowtow to the current objectives of the left, which, without Any kind of exception, attribute to whites the failures of non-whites.
If you're not constantly repeating this mantra, then you are at least a suspected white supremacist, if not, in fact, a Nazi.
It's in that respect that Donald Trump fell short of expectations, and he had racial views attributed to him that I think are completely incorrect.
Okay. And you do not regard yourself as a racist.
Do I understand that correctly?
I don't know what the term racist means, but whatever it means, whatever it means, it implies some kind of moral inferiority.
You cannot be a racist and a good person.
I completely reject that idea.
Whatever people attach to the meaning of that word, it has moral opprobrium.
And I apologize not one bit for my views on race, which I think are unimpeachably moral and perfectly in accord with what we know about history and human nature.
I saw a quotation that was attributed to you that may or may not be correct, in which you use the term racialist.
Is that?
No, I do not call myself a racialist.
An accurate term for me would be a race realist.
That is someone who understands that race is a biological phenomenon.
It's not some sort of sociological optical illusion.
It's a real biological thing.
And that's why you can so easily tell people of different races apart from each other.
If it were some sort of optical illusion that we have to be taught, how come people of six months of age can tell races apart?
Have they already?
No, this is one of the most stupid ideas that only very intelligent people could persuade themselves that it's true.
It's preposterous on the face of it.
But we have this sort of silly notion that race is a myth, but racism is a horrifying reality.
How do you square that obvious contradiction?
So, no, I am a race realist in that I recognize that races are different and that they build different societies.
And although there's a great deal of overlap in ability and in temperament between people of different races, they are not identical.
And so if you were to swap out the white...
Population of the United States and replace it with people from sub-Saharan Africa, you would not get the same country.
Replace it with people from Asia, you would not get the same country.
In some respects, it might be better.
In some respects, it might be worse, but you're not going to get the same country.
And somehow the idea that, oh, no, no, we're just being replaced by people like ourselves because race doesn't exist.
I think that is complete foolishness.
Now, I would also say I am not just a race realist.
I am also a white advocate.
I believe that whites as a group have legitimate interests, just as do people of all races.
I think blacks have legitimate interests and they don't hesitate to advance them.
Hispanics have legitimate interests, likewise Asians.
They do not hesitate to advance them, if need be, to the detriment of the interests of whites.
Whites heretofore have gone along with the whole idea of the civil rights movement, which was, we're going to all be Americans.
We are not going to be an interest group that reflects our race.
We're going to dismantle any sense of racial loyalty, and we will all be individuals.
White people actually did that.
White people do not form organizations to protect their collective interests.
In fact, the very idea of doing it is anathema to most whites.
Whereas over the years, it's become increasingly obvious that every other racial
So... I am two things.
I'm a race realist, and I'm also an advocate for white interests.
Now, don't get me wrong.
The interests of whites are by no means to rule over or discriminate against, in some unfair way, against people of other races.
I think the term white supremacy or white supremacist should be retired.
That is a historical term.
The people who wanted blacks to be slaves, the people who wanted to colonize non-white countries, those people were white supremacists.
They wanted white rule over people of other races.
I don't know anyone in the United States who wants that.
The people with whom I would affiliate, those white people simply want to be left alone.
They want to have the opportunity to establish a society or even small communities that reflect their own culture and heritage.
This does not mean any kind of hostility against people of other races.
Your son is graduating from high school today.
You love your son more than you love the children of anybody on earth.
Is that because he is a better?
He's a better human being.
He's better looking, more athletic, better looking, smarter.
No, you love him because he is yours.
And that is a healthy way that people think about their racial family.
Your race is your extended family.
You have a natural affiliation for people who are genetically close to you.
As soon as you move beyond that, then you need not have any hostility at all.
You can be very fond of the children of others.
But your child comes first.
And again, that implies no hostility.
It's a natural biological preference for the people to whom you are more genetically related.
And do I understand correctly, do you advocate for a voluntary segregation within the United States?
Yes. I think most people, left to their own devices, prefer the company of people like themselves.
You see hand-wringing editorials and commentaries throughout the American media.
Oh my gosh, and we still have segregation all these years later, despite...
All these efforts to push people together.
Why is that?
It's because it reflects a natural preference.
That's why.
There are no insidious people out there sort of stirring up hatred.
It doesn't have to be.
This doesn't even have to be done.
All you have to do is recognize that people like to be around people like themselves.
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians make no bones of it.
They will tell you, no, I prefer to spend my time with Black people, for example, listen to Black music.
I like African art.
There is absolutely no criticism of that.
I like to say, what do you call a Black person who listens to Black music, prefers Black culture, and likes to be around Black people?
You call such a person a Black person.
What do you call a white person who likes classical music, European heritage, and likes to be around white people?
That's a white supremacist.
No, there's a clear double standard here.
You have Asian churches, Korean churches.
They are happy to worship and fraternize with people like themselves.
That's okay.
But you have white people who prefer to fraternize with themselves.
That is shameful, despite the fact that you see examples of it everywhere.
There's a certain sheepishness about it.
If you find too many white people in one place, oh my gosh, they must be a secret Klan meeting.
But if you see too many black people, you never have too many black people.
It's okay for black people to congregate in numbers as large and even as exclusive as they like.
This is yet another double standard that permits to non-whites.
Perfectly normal aspirations as a group, perfectly normal sense of solidarity, but denies those aspirations and that kind of solidarity exclusively and only to whites.
you you
I understand from some biographical material I looked at about you that you grew up in Japan.
That's correct.
Was it events in Japan that had a formative effect on your attitudes about race, do you think?
Or were there other events or experiences that you had that were formative in your attitudes?
Everyone assumes that the fact of having grown up as a racial minority for the first 16 years of my life must have had.
I can tell you with complete honesty that I think it had no effect at all.
Only in retrospect did I begin to realize that the homogeneity of Japan, the fact that it is very Japanese, and it's unabashedly Japanese, and it plans to remain Japanese forever.
Only in retrospect did I recognize this as a strength in Japanese society.
I grew up in a missionary family of people who thought that all people were children of God.
They had very much the civil rights mentality that any kind of racial thinking or racial solidarity was wrong.
And that all people should be treated exclusively as individuals, and the idea that one would be black or white or Asian or anything else made absolutely no difference, and I maintained that kind of thinking.
I was a typical racial liberal probably up until my 30s.
Okay, and what caused things to change around that time?
Oh, it was a very, very gradual thing.
I far preferred being a liberal.
I found it much more pleasant to think that the United States is moving in a good direction, that the people who run this country and the people who are setting policy have our best interests in mind, they are wise people, they are far-thinking, and that they are building a better America.
It's very unpleasant to have to give up that illusion and to recognize that the United States, at least in racial terms, has been Going in the wrong direction for 50 or 60 years.
That's a very sobering and very sorrowful recognition for anyone who, like myself, considers himself to be a loyal American who wants the best for his country.
So it was a whole series of events.
One that I sometimes recount is I spent a lot of time traveling in West Africa.
And I spent some time in the Ivory Coast, which at that time was doing very well.
It was a former French colony and it had a lot of help from the French.
The French government had sent all kinds of bureaucrats to help with government decision-making.
And as I say, it was doing very well.
The standard of living was high.
The streets were paved.
Well, then I went to Liberia.
It was completely the other way around.
People dressed in rags.
The streets are in ruins.
All the buildings are tumbled down.
And as was my custom when I was traveling in a new country, I went to the capital and went to the university because I was young.
I was about college age, and I liked to meet other young college age people who had interesting things to say.
And I asked a young Liberian.
I said to him, for heaven's sake, why is Liberia such a mess compared to the Ivory Coast?
He says, huh, that's a very simple question to answer.
We did not have the benefit of being colonized by whites.
Now, I was staggered by that answer.
I had always thought that colonization was an exploitative, horrible thing that sucked the blood and the resources out of these African countries.
He viewed it in the opposite way, that the French brought all sorts of benefits that Blacks themselves could not have come up with on their own.
So that was one.
I would not say by any means that I shed my racial illusions because of that one conversation.
But it was a series of events of that kind.
I began reading things that I hadn't read before.
It was a gradual, and as I say, a very reluctant process.
But eventually, I arrived at a position that I think is, as I said before, much more in accord with what we know about history and human nature, and ultimately, an understanding of race relations that is vastly more moral than the ones that we are obligated to hold today.
For a second, to your idea about voluntary segregation.
How do you propose, or what is your vision for the realization of that reality?
What would have to take place?
What would have to take place is public recognition that this is natural and normal.
The United States government today is...
Constantly pushing people together.
It's constantly counting.
It's constantly engaged in racial headcounts.
I don't know if you're familiar with something called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
No. This was a program that was started under Barack Obama.
The Trump administration put it on hold.
Biden has revived it.
The idea is to look at every neighborhood in the United States and see if there's a racial imbalance.
And then try to find every possible way to correct that racial imbalance, whether it is by overruling local zoning, whether it is by deliberately building low-income housing, which one expects to be populated by non-whites in affluent white areas.
In other words, the United States government, like every single institution in the entire country, be it a church, a university, a publication, every one of them says we should mix.
Everybody says, mix, mix, mix, mix, mix.
And anyone who doesn't say, well, no, no, no, I prefer not to mix, is treated as a moral leper, so long as he's white.
If you're black, you can say, yes, I like my black neighborhood.
Blacks can say, I don't want gentrification.
Gentrification means whites coming in.
This is our neighborhood.
That is what opposition to gentrification boils down to.
We like our neighborhood the way it is because we like the people who are there.
We don't want whitey coming in and messing with what we've got.
And you find that same sentiment in all the historically majority black cities in the United States that are gradually changing.
Washington D used to be chocolate city.
Whites are moving in.
Blacks don't like it.
Atlanta as well.
Atlanta used to be far more heavily black.
Now I believe there is a majority of white.
At some point, Atlanta is going to get a white mayor.
At some point, Washington, D.C. is going to get a white mayor.
Do you think blacks will be happy about that?
No, not at all.
They won't be happy.
The point is, every institution, every organ of public expression favors the idea of racial integration.
I think that it would make a huge difference if that were completely turned around.
My view would be it's fine.
If people want to mix it up, God bless them.
I don't want to stop them in any way.
But for those of us who wish to live in a racially and culturally coherent society, it should not be something that is considered morally inferior.
I think simply that change and also any dismantling of government regulations laws that
Push towards integration.
All of those things would make it so much easier that what is happening naturally now would happen to a much greater degree.
So there wouldn't even need to be a PR campaign necessarily if these sort of forced government policies of integration were dismantled.
You wouldn't have to, in addition to that, persuade people.
Exactly. I think so long as this constant pressure, this constant moral opprobrium, the idea that if you were to say, well, no, I really don't prefer diversity in my neighborhood,
that makes you an evil person.
So long as all of this were melted away, then people would be much more reconciled.
To doing as their own instincts suggest that they do.
You find this very frequently the case, that single people don't mind living in a city, things are mixed up, but as soon as they get married and have children, they move out to the suburbs.
They don't want to rear their children and send them to school where they will be a minority, despite the fact that demographic trends in the United States are reducing us all to a minority.
If you were to ask almost all white people, name...
Name five neighborhoods that you consider desirable and where you'd like to live.
Chances are, every one of them is going to be majority white.
If you ask a white person,"What school?" Pick out five schools where you'd like your children to attend school.
Is anybody going to pick out a majority black school?
Very, very unlikely.
And yet, if you were to say, yeah, I like living in a majority white neighborhood.
I want my children in a majority white school.
Then you are a wicked person.
No, just let people do what comes naturally without criticizing.
Going back for a second to Trump and Trumpism.
If you could articulate again, and you may have said this already, you said that what you think drew people to Trump was a policy of America first with regard to international policy?
With regard to both international policy and also to immigration.
I don't think people have a consciously racial objection to the way immigration works.
However, the way family reunification works in the United States, we get a large number of immigrants who disproportionately go on welfare.
They are poor.
They are disproportionately more likely to commit various kinds of crimes.
And most whites, if the neighborhood becomes increasingly immigrant, they move out.
Now, is this because they're racist white supremacists?
No. They just have an instinctive sense that the country has changed in a way that makes them uncomfortable.
Now, so, on the one hand, yes, America, in terms of international success, not be pushed around by China, not pay more than our fair share of NATO's expenses, not to be hollowing out our economy by moving factories overseas.
All this was very refreshing.
To most Americans, ordinary Americans, ordinary Americans who don't have five college degrees, who live in some kind of East Coast enclave where it is an obligatory fashion to think in serving the world.
No, most Americans don't feel like serving the world.
They want an America that serves them.
So that was another important thing.
Also, do Americans really want 150,000, 200,000 refugees coming into the country every year?
All of those people, once they set foot in this country, immediately can access all the welfare programs available to American citizens.
Many of them don't speak English.
They may be of a different religion.
I think people have an instinctive sense of, we've done enough for the world.
We accept more immigrants than any country in the world.
Why can't we just be who we are?
Does this mean that they hate Black people?
They hate Muslims?
No. They're just tired of trying to be the savior of the world.
And they found it very refreshing that American president says, no, it's not our job to save the world.
It's our job to be a country that is good for the people who live here now.
And the fact that he was so roundly criticized for saying America first.
Isn't that, in effect, the job of an American president?
To do what's good for America?
But to say America first and then be treated like some horrible Nazi, what's that?
And so that too, I think, was something that offended me.
Many, many white voters.
Anybody who voted for Trump is now considered by many people on the left an obvious white supremacist, a bigot, an ignoramus, a proto-fascist for him to say.
A fascist.
No white person, I suspect, or any other person.
And of course...
A large enough number of Blacks and Hispanics to absolutely mystify the left-wing pundits who voted for Donald Trump.
I don't think any of them voted for him because they thought he was going to install some sort of a dictatorship or he was a proto-fascist.
No, this just comes from the fevered imagination of people who absolutely hated Donald Trump.
And I think you'd have to agree with me that probably in the history of the United States, What is your hypothesis as
to why the left-wing...
Fixated so much hatred on him and imagined so many horrible things about him without any evidence.
I think it has a lot to do with what I said before, is that he is not constantly genuflecting to the totems of the left.
He's not always talking about homophobia and how awful that is, or white supremacy and systemic racism.
We've got to root out.
These things have become fixations for the Democrat Party.
If you're not constantly talking about the evils of white racism, and if you're not constantly apologizing for slavery, he doesn't do any of that.
At the same time, unquestionably, there is a rough, unhewn quality about Donald Trump.
There's a certain vulgarity about it.
I don't like that myself.
I admire people with dignity, people with real obvious integrity.
I don't think Donald Trump has those qualities.
I think these defects in his personality made it particularly easy for someone who disagreed with him politically to despise him personally.
So there are those two things.
His manner.
Of which I roundly disapprove.
And also because he did not genuflect to all the things that all right-thinking people on both coasts of the United States think that every respectable person must bow down to.
Do you yourself identify as a Christian?
I don't talk about my own religious beliefs.
Okay. All right.
Let me look at my notes really quick.
Certainly. If I have satisfied you, we can...
let me see here.
I'm on my screen here.
There's a quotation attributed to you.
Around the time of the Trump inauguration?
Yes. Where you said that you thought it was a sign of rising white consciousness.
Is that accurate?
I did say that.
I'm afraid that was wishful thinking.
Oh, you think you got something wrong there?
I was hoping that it was a sign of white racial consciousness, but I don't believe that it was.
Since over the Trump years and since the Biden administration has been inaugurated and during this period of Black Lives Matter riots and the rise of critical race theory and this search for racism alleged in practically everything on earth,
from the names of birds to a music theory to the way mathematics is taught, this stuff.
Is really opening people's eyes.
And I think there is a rapidly increasing sense of racial solidarity now.
But I don't think that the election of Donald Trump indicated, as much as I hoped it would, some sense among whites.
In fact, I had an interesting experience before the election.
A Trump rally was to be held not far from where I live.
But it was announced only a few days ahead of time.
As I say, this is before the election.
I went out there hoping to attend the rally.
Well, when I got there, there was an enormous line, and it was sweltering near 100-degree temperature, and people were out there waiting to get in.
And I realized I had no chance of getting in to see Donald Trump.
So instead, I had brought a microphone and a tape recorder with me, Interested in hearing Donald Trump and why, if they were supporters, why they were supporting him.
Not one of them said anything about either immigration or the racial balance of the country.
Every one of them said that it was because he was going to bring good jobs back to America, because we weren't going to be pushed around by China anymore.
Some of them did.
Suggest that they did like the idea on the wall and the border because they didn't like illegal immigration.
Legal immigration?
That's just fine.
And I opened the door for them.
I would say things like, well, what do you think about the demographic future in which whites will become a minority?
Oh, that doesn't matter.
That doesn't matter.
Everybody's the same.
And so I already did have some indication that many people who were explicit Donald Trump supporters, willing to sit out there in sweltering weather in the hope of getting to hear him, did not have a racially oriented view of Donald Trump the way I did.
Again, my support for Donald Trump was not because I thought he agreed with the way I think, but that his...
The idea of Donald Trump's election being a sign of rising white racial consciousness, I think I overestimated the extent to which that was true, if it was true.
you would have liked to have seen more rising white consciousness and it didn't it didn't come about no
It did not come about quite in the way that I expected.
I did have fantasies about Donald Trump, perhaps in some offhand moment, asking a group of reporters, well, why is it wrong for whites to want to remain the majority in the United States?
He never said that.
We're never explained why that's wrong.
I mean, everyone takes for granted that it's okay for Turks to want to remain the majority in Turkey over the Japanese to want to remain the majority in Japan or Chinese or Brazilians or whatever it is.
It's only when white people say, no, I'm French and I think France should remain French.
Oh my gosh, then you're a white supremacist and maybe a Nazi.
So I think it would have been very interesting if he'd said that.
Also, I think it would have been very interesting, and it didn't rule it out entirely, if he had said, well, come on, let's face it.
The fact that there are not that many Blacks and Hispanics in the advanced placement classes is because, on average, they don't have the same intelligence as whites or Asians.
He never said that.
He never said that.
Now, what does he think about those things?
I have no idea.
I suspect he just doesn't even think about those things.
Wait a minute, I had a question.
Oh, now, with regard to the phrase melting pot, I'm guessing you know more about the origin and the time of the origin of that phrase than I do.
Well, it came from a play by Israel Zangvo.
Yes. And about when would that have come up?
Did it have the connotation that it has today at that time?
Well, I don't know what connotation it has in people's minds today.
These days, these days, people don't want anyone to melt.
People want everybody to maintain their language, their religion, and to say to someone, well, hey, you've got to become an American.
You've got to think like us.
Oh, boy.
That is a first-class ticket to being canceled.
Whereas in the past, at the time of, I think that was in the 1920s or 30s, when Israel Zangvo wrote that play, at that time, it was taken for granted that if you came to the United States, you learned English, you loved the flag, you became an American.
And as Teddy Roosevelt said, we've got no room in this country for hyphenated Americans, no Italian Americans, no German Americans.
We're all going to be Americans.
You shed your foreign skin at the border and you become American.
Now, no one would dare say that.
But I would say this, that the melting pot, so to speak, of people becoming Americans, it worked when the ingredients to the melting pot were European.
When people came from Europe...
Of course, there was a lot of friction.
There were various problems that people already here had with those who came from overseas.
There was a lot of prejudice against the Irish, for example, the Italians and Hungarians.
There was prejudice against them.
But after two or three generations, immigrants from Europe became essentially indistinguishable.
In terms of per capita income, likely to get a college education, and also the likelihood to marry within their original European group.
Two or three generations later, Italians are just as likely to marry Irish or German or originally English Americans as they are to marry within their own group.
That hasn't happened with people who are not white.
So, the essential fact that made an American melting pot at one point work...
Despite the fact that it certainly did not happen with complete smoothness and without problems, the essential ingredient in a successful melting pot was, and this is the aspect of it that horrifies people, was race.
As long as you're white, you could melt.
But we have had, obviously, groups in this country who have been here longer than the ethnic immigrants who came at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, Blacks and American Indians who have not melted.
And that just goes to show you the terrible difficulty of trying to build a society made of people of different races.
I have always said that the idea of building a nation which race can be made not to matter is probably impossible.
And to the extent that it probably is impossible, we shouldn't even be trying.
imagine a future where there's...
Enough interbreeding in the United States that it would be impossible to distinguish white people from non-white people?
Yes, you're talking about a future in which my people go extinct.
Should I welcome that?
Should I want white people to disappear?
That will happen only where white people are, at least for the time being, a majority.
You're not going to have Asians go extinct.
You're not going to have Africans go extinct.
But if your plan...
Through miscegenation, there are no more distinctions left for all some happy cafe au lait.
That means white people have disappeared.
No, I don't want that.
I don't want that at all.
Why should I want that?
Every people, if you ask the Hopi or the Navajo, well, should you people just interbreed with whites or with other Indian tribes and disappear?
They'd say, hell no.
We have the right to continue as a distinct people.
And I certainly feel that way about white Europeans.
If it were impossible...
To distinguish between white and non-white people at some time in the future, would you predict that that would also mean the end of white culture or European culture in the United States?
It would change in all sorts of dramatic ways.
It wouldn't entirely disappear.
But even now, people are saying that Shakespeare is a racist.
So, you know, we can't teach Shakespeare.
I'm sure just about if you go back in history and you look through all the great names of Western literature, you're going to find that they didn't think the right things about homosexuals or women or non-whites.
And so if you're going to say, OK, these people were really attempting subtly to colonize our minds and turn us So, our culture would be very different without white people,
and it would be a different one, and I want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in the heritage in which I grew up, and that's the most normal, natural, healthy thing in the world.
At the same time, it would be a mistake to think that if we're all cafe au lait, We won't all be cafe au lait.
We're still going to be, some will be darker, some will be lighter.
And as you can see, even among the African-American population today, there's a considerable amount of skin tone prejudice.
Human beings are tribal.
They are, they have evolved to be that way.
It was a good mechanism to trust the people who looked like you because they were part of your tribe.
Somebody who didn't look like you might be an enemy tribe.
For millions of years, we evolved that way.
That's not going to change, no matter how hard we try to teach critical race theory to fourth graders.
So, my view is...
We should recognize the way human beings are wired up and stop trying to have them behave in ways that are unnatural and that will ultimately fail and, according to the way things are set up in the United States, invariably put whites at a disadvantage.
I just, for the sake of the format of the show, I'm listing...
Participants' occupations.
What would you characterize your occupation as at this point?
I am the editor of American Renaissance.
That's amran.com.
Right, right.
Okay. So a journalist?
I suppose, yes.
You could call me a journalist.
Okay. All right.
Let me have one more quick look at my notes.
I think we covered everything.
Very good.
I thank you for your great coherence of communication.
Well, I've been saying these things for a long time.
I have two final questions about more recent events.
Did you have a strong opinion?
About the legitimacy of Biden's election?
Do you have concerns that there was skullduggery involved in that election?
I honestly don't know what to think.
I think that it is facile and self-serving to say, oh, no, no, no, no evidence whatsoever for skullduggery.
But I've not looked into it carefully, and I don't have a firm opinion.
I think, frankly, I do think that there are many people in the Democrat Party who hated Donald Trump so ferociously that if they thought they could get away with cheating to keep him out of the White House, they would have done so.
Now, is the evidence overwhelming that that happened to the extent to keep him out of the White House when he should have been there?
I don't know.
And the final question, did you have, you must have, well, who says you must have?
Did you have a strong reaction?
What was your reaction to the events of January 6th this year?
Oh, gosh.
I thought that was a terrible mistake by Trump supporters, and I think they were carried away by, oh, By the fact that there were so many of them.
But to call that some kind of armed insurrection, an attempt to overthrow the United States government, that is completely crazy and wrong.
And I don't understand why people insist on calling them white supremacists.
Were they shouting for segregated schools?
Did they say black to the back of the bus?
No, no.
I believe they genuinely thought that the election had been stolen.
And that they were saving democracy.
But the idea that they were whites, where the heck does that even come from?
No, they weren't demanding any kind of racially oriented.
They were demanding a recount.
They were demanding analysis of what kind of cheating might have gone on.
Where in heaven's name does the idea come from that this was a white supremacist insurrection?
This is, once again, comes from the, I believe, Utterly sick and twisted imagination of so many liberals.
Do you remember, for the inauguration, the administration had 25,000 troops, 25,000 troops to guard against a completely imaginary white supremacist insurrection.
During the Civil War, Jubal Early was out there probing the defense of the Capitol with artillery, 15,000 men.
And I think there were only about 9,000 troops, 9,000 Yankee troops in the city defending.
And we had to have 25,000 troops to protect the inauguration.
This is just nuts.
And to think that we are being run by people who have this idea of this ferocious, but in my view...
Utterly imaginary threat from white supremacists is a very dangerous sign.
If people really think that people like me are that dangerous, I can anticipate laws that would make it illegal for me to say the things I'm saying.
We have a very strong First Amendment tradition in the United States.
But if Joe Biden packs the court, if there's nothing but Sonia Sotomayor's on the court and Elena Kagan's, is it utterly impossible that they might find some end run around the First Amendment to make it illegal for me?
I don't find that absolutely preposterous, especially given this utter hysteria among people who say that white supremacist violence is the most fatal threat to America.
Good grief.
You have people shooting each other by the dozen every weekend in Chicago or Baltimore, and somehow people like me are a fatal threat to America.
No, the country has just gone, in my view, completely insane.
▲
Export Selection