All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:12:27
What Is White Advocacy?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Without any further ado, I will start with some more general questions I have.
The first one is: Do you consider yourself a racialist and a nationalist?
Or which labels would you use to describe your political and ideological inclination?
I would use two terms to describe myself.
One is a race realist and the other is a white advocate.
A race realist is someone who recognizes that race is not some kind of social construct, but that it is a biological reality.
And a race realist also understands that the races are not identical and interchangeable, and that people of different races consistently establish societies that are different from each other.
Clearly, there is a huge amount of overlap.
But on average, I think it is easy to demonstrate that races have differences, differences at the average.
The term white advocate applies to someone who believes that white people, just like every other people of a racial group, have interests, legitimate interests of their own, and that it is unfair, certainly in a country like the United States,
for every other racial group to advance its interests.
Absolutely unapologetically, if need be, at the expense of whites and for whites to have no organized means of defending their own interests.
So those are my two positions.
I am a race realist.
In other words, race is a biological category and it is reflected in the different societies that people of different races create.
And also whites have legitimate interests, just like every other racial group.
I would add that I do not by any means ask for any special consideration for whites.
I am happy to grant to people of any other race exactly the same right to defend their interests that I insist on for white people.
It is a matter of purely objective equal treatment of the different races.
So the claim is that In the current situation, white people are not being treated fairly and equally as other races.
Am I right?
Well, it's primarily a problem of white people themselves.
Even in white majority countries, the people who run the country are generally white people, but they would be the first to say that it is wrong for whites to have some kind of sense of group interests.
The conventional thinking, certainly in the United States, and also increasingly in Europe, is that the society is automatically built in a way that favors white people.
And therefore, an equal treatment requires disfavoring whites, that whites are alleged to have some kind of unfair set of privileges, and that the only way to treat people equally is to treat them unequally.
In the United States today, it's very common to talk about the importance of equity.
Equity, as opposed to equality, is coming up with some system whereby every racial group ends up the same.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, which is what we would call the civil rights movement in the United States, the goal was to end discrimination against Blacks or any other group so that the United States would treat everyone fairly.
And in the 1960s, very important legislation was passed that forbade racial discrimination, not only by public actors such as government, but in private enterprise as well.
And for decades...
I believe that white people really did try to disassemble any sense of racial solidarity amongst themselves.
White people tried very hard to build a society in which race could be made not to matter.
Now, I believe that it is impossible to build such a society.
And it is certainly the case that non-white groups, particularly Blacks, they did not try to dismantle racial solidarity.
They continue to build steadily upon it to make race, in many cases, the central element of their identity and to orient their politics, their art, their social activism, their entire lives on the basis of being Black and in opposition to white society.
Gradually, white people are out of a sense of self-defense.
Beginning to think in racial terms because society is so built up now in terms of racial groups vying for privileges or vying for power.
So I think it is inevitable that as other racial groups, particularly blacks, but also Hispanics and increasingly Asians in the United States, express their demands in explicitly racial terms that inevitably whites will do the same.
And just to, you referred to the civil rights movement and what they wanted to achieve as a thing of the past.
So would you say that they achieved at some point sort of ending the racism that was institutionalized, that was in every aspect of the United States society back in the 50s, 40s, 30s,
or racism is still An ongoing problem.
Well, certainly any kind of institutionalized discrimination in the United States ended in the 1960s.
And if you look at institutionalized discrimination today, you will find that in admissions to Ivy League institutions or employment in large companies or in the kind of training That people get in the government and in colleges,
universities, and even in kindergarten through grade 12 schools in the United States.
The training now is to say that non-whites must be privileged.
In other words, white people, because they are born with this unfair privilege, the only way to live in an equal society is for whites to defer.
To the interests, defer to the thinking, and step back and let non-whites speak before they express themselves.
If you're trying to apply to Harvard, for example, you can probably get into Harvard with SAT scores of a combined 200 points lower than a white or an Asian if you are Black or Hispanic.
This is a very interesting situation for Asians because they tend to do better than whites on IQ tests, certainly on standardized tests.
They have higher incomes than whites.
And yet, what is American society supposed to do with them?
We are theoretically a white supremacist society.
How does this white supremacist society permit a non-white group, an explicitly non-white group, to perform at a higher level than whites?
This is a big problem.
For people who think that there is structural white supremacy in the United States, but for the most part, people set that aside.
And the idea is that in order to overcome structural white supremacy, then we must establish preferences in the name of non-whites.
Now, the idea that structural white supremacy can function...
Without the actual malign activities or thoughts of white people, this is a new development, and it's a very important one.
Structural or institutional racism.
Assumes that even if white people are not thinking about race at all, even if individually they are trying to treat people equally, there is still this miasma of racism and oppression in American society that is part of its inherent structure.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, but it's not very common for colleges.
For big corporations, for parts of government, and even for high schools, middle schools, and grade schools, to say we must fight structural racism in Gitter Park Elementary School.
Well, where is the structural racism?
What are we talking about?
It is true that there are differences in levels of achievement.
We have about 13,000 different school districts in the United States, in every one of them.
The people who get the best grades are Asians.
Then the people who get the better grades are white, then Hispanics, then Blacks.
You find this pattern everywhere.
Now, is this a consequence of exactly the same weird, malign, white supremacist forces acting in all 13,000 school districts?
Or does it simply represent differences in groupability?
To me, it is obviously the latter.
How is it, again, that this white supremacist society arranges itself in a way so that every part of the United States, all 13,000 school districts, end up with Asians at top, which is weird, then whites, then Hispanics,
then blacks.
Hispanics have come to the United States after blacks.
Many of them don't even speak proper English, and yet they perform at a higher level than American blacks.
Why is this?
Is this because every part of the United States is conspiring in this weird way to elevate Hispanics to some degree, but then elevate Asians even more, even higher than the level of whites?
This simply doesn't make sense, especially when you insist that all of this is happening independently of the will of individual white people.
If I were to ask, if I were to ask...
Someone who defends this idea of structural racism.
Well, okay, who are the people in America who wake up every morning and say to themselves, oh, I'm going to oppress Black people?
Who are these people?
If racism is such a terrible problem in America, it should be easy to name the people who oppress Black people.
Well, who are they?
Who is doing this?
And so because they cannot...
Point their finger at specific individuals.
They say it is the institutions.
It's built in this.
It's the legacy of slavery or whatever it is, because they are unable to find individuals that they can confidently accuse of racism.
And so we have a society that is allegedly filled of racism, but no racists.
The idea that white people, instead of simply trying to ignore race.
And simply trying to treat people identically, treat them all the same regardless of race, that's not good enough.
That is colorblind racism, or that is implicit racism, or unconscious racism.
White people just can't get it right no matter what they do.
And if you talk to people like Robin DiAngelo, she's one of the great gurus of white privilege, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, or Ibram Kendi.
These are the people who are talking about this terrible affliction of racism.
They will tell you that white people will never achieve a proper mental state, that trying to become an anti-racist is a lifelong journey.
We will never succeed.
This is almost a religion in which there is no salvation.
White people must torture themselves, apologize, try to dismantle their own privilege until the day they die.
Because this is a crime, this is a failure to which there is no solution.
This is the ultimate message of all of these anti-racist gurus.
And then you do think there is therefore a white privilege inherent to the race?
No. I'm saying there is nothing inherently privileged.
If there are privileges, then why don't we talk about Asian privilege?
Obviously, Asians are doing better in American society.
They have lower crime rates.
They live longer.
Their disease rates tend to be lower.
Their income is greater.
They're much more likely to get into all these fancy Ivy League schools.
Is there Asian privilege in America?
What is it that accounts for their success?
The difference between the way whites live in the United States and the way blacks and Asians live is due to some kind of unfairness.
What accounts for the yet greater success levels of Asians?
No, whites do not have any kind of unfair privilege.
Now, it is true that if I go into a store, a store that has a shoplifting problem, the store detective is probably going to ignore me.
Because white people of my age are very unlikely to be shoplifters.
The store detective is going to pay more attention to young blacks because young blacks are simply more likely to be a problem in that respect.
They will pay no attention to Asians, certainly older Asians or lady Asians.
It's just a matter of playing the odds and to somehow pretend that these facts are not facts.
Blacks, especially young Blacks, are more likely to commit crimes than any other racial group.
This is all part of this notion of this floating sense of somehow unfairness in American society.
It leads people to ignore obvious, well-documented, fully established realities.
If you go to the Department of Justice in the United States, you'll find very, very careful statistics that show you that crime rates among different groups are very, very different.
And again, those with the lowest crime rates are Asians.
It's not as though somehow American society is turning its back.
on rampant white criminality or rampant Asian criminality and then going out and arresting innocent black people for crimes they've not committed.
No. The way the justice system works in its flawed and bumbling way inevitably mistakes are made but the arrest statistics correspond perfectly with massive surveys of American victims of crime and if American victims of crime say yes 50% of the people who are muggers are Black.
And when people go out and arrest muggers, 50% of the muggers they arrest are Black.
The police are clearly simply doing their job.
So this is all part of what is to me an utterly insane myth about American society, that whenever you find a difference in behavior, white people are to blame.
And this is something that it is not only said by non-whites, but many white people in high positions of authority.
They will say this sort of thing.
And to me, it's utterly cuckoo and divorced from reality.
It's an unwillingness to accept human beings as they are.
And at the same time, again, it completely ignores the differences between Asians and whites.
Again, why in a white supremacist society that is so successfully oppressing?
Expressing, oppressing Blacks and Hispanics, why does the society fail to oppress Asians?
Furthermore, there are very, very clear distinctions between the way, the level at which African immigrants succeed in the United States and native-born Blacks.
They're just as Black.
In fact, many Africans are even Blacker.
than American blacks, because American blacks often have a certain amount of white ancestry, yet they do so much better.
Do racist white people somehow set aside their racism when they're dealing with African blacks?
No, this is cuckoo.
The level at which groups succeed in the United States is very clearly associated with their level of ability.
I would not say that they are absolutely no.
Obstacles for the success of any individual in the United States due to race.
But by and large, those obstacles have disappeared.
If anything, in the United States, if you show some kind of promise, there are hundreds of programs out there that are going to reach out to you and try to give you a leg up, try to help you if you are Black, if you are Hispanic, if you are an American Indian.
None of these programs exist for whites.
Not one.
So, going back a bit, it's undeniable that white supporters have been gaining traction in the past 10 to 15 years.
I'm sorry, that white what has been gaining traction?
White supporters, people who believe in the white cause, have been gaining traction in the past 10 to 15 years.
There are more and more people.
Yes. I wonder, why do you think this is happening?
Because you've been working since the early 90s in the American Renaissance?
That's correct.
So you saw the increase of people, especially young people, who followed the cause.
Why do you think it's now?
It's because the system is so manifestly hypocritical, so manifestly unfair.
If you are a young white man in the United States today, ever since grade school, you are told it's people like you, white men, who are responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong for any non-white person ever in history.
You're told it is your group that has created this utterly unfair society.
It is your group who must spend the rest of your life atoning the rest of your life.
Trying to conquer unfair privileges that you've been born with, that you enjoy and exercise simply by breathing.
Of course, white people are going to react to this craziness.
They refuse to be considered the villains of history.
White people are the only group in the world, or certainly the only group in the United States, who are not allowed to say, I'm proud of my group.
I'm glad of whom I am.
If you're Black, Hispanic, Asian, anybody else, American Indian, you can say, I'm glad I'm who I am.
If a white person is to say anything as a white person, it is exclusively to apologize.
What kind of society is that?
Yes, we are still the majority, but we live in a society in which the government itself says that people like me alleged White supremacists.
They love to call me white supremacists.
We are the major security problem in the United States.
What sort of message is that?
No. The idea that the United States was built by white people.
It certainly was.
And the idea was for the United States to become an outpost of Europe.
And for quite some time it was.
And you can describe early parts of the United States as being white supremacists.
Slavery, for example, was a certain expression of that.
Jim Crow, all of these things were expressions of a desire to keep blacks at a different level.
All of that is gone.
All of that is gone.
And despite the fact that all of that is gone, we are still blamed.
White people are blamed even more than ever for the failings of non-whites, even if they have just showed up in the United States today.
You can come across the border as an illegal immigrant.
And so long as you are not white, you benefit from affirmative action.
Affirmative action preferences over people who have been living here for generations and generations, so long as they're white.
Yes, many white people, entirely independently of anything that I might say, are going to find that that is preposterous and unfair.
And what is to happen when whites become a minority?
Already as a majority.
We are considered the villains of American history, the villains of world history.
When we become a minority, not only will we be villains, will we be vilified, will be persecuted?
Who's to say?
But many young white people, and I think absolutely 100% legitimately, say, to hell with this.
I don't believe this nonsense.
And at the same time, we have reached a point in American history in which to point out the differences in ability between the different races.
That is some kind of heresy.
White people are not even able to defend themselves by saying, well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
If there are not as many Black astrophysicists or brain surgeons, might it have something to do with racial differences in IQ?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
You bring that up.
You're a white supremacist.
You want to reinstate slavery.
This is just a loathsome crime.
Despite the fact that scientific evidence is very clear, and I believe it will be someday overwhelmingly clear, that there are simply racial differences in ability, and we will find that the genes for intelligence are more broadly distributed among East Asians than they are among whites.
That's what explains our reality today.
But even to bring this up as a possibility means that you are cast into the outer darkness as a wicked white supremacist.
So there's no way out for white people.
White people cannot defend the status quo in terms of group differences in ability, nor are they ever able to be accepted as people who are not a part of the problem.
Because simply by being white means that they enjoy unfair, illegitimate preferences and that it is a lifelong journey.
On which every one of us must embark in order to dismantle a society that is unfair to others that we built and in which we unwittingly participate.
Imagine living in a society that places that kind of requirement only on white people.
In other words, Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, they don't have to do a thing.
It's all up to us.
We are the problem.
We must find the solutions.
We must pay the price.
We must sacrifice.
And of course, more and more white people, especially young white people, saying, the hell with this.
I'm hopping mad about it.
And I will tell you, if this continued assertion that everything is white people's fault, some young white people are going to crack.
Some young white people are going to say, I've had enough of this, and they are likely to explode in horrible ways.
I find it surprising that not more have.
But this is the future that our rulers are building for us, constantly telling white people, you are at fault.
You are evil.
You are descended from wicked people.
You are hopeless unless you transform yourself and you will never succeed no matter how hard you try.
Some of those people are going to go crazy in very, very unfortunate ways.
And that will, of course, be brought up merely as proof.
Look at those incorrigible white people.
And we are at the point today when the news comes out that white people are decreasing in numbers.
There are plenty of non-whites who say, hooray!
This is wonderful.
This is fabulous news.
America will be better without these people.
Who would dare say such a thing about any other group?
Who would dare say if the Hopi or the Navajo or Hispanics or Blacks are diminishing in numbers and some white person, yay, this is great.
The fewer they are, the better.
But no, if it's white people, that's great.
That's just fine.
This is an intolerable double standard.
It is obvious that some people are going to recognize that double standard and completely turn their back on American orthodoxy today, and we see that all the time.
As you yourself have mentioned, there are many people who label you and your ideologies as part of white supremacy.
I would also add that there is also the label of alt-right and neo-fascism.
Especially in Europe.
And I would like to hear your take on that.
If you think it is fair, or moreover, I am interested in hearing how the people within the community react to these labels.
Well, first of all, what does white supremacy mean?
What does it mean to you?
What does that expression even mean?
To me personally?
Or to anyone.
How would you define white supremacy?
I guess it's the belief of white superiority over other races.
Right. White supremacy is presumably the desire to rule over people of other races.
I know of no one who wants to do this.
No one.
And yet this is taken for granted that I'm a white supremacist.
Even if the idea of white supremacy were to believe that whites are somehow superior to all other races, I'm obviously not that either.
In many objective terms, Asians are superior to whites.
Does that make me a yellow supremacist?
No, the term white supremacist is really like the N-word.
It is the most provocative way to try to morally discredit a white person.
Call him a white supremacist.
Once that's established, you don't have to pay attention to one word he says.
He is a white supremacist.
Forget about actually listening to him.
You can write him out of your mind.
So, it is a completely illegitimate term.
As for alt-right, I think that is an expression that has passed its time.
I have been saying these things for 30 years, long before anyone ever considered the term alt-right.
I think you would find it hard to find anyone in the United States who said, I'm part of the alt-right.
That was a kind of terminology that came and went.
But the truths...
About race realism and white advocacy, they began long before that term came into existence, and those truths will persist long after that expression has disappeared.
Now, neo-fascism.
What on earth is that supposed to?
What does that mean to you, neo-fascism?
What does that mean?
Well, at the moment, it's a modern type of fascism.
Basically, there are etymological questions and issues relating to that.
But yeah, basically, the best way I could describe it is modern-day fascism.
Fascism. Well, fascism was a very specific political movement that arose in the early part of the 20th century, most obviously in Italy.
And people will refer to what happened in Nazi Germany as fascism.
It was a system of organizing a nation.
It had an economic component.
It had a nationalist component.
It had a militarist component.
But it was explicitly nationalist.
Now, to say that what I am talking about is somehow fascist, I don't see how that fits in at all.
Not at all.
What I am saying about America and about the significance of race is far better aligned.
With what Americans were saying, practically every American was saying, up until about the 1950s.
What I say about race is very similar to what Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln said about race.
Those people recognized that it was going to be very, very difficult to try to get Blacks and whites to live under the same government.
If you look at what America's founding fathers actually said, they wanted America to be an overwhelmingly white country.
And the very first citizenship law passed by the very first Congress.
Here we had a brand new country.
Our Constitution ratified in 1788.
1789, we have our very first Congress.
One of the things you've got to decide, what kind of countries it's going to be?
Who is going to be an American?
And you will see that the first naturalization law...
It reserved citizenship exclusively to free white persons of good character.
Yes, you may call that white supremacist if you wish, but it was a recognition that the United States was to be a white country.
That's what they wanted.
Now, were they fascists?
Tell me that.
Were they fascists?
Were they fascists 200 years ahead of their times?
No, they had a sense of race.
They had a sense of the importance of the different races and the different societies that different races create.
And they wanted America to be an extension of Europe, not some sort of mishmash of people from all over the world on the pretense that everyone can become an American.
No, no, no, no, no.
They had no such idea.
These ideas began to become current in the United States in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s.
And therefore, if you call me a neo-fascist, you have to say that the American founding fathers were neo-fascists, which is obviously ridiculous.
Okay. Before moving on to the next section of my questions, I have to ask, because I listened to the debate and...
The"Jewish Question" came out.
So I would like to ask you, what is your take on the Jewish question and what does it mean to you?
I think that the question of the role of Jews in Gentile society or the nature of Jewish Consciousness, peoplehood, these are obviously legitimate questions of study.
They don't particularly interest me.
There are people who are racially conscious, who are white advocates, who believe that Jews are not white and that all Jews are the enemy of the white race.
This was something that E. Michael Jones tried to emphasize with great vigor.
I completely disagree, as I said in that debate.
I think there are some Jews who are racially and certainly from a mental point of view, from an emotional point of view, they are white and they are men of the West and they are allies in the attempt ultimately to preserve whites as a group and their civilization as a distinct civilization.
So, yes, one can certainly wish to investigate the role of Jews in Gentile societies.
As I say, that's not a question of particular interest to me, but let those who are interested in that go ahead and look into it.
But the idea that somehow every single Jew is an enemy of the white race, I completely reject that idea, and I have done so ever since the establishment of American Renaissance.
Okay. So I will move on now to Europe and current events.
Do you think it is legitimate that the European Union is threatening Hungary with sanctions due to Viktor Orban's recent policies concerning the LGBTQ community?
Well, I take no position on homosexual rights.
I think that I believe that nations should be able to set their own standards by and large.
Now, the European Union has views on what is required in order to be a member of the Union, that it is for them to decide.
I take no position on LGBTQ rights.
I do take a position, however, on the sanctions with which...
Hungary and Poland and the Visegrad group have been threatened with because of their position on immigration.
I believe that Hungary certainly has the right to remain Hungarian.
Poland has the right to remain Polish.
Spain should remain Spanish.
And if those countries accept large numbers of immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants or African immigrants, their societies will change.
What obligation do they have?
To sacrifice the continuity of their own societies and cultures which have been handed on to them by their ancestors.
What obligation have they to sacrifice this in the name of some kind of European Union idea of the free movement of peoples?
No, this is crazy.
Completely crazy.
Why shouldn't Japan accept unlimited movement of people?
Why shouldn't Turkey?
Why shouldn't Malaysia?
If Europe must do this, why not every other country?
Why not Israel?
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.
Is that racist?
Is that Jewish supremacist?
Is that neo-fascist?
The Jews would certainly disagree that it was.
I believe Jews have a right to a nation that reflects their heritage, their people, just as I believe the Mexicans or the Malaysians or the Turks or the Indians, any nationality.
If they have a nation, especially if it has been their property, their territory for hundreds of years, the idea of compelling them to give it up and perhaps to become a minority in their own country, this to me is outrageous.
And for the European Union to say to Viktor Orban, no, no, no, no, you can't keep Hungary.
Hungarian? That's preposterous.
No. This is utterly illegitimate.
And I believe even people like Angela Merkel are beginning to recognize that this large influx of people who are unlike the original inhabitants of Europe, this influx is changing Europe in unacceptable ways.
As you know, Emmanuel Macron and even Angela Merkel herself have said, well, we're not going to repeat what happened in 2015.
Well, why not?
If what happened in 2015 was wonderful, shouldn't we say, okay, all these Afghans fleeing the Taliban, they should come.
We will turn them into good little Germans, good little Frenchmen.
Well, they know this isn't working.
And they know that if these people come in sufficient numbers, the nations that we call Germany and France, they may still have the same name, but they will have no continuity.
With what came before and what I believe is the deserved heritage of Germans and Frenchmen.
And could you give me some examples of these unacceptable ways that Europe is changing because of immigration?
Well, look at Sweden.
Sweden has more Afghans probably than any other country in Europe.
And it is not by coincidence that it has the highest rate of rape, certainly in Europe and perhaps in the entire world.
Look at what happens in France every New Year's Eve.
You have riots.
Who is rioting?
Is it Catholic Frenchmen who are rioting?
Is it they who are burning cars?
No, it is immigrants.
It is Muslim immigrants whose motto is, nique la France.
Now, you can look that up if you don't know what that means.
They have an attitude towards France that is utterly different from people who are descended from the original Frenchmen.
Look at the way that they live in their quartier sensible.
These are places where the French police do not dare go.
Do you find any such places like that inhabited by native-born Frenchmen?
No, you do not.
And it's the same all around Europe, where you have these concentrations of non-Europeans, non-natives, non-Christians.
You have enclaves that are simply indigestible.
So all you need to do is look around and see the terrible consequences of mass immigration.
And if the Europeans had had any sense at all, they would look to the United States.
They've looked at New Jersey.
They've looked at Detroit.
They've looked at all of the cities that were once white in the United States and become black.
Those places are radically different from what we think of as the United States of America.
With demographic change, everything changes.
And what would you say to the people who argue that these immigrations are a direct result of years of imperialism and wars that have been economically supported by the European Union and countries within Europe?
When the French colonized Tunisia, did that somehow give France an obligation to accept Tunisians into metropolitan France?
I see no connection at all.
In fact, when the colonial empires came to an end, the colonial people said, Frenchmen, Brits, Germans, Portuguese, whoever you are, get out.
And they got out.
Why does that mean that they have some obligation to let those people into their own countries?
I see no connection at all.
Those people, the formerly colonized people, should be grateful that when they said, get out, the colonizers...
Got out.
Sometimes they had to fight to make it happen, but it succeeded.
They got out.
To me, there is no connection with then turning right around and saying, okay, now that we kicked you out, we didn't like you here, but you better love it when we go there.
What sense does that make?
Are there any current European political parties or political movements that you personally identify with?
Well, I don't know what you mean by personally identified, but I support the AFD in Germany.
The AFD thinks that Germany should remain German.
There are a number of political parties in Austria.
The Baltic countries have a relatively healthy nationalist orientation.
Hungary, all of the European parties that are even implicit, if not necessarily explicit, about their nations having the right to remain as they are.
They would get my support.
I'm also talking about other smaller groups, like, for example, the Dutch movement called Erkebrand or the Greek Golden Dawn, the Patriotic Alternative,
because to my understanding, what I have been researching, these are groups that hold you As a reference in terms of their ideas about race and about their nations and sovereignty.
So in terms of these, do you also would say that support these groups or you would rather not have any sort of direct connection with them?
Well, of those groups that you've mentioned, Erkenbrand is the only one with which I have any personal direct contact.
And those people, I would say, they have a view of the world that's very similar to my own.
And I wish them every success.
My understanding is that they have fallen on hard times.
They are persecuted, just as any.
Racially conscious white man is persecuted all around the world.
But yes, Elkenbrand, I have had personal contacts with those people.
And as I say, their view of the world, I think they would probably find very little to disagree with in what I've explained to you.
And like me, they have no desire to dominate people of other races.
They have no desire to hurt them in any way.
Ultimately, what I want.
And what I believe Erkenbrand wants is to be left alone.
Why can't Europeans be left alone to pursue their own destiny?
Why is that so horrible?
How is this somehow an attack on morality?
Why is it somehow only moral inferiors, if they're white, who want to be left alone?
The Japanese want to be left alone.
The Turks want to be left alone.
Everyone in the world.
Wants to be left alone to pursue their own destiny free from the unwanted influence of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, millions of foreigners.
Everyone wants that.
It is only when white people want that, that all of a sudden they're neo-fascists.
This is utterly, utterly incoherent.
So I guess we both agree then that there is currently a large-scale immigration crisis that is happening.
In Europe, in the US.
And how do you personally think that governments, especially the United States, should address this issue?
Is it a matter of completely closing the border and limiting immigration?
Or how do you personally think it should work?
I would certainly do that.
And that's what, in effect, Donald Trump did.
He didn't let anybody in.
Why does anyone who is not an American I have some sort of right to come live in the United States.
Do I have the right to go live in Mexico if I wish to, if I don't even have a visa?
If I try to sneak into Mexico and they catch me, I think they're going to give me a COVID test and find some sort of residential place for me.
No, they'll kick me out and they have every right to do so.
The same would happen if I tried to sneak into Spain, for heaven's sake.
If I don't have the right to live in Spain, they'll kick me out.
It's only non-whites, apparently, who have some sort of absolute moral right to sneak in in large numbers.
And then they say, refugee, refugee, and then they let them in.
No, we have absolutely no obligation to do that, especially if, as I believe, and as so many whites increasingly believe, letting in these people in such large numbers will change societies in absolutely fundamental ways.
Now, it's certainly true if six Somalis come to live in the United States.
They're not going to change the United States.
They may not be very happy if there are only six of them, but they will have no choice but to conform to the norms of American society.
It is once these groups reach a certain critical mass that then their loyalties become very racially, religiously, culturally, nationally oriented in a way that keeps them from being American.
I believe that the fact of being Somali alone makes it very difficult for such people to identify as, for example, American or Japanese or Turk.
The idea that anyone can be anything.
This is fine.
And I would put it this way to you.
Can you imagine?
Going to Saudi Arabia and assimilating perfectly into Saudi Arabian society.
Or can you imagine going to Cambodia and assimilating perfectly and becoming a good Cambodian?
I suspect you'd find that a very difficult thing to imagine.
And yet we are supposed to believe that Cambodians or Saudi Arabians or those people, they can come to the West and they perfectly assimilate.
How come it works one way but not the other way?
My suggestion to you is that we have a complete double standard about this.
And we do not accept the idea that you have to have a certain attachment.
And I believe it has to be a heritable and biological attachment to a certain culture in order for large numbers of those people to be part of it in any authentic way.
Again, imagine yourself, you and your family and your descendants going to Cambodia.
And are you going to become a thoroughgoing, perfectly good Cambodian?
Try hard to imagine how that would work.
And yet, if we were to say Cambodians have a very hard time becoming Spaniards, then oh my gosh, you're a terrible racist.
Would you consider a political failure the fact that Donald Trump was unsuccessful in building the wall he promised he would build?
Yes. And there are multiple allegations as well against the border detention centers in the US.
Many people have even go to the extent of saying that they are a United States version of concentration camps.
Now, do you think these claims are illegitimate?
Do you think that the border detention centers and their measures are illegitimate?
Look, those people have no right to be in the United States.
No right at all.
We have every right to say no and pitch them back across the border.
The fact that we put them anywhere, that we put a roof over their heads, that we give them anything to eat, give them shelter of any kind, test them from COVID.
All of these things.
That is something we do not have to do.
Now, obviously, these are not four-star hotels, but the fact that they are not four-star hotels suddenly makes them concentration camps.
Look, the point is, they have no right to be here.
They have no rights to anything, as far as I'm concerned.
They're right.
We have the right to say, sorry, you don't have a visa.
You don't belong here.
We're sending you back.
What is wrong with doing that?
Anything above and beyond that is, in my mind, an act of unnecessary generosity.
And we could be generous to the point of profligacy.
And you would always find someone to say, no, that's not enough.
This is a concentration camp.
I suspect that if any one of them says, well, please send me back to Nicaragua, or please send me back across the border, nobody's stopping them.
Now, you claim the debate, and I'm quoting you here.
Autochtony assumes a physical relationship between man and land, which by definition turns an immigrant or descendant of an immigrant to an inferior being.
Who was I quoting?
I'm quoting you.
No, no, no, you're not quoting me.
I'm quoting someone else.
Look carefully.
I'm quoting a book about the invention of racism in the classical antiquity.
Yes. Yes, be careful about that.
Those are not my words.
I'm quoting someone else.
I don't necessarily believe that at all.
I'm only saying that this is what a scholar has found was characteristic of Greek and Roman thinking throughout antiquity.
All I'm pointing out is that this notion that people have the right to maintain who they are is a very, very old one.
It's not something that wicked white people invent.
So don't put those words in my mouth.
Okay, then would you agree then that you share the idea that immigrants in one way or another are less capable to adapt or less legitimate in the land that they arrive to?
Well, I'm saying that every nation has the right to remain as their ancestors gave it to them.
I would argue this way.
Think of Papua New Guinea.
Can you think of any important cultural or intellectual contribution to the world that comes from Papua New Guinea?
I suspect that you cannot.
This does not mean that because they have contributed very little that they deserve to be swamped by people unlike themselves.
I'm not talking about relative success.
Or superiority or inferiority of any kind of cultural undertaking.
I'm talking about the right for people to prefer their own culture and their own people.
Papua New Guinea might be much better off in terms of standard of living, in terms of crime rates, in terms of public health, if the population of Papua New Guineans were reduced to a minority and instead it was filled with Koreans and Japanese.
It might be a much better functioning society, even for the Papua New Guineans, but they have the right to remain exactly as they are.
This is a proposition that I make completely across the board.
And so it has nothing to do with whether or not those who are coming can or cannot assimilate, are superior or inferior.
They are different, and they will change the society.
And those who have built that society have the right to decide that if any change is going to happen, they will make those changes themselves.
Do you understand the distinction I'm making?
But then it is then a matter of heritage, the question of immigrants and the heritage, cultural heritage, lineage.
Yes, it has to do with all of those things.
Now, in the United States, for quite some time, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the United States were European.
There were problems in the assimilation of Europeans.
By the time European immigrants had been in this country for three generations or more, for the most part, they became indistinguishable from each other in terms of per capita income, likely to marry outside of their original ethnic group.
They became members of a kind of real melting pot.
This was possible because they were all the same race.
It may be unfashionable to say so, And the Irish and the Italians showed up in the United States.
We had different groups who were here, American Indians and Blacks.
They have not become part of the melting pot in the same way European ethnics did.
Why is that?
Because they were racially different.
Like it or not, race is a fundamental societal fault line.
At the same time, I believe, as I said earlier in this interview, that race That race is something that gives rise to different kinds of cultures, different kinds of societies, and you find this consistently all around the world.
So, yes, it is a matter of being different in any way, linguistically, religiously.
These things cause problems.
But when those people who are entering a society from the outside are our different race...
This makes any attempt to simulate them vastly more difficult, and when they arrive in sufficient numbers, the society will change, rather than the society changing the newcomers.
Okay. In the case I'm thinking of the south of the United States, since after 1847, In the territory of the United States grew and there were a lot of native Mexicans who were pushed into the boundaries of Central America.
I would wonder what would you say to the people who say that inherently?
The southernmost part of the United States belongs to these Mexicans.
And therefore, when they cross the border, they are not illegal immigrants.
Well, tell me this.
Does North Africa belong to the people who live there now?
Or does it belong to the people who lived there before the Arabs invaded?
Does all of North America belong to people who are non-white?
All of it?
Why limit yourself?
To the southeastern part of the United States?
Does South America belong to people descended from Spaniards or only American Indians?
Does Japan belong only to the Ainu or does it belong to people who crossed from the Korean Peninsula and occupied it?
To whom do Pomerania and Silesia belong?
Do they belong to Poles or do they belong to Germans?
To whom does the Sudetenland belong?
Does it belong to Czechs or does it belong to Germans?
You can ask this question anywhere.
It is only when you are trying to delegitimize the presence of whites that this question ever even comes up.
And how would you say, how would you answer then that certain land belongs to certain people?
How can you delimit that?
How can I delimit that?
Because if you go back through history, there's practically no piece of land that has not changed in ownership.
And if you want to go back all the way to the beginning, to whom does Israel belong?
Does it belong to the Jews because God gave it to the Jews?
Does it belong to Jews because they managed to defeat the Arabs in 1948?
All of these questions can be traced back as far as you wish.
The point is, no one ever undertakes an investigation of this kind unless it is to say white people don't deserve to be where they are.
Now, let us assume, let us therefore assume, that the North America belongs to American Indians.
And you can say, okay, then white people have no right to be there.
Go ahead and take that position.
What does that mean for today?
When people make this point, they almost invariably say, this means white people have no right, have no right to say that others should not come into their country.
That's the basis of this argument.
White people have no legitimacy there, so they have no right to say, whether it's Africans or whether it's Muslims, that you have no right to come.
Well, who should decide?
Shouldn't the American Indians decide?
Shouldn't the American Indians set immigration policy in the United States, if that's your argument?
If white people are illegitimate, why does that give Africans the right to come?
If white people being there was wrong, how come all of a sudden Blacks can come?
How come Muslims can come?
This makes no sense at all.
Again, its purpose, it has only one purpose.
Its purpose is to delegitimize whites.
That's its only purpose, and I reject that form of argumentation completely.
If you look back in history, the rules changed up until sometime in the 19th century.
Basically, if you could conquer something, you could have it.
How did that change?
And why did it change?
It changed because white people decided that was unfair.
Even themselves, the territories that they themselves had conquered and colonized, white people decided, you know, this is just not the right way to do things.
We're going to give these lands back.
It was something that, as I say, the rules changed.
White people changed those rules.
And now people are using this change of rules strictly for the purpose of putting white people at a disadvantage.
Okay. So would you consider ultimately Donald Trump's presidency a failure?
Oh, gosh.
I mean...
He did some good things, but he didn't do things that he should have done.
I don't want to give you a long list of things that I wish he could have done or the things he should have done.
But by that thinking, every presidency is a failure.
Every president comes into office making certain promises and has certain hopes.
No president is able to achieve everything he wanted to achieve.
So I think it depends on...
By what terms we judge Donald Trump.
If we judge Donald Trump in terms of whether or not he was better than Hillary Clinton, then he was a smashing, crashing success.
If you want to judge Donald Trump in terms of what he said he would do, what I would have liked him to do, then perhaps he's a failure.
But in that sense, this question I don't think is a particularly useful one.
Everyone, no matter what his view on Donald Trump would say, there are certain things that he promised to do that he did not do.
Some people think that's great.
Some people think that's a failure.
I ask more because I'm interested in what you personally look in a presidential candidate or a president itself in the United States.
Well, as I said many times to people who interviewed me on the subject of Donald Trump, I never thought that he had an understanding of race similar to mine.
I don't think he thinks systematically about much of anything.
But in an instinctive, stumbling sort of way, he realized that some people make better Americans than others.
He wanted to take a hard look at Muslims.
I think he had legitimate reasons for doing that.
Were they racial reasons?
Probably not.
More religious.
The fact that some Muslims in the United States want to kill us.
The fact that Muslims want to have swimming pool hours exclusively for women.
Or they want foot baths in universities so that they can wash their feet before they pray.
Or they want to shut down the assembly line so they can pray to Allah during the work day.
All of these things are very inconvenient.
They want halal food in schools, cafeterias.
How is that good for America?
I think he had a clear instinct that that's not a good thing for us.
Also, he didn't like illegal immigrants coming.
As he said many times, in this big, beautiful wall, there's going to be a big, beautiful door.
And there are going to be more illegal immigrants than ever before.
That's not something I would say.
But he had a vision of America as one in which only legal immigrants should come.
People who are here illegally should be sent home.
He didn't like people waltzing into the country and going on welfare or taking up expensive hospital space if they come in with diseases.
All of these are perfectly natural, normal, healthy things.
He was different from all preceding American presidents, and certainly in the latter half of the 20th century, in seeing American immigration policy as something that should serve Americans.
Not foreigners.
And that made him an anathema to people who think that no, no, no, it's our job to sacrifice for the world.
The idea of saying America first, that was shocking.
Wait a minute.
What is an American president supposed to think?
Europe first?
South America first?
The moon first?
No, it's his job to put American interests first.
But to actually say this explicitly was something that ran so counter against the self-sacrificial view of whites and the countries that they make that this was horrifying to people.
But to the extent that Donald Trump had stumbled onto these really utterly common sense views of the role of American government and the role of American president, of course I've supported him.
Now, did he take these positions out of a systematic and careful analysis of the history of the United States, the nature of race, the nature of human nature?
No, he didn't.
He had good instincts.
And during his presidency, the Black Lives Movement gained a lot of traction.
There were several riots as well.
Oh yes, many riots.
The main claim is that police brutality is directed towards people of colour, especially Black people and Hispanics people.
Would you agree with this statement?
Which statement specifically?
That police brutality is directed towards...
Particularly directed towards Black people and Hispanics.
No, I would not agree.
Now, take, for example, the number of unarmed Black people who are killed by the police every year.
How many unarmed Black men do you think the police in America kill every year?
Have a guess.
Come on.
Any figure.
Give me a number.
Ten? That's more like it.
Yes. Now, I set you up.
Many people think it's 1,000, maybe even 10,000.
But yes, it's usually somewhere between 10, 15. That's all.
They kill more unarmed white people than they kill unarmed black people.
Now, in terms of all killings of Americans by the police, every year they kill about 1,000 people.
Of that number, 250 are black.
Blacks are 13% of the population, and so that means they're overrepresented in the number of people who were killed.
And as I say, every year these numbers shake out to be almost exactly the same.
But look at their participation in violent crime.
They are vastly overrepresented.
In fact, they commit over a third of the violent crimes of the kind that particularly attract the interest of the police.
If they therefore are killed at only 25%, that is less than one would expect.
From their participation in the activities that particularly interest the police and legitimately so.
These are facts that are well known to people who look into them.
You will never find them in the New York Times.
Many of the people who are demonstrating about Black Lives Matter, they were among the people who thought, oh, they kill a thousand unarmed black men every year.
Just look at the surveys.
There are surveys on this.
So these people were acting under a completely mistaken understanding about American society, and it was a mistaken understanding of American society that was promoted and fostered and encouraged by the mainstream media to the point where if someone like me points out the actual statistics gleaned from the FBI's Bureau of Justice Statistics,
then you're considered a hate monitor.
If you simply state the facts, this is considered to be spreading hate.
This is the kind of America we live in and is in this context that these crazy BLM rioters went wild.
And as you know, many of them were hardly disciplined by the police.
If they were arrested, their charges were dropped.
Utterly unlike, of course, the people who participated in the riot on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol.
But no, the idea that somehow the police are running around looking for Black people to kill or to mistreat, this is complete folly.
And many, many times, for example, in Ferguson, Missouri, the idea that Michael Brown had his hands up, don't shoot.
People still believe this.
But that has been proven to be absolutely not the case, and that the man who shot him was acting strictly in self-defense.
These myths never die.
People like Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin, the facts don't matter.
People have it in their idea that American police, especially white police, they are motivated by some sort of vicious animus towards blacks, and that's why they behave the way they do.
No. They deal with Blacks very frequently because Blacks are the ones who are committing the crime.
They have a difficult time with Blacks because Blacks are several times more likely to resist arrest.
And when you resist arrest for a misdemeanor crime, that is the perfect way to take some kind of misdemeanor crime and turn it into some sort of terrible incident in which somebody dies.
And of course, white people are to blame.
So no, my answer to the question is American police do not, by any means, single Black people out for brutality, nor do they single Hispanics out.
And so do you think that the higher rates of criminality among the African-American community has anything to do with their biology and their genetics?
I think it probably does.
The fact is, violent crime is associated with lower intelligence and higher levels of serum testosterone.
You'll find that in all criminals.
Criminals tend to be generally low IQ.
They generally tend to have higher levels of testosterone than other men.
And you will also find that that is the case with Blacks.
Now, does that account for all of it?
Probably not.
But I think it is certainly a contribution.
At the same time, people who are likely to commit crimes are those who are unable to defer gratification.
Deferring gratification has to do with the ability to accept sacrifice and unpleasantness.
Now, work hard for some benefit in the future.
The very opposite of deferring gratification is the smash-and-grab mentality.
I'll smash that jewelry case and I'll take that watch and I'll run.
That is not deferring gratification.
And in tests of deferred gratification, and there are any number of ways to test this, Blacks and Whites and Asians have different levels of the ability to defer gratification.
I think all of these things contribute.
Something else, of course, that contributes is this Black Lives Matter notion that American society is somehow viciously set up opposed to Black people.
That Black people face obstacles wherever they turn.
That white people are looking out and trying to oppress them and be unfair to them at every opportunity, on every occasion.
Why would they not be completely disaffected from American society?
If you were told...
From day one.
It's those wicked white people over there.
Those are the people, the police, the teachers, the judges, the politicians.
Every one of them wants you to fail.
Not one of them is going to let you succeed in life.
I think that would make you more inclined to be a criminal.
It would make you more inclined to hate American society, more inclined to hate white people.
I think that clearly is a contributing factor to the delinquency and criminality of Blacks as well.
But it's not something which is now fashionable to think that somehow it's the presence of law enforcement of these communities.
The presence of policemen makes them go out and shoot each other.
This is insanity.
This is part of the idea of defund the police.
Just eliminate the police and they'll stop shooting each other.
Well, let's see them try that someplace.
So then, you do think that in terms of race and the genetics and biology of it, there are certain races that are more inclined to crime, certain races that are more inclined to follow the rules that have higher IQs.
That part, I just want to make sure that I got it right.
Yes, you got it right.
And by those standards, Asians are more likely to follow the rules to be less criminal than whites.
I think the evidence in that respect is clear.
There are, in fact, genes that have been discovered.
There's one called the warrior gene.
I think it's something called, I can't remember which it is, but this is something that has been found in Maoris to a high degree, for example.
This is something that is more likely to be found in violent criminals.
And believe it or not, this may all sound quite horrible to you, but as the advances in genetic analysis progress, we will find that many aspects of behavior are associated with genetic patterns.
We will also find that these genetic patterns are not equally distributed throughout all the different human groups.
And if you are insistent that this cannot be the case, then whenever it will come, the science will certainly surprise you.
So therefore, there is a hierarchy when it comes to races, right?
I beg your pardon?
There's what?
A hierarchy.
There are differences, yes.
Because we do favor in our society certain things over others.
So, for example, discipline, following the rules, intelligence.
So then there is a hierarchy.
Well, yes.
Obviously, societies work better when people are less likely to commit crimes.
But because of these things that you describe, diligence, thinking about others, working hard.
Abiding by the rules.
Because Blacks are less likely to do these things, it's now fashionable to say that the rules themselves are white supremacists.
I don't know if you follow the extent to which this has been going on in the United States, but now to say that being on time or thinking ahead.
Making plans.
All of these things are part of white society that is oppressive, that somehow strangles the spontaneity and the natural verve and vigor of people like Blacks or Hispanics.
These things are white supremacists, and so they must be set aside.
Once you believe that everybody is absolutely the same, then you end up having to dismantle standards if certain groups do not meet them.
This is, once again, a poisonous direction in which the United States is going at breakneck speed.
But, yes, I believe that the evidence is overwhelming.
I cannot prove it to you.
We don't have all of the genes completely defined.
We don't have the different distributions among the different racial groups.
I cannot prove it to you.
But I think that the future will clearly show that there are genetic components to these things, and those genes are not equally distributed among different human groups.
Just like men and women are different.
Would it make sense to you for me to argue?
Yes, men are eight times more likely to be in prison than women.
Is that because the police are sexist?
That's because the police are unfairly and brutally arresting men for crimes they haven't committed, and they are stupidly and foolishly releasing women despite the crimes they've committed?
Or is it because men commit more crimes than women?
And is that possibly because at some level men and women are biologically different?
What would you say?
Could it also be maybe...
The way in which society and the communities are building and treat both men and women.
If you believe that, you're welcome to.
But there is no society, no matter how hard it's tried, that's tried to treat men and women equally, in which you can get the crime rates to be the same.
If you believe that, you're welcome to try to believe it.
Okay, I just have one last question.
You've said many times that the white people are being trampled in favour of people of colour because of equity of the modern concept.
So what do you think it would take for this trampling to stop?
What do you think needs to be done?
More people have to agree with me.
More white people have to recognize how dangerous and how ultimately suicidal this notion of white privilege is.
They have to realize that if society continues in the direction it's going now, not only will we be a minority, we will be a despised and increasingly persecuted minority if the people who run this country in the future, whoever they are,
be it Asians, be it Blacks, Hispanics, if they continue to think, That white people are the problem, and that's conventional thinking today.
If they continue to think that, and if whites permit them to continue to think that, then our future looks very, very, very dark.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your time as well.
▲
Export Selection