All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
31:48
Jared Taylor on "Next Revolution" (1997)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to Next Revolution, a program that challenges the conventions of the political establishment.
I'm Brad Kena.
With me, Bill Lind.
You can join our discussion by calling 1-800-5000-NET or faxes, 202-544-4132.
And joining us at the cafe table tonight for our discussion on the myth of diversity is Jared Taylor.
He is editor of American Renaissance.
We're glad to have you join us tonight.
Delighted to be.
Tell us about the American Renaissance.
There we see a copy of that.
Yes, it's a monthly publication from an explicitly white point of view, on the assumption that whites are allowed to have a point of view.
In particular, it's concerned with the demographic future of the United States, given that different groups create different kinds of societies.
And I think that it's about time whites at least began to comment on the fact that current population and demographic policies are going to reduce them to a racial minority.
I think we at least are allowed to express an opinion on this process.
Now, the politically correct, of course, would say to us, oh, yes, it's going to happen.
They don't disguise it at all.
This is a wonderful thing because we've become a more diverse society.
Is diversity a good thing or a bad thing?
Diversity of the kind that the New York Times and President Clinton are always hooping and burbling about is clearly a bad thing.
The idea that racial or cultural or religious or linguistic diversity is a good thing...
It's so spectacularly stupid that only very, very intelligent people could be persuaded to believe it.
Now, the interesting thing here is that we have seen in modern times, I'm thinking particularly in the 19th century, a number of multicultural states, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, and so forth.
All of them, without exception, regarded this as their greatest problem.
How did they deal with keeping all of these different national groups part of one state?
And in the long run, they failed.
Exactly. And I believe that we are planting the seeds of failure in the United States.
After all, the idea that diversity is our greatest strength, did George Washington ever say that?
Did Teddy Roosevelt ever say that?
Did even John F. Kennedy ever say that?
Well, obviously, an invention of the 20th century.
Well, a late 20th century.
Yes, post-1965, I would say, since the Immigration Act that changed the entire stream of immigrants, it was only...
As our population changed, it became required to say, well, this is a wonderful thing.
Yeah. Not so late, except you do see traces of it in the middle part of this century.
Oh, yes, in the Frankfurt Schoolworks and so forth.
Exactly. But you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt.
If we go back to early in the century, when we were getting an enormous influx of immigrants from rather different areas than we'd received them from previously, from Southern Europe and Eastern Europe...
The one thing the whole establishment was united on in this country, the government, the media, the churches, the universities, everybody, was Americanization.
Because they said, and Roosevelt and others said explicitly, if we become what we would now call a multicultural or diverse country, it will destroy us.
It's the one thing they said that can destroy America, is the failure to maintain a common culture.
Remember also that America was a vision.
A continued vision.
Theodore Roosevelt saw right and wrong in foreign policy.
He was able to choose between sides.
He was able to unabashedly say that Panama was the right entity in its little local war and that we needed Panama.
He was able to choose between Russians and Japanese in a little war over there.
Well, I get a little bit nervous when people start describing the United States as a vision or as an idea.
I think the laws of human nature, the laws of nationality, the laws of loyalty...
Blood and soil, the use of now disreputable phrase, all of these apply equally to the United States as to any other nation.
But isn't the United States just a relic so that it would take a vision to return the United States to what the United States once was?
In other words, the United States was seen as the heart of Western civilization.
Something that was unique among other nations.
We were clearly just American.
We had all kinds of things to describe that.
But now it is a relic because of political correctness and something that it would take a vision to return to.
I think that if what you're describing is the melting pot, so to speak, the melting pot was the idea that all of these different alloys and metals would come in from around Europe.
And be melted into a new alloy, a new American alloy, and become something different.
Well, this melting pot worked fine when the ingredients of the alloy were essentially European.
They started off being Northern European.
There were some hiccups absorbing the Southern Europeans.
But so long it was this generally same racial group, it went along without much of a problem.
And most people forget that even during the height...
Of this successful American melting pot, there were two racial groups, blacks and American Indians, that were essentially on the sidelines.
Now that we've given up the idea of a new alloy and that we have adopted what you describe here, this sort of psychological capitulation, this unwillingness to assert a national identity, a national culture, then the changing demographics, along with this utter psychological capitulation of the majority population,
is resulting, I think, in precisely the kind of thing that you show in one of your Imaginary headlines, Mexico absorbs four southwestern states.
And Mexico is absorbing four southern states right now.
This is not just the future, this is the president.
And of course it is in various cities.
We're seeing cities split.
That's something we're going to talk about later.
Let me ask you though, is this just an imported phenomenon?
Because when the cultural Marxists talk about multiculturalism and diversity, yes, they're talking about immigration, particularly Hispanics.
They're talking about women, which to them It only means feminist women.
They're talking about homosexuals.
But I always think what it comes right back down to is race, and particularly black and white in America.
I think it unquestionably started with race.
Race was the first civil rights movement, if you will, and since then, every single one, feminists, homosexuals, handicapped people, fat people, people who are not good-looking, they have all adopted this jargon of persecution and victimization that was pioneered by blacks.
And the idea that, okay, race will not matter.
This is not biology.
It's a pure invention.
We'll make it not to matter.
That was the original mistake, and now sexual orientation doesn't matter.
Sex doesn't matter.
Handicap doesn't matter.
Nothing matters.
We're all just one and happy.
Furthermore... If it does matter, you are not allowed to acknowledge the fact.
If you do so, you're evil.
Right. See, I go further and say that race is analogous to a lot of bigger things, but if you were to go back to the idea of America as it once was, how it was a melting pot that took a while to absorb, it took a while to absorb the various alloys or the various parts of the ultimate alloy,
that even this society, with its black population, could have...
It remained the society of Western civilization, but now the introduction of some other civilizations have made this more complicated.
And I think Islam is a good example, which goes head-to-head with the traditional Western Judeo-Christian civilization.
I think the introduction of Oriental populations changes the dynamic, because here are populations, not all, some are embracing Christianity, for example, but...
Others are embracing something else or a mixture of something else.
We have seen a dynamic change in our alloy.
I agree entirely, and I think what you have is a situation in which once a minority group, be it racial or religious, reaches a certain critical mass, it becomes a competing loyalty.
Instead of bending their wills and bending their preferences to the majority, which has already lost its will and its verb anyway, you have these competing loyalties that grow larger and larger and larger, and you have this vociferous effect on the entire nation.
We've got to make that the last comment for this segment.
We'll get back to you.
And I want to explore when we come back how language is playing a role.
You won't believe it when you hear some of this stuff.
Time for a break.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
We're back.
This is Next Revolution.
Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, is our guest tonight.
We have a call.
Let's talk to Charles in Greenville, New York.
Good evening, Charles.
Good evening, folks.
What an amazing coincidence.
Just today, I get in the mail a magazine, a little-known magazine by way of London, called Right Now, and I have a flyer in there advertising Mr. Taylor's magazine.
I see some great changes really coming about.
I think the reason people can't see the handwriting on the wall, it may be in Chinese.
Guaranteed that Puerto Rico will become the 51st state.
I think Quebec will definitely separate from the rest of Canada.
More importantly, British Columbia, I understand there's a great movement for British Columbia to secede from Canada, become part of the United States, along with Alberta and what have you.
Canada is on its way of...
And you know, the funny thing about it is that Canada was supposed to be the model, multi-ethnic, multicultural country in the world.
Well, perhaps this is what makes it the model.
But this makes us the model.
This is where the model is headed.
Interestingly, though, British Columbia actually considers itself part of the new nation of Cascadia that also includes Washington and Oregon, and they already have their own flag.
So this is not something that is confined to north of the border.
On the contrary.
Well, speaking of places that have their own flags, Puerto Rico, and I'm glad the caller mentioned this, Puerto Rico has its own flag.
It has its own Olympic team.
It has its own language.
In fact, only about 20% of Puerto Ricans speak English fluently, and the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a state, I think, is a preposterous mistake.
I am a deep believer in Puerto Rican independence, preferably retroactive.
I want to bring us back to the question of race.
The very heart...
Of the argument over diversity, multiculturalism, etc., over the really cultural Marxism as a whole, is whether race is a reality or a construct.
The interesting thing to me is if we look, say, at Europe, nobody would say that Swedes and Italians are identical.
If we look at East Asia, nobody would say that Japanese and Koreans are identical.
In fact, the two hate each other's guts.
If we look at Africa, no one would say Zulus and Bushmen are identical.
Yet we are somehow supposed to think that the far greater differences between races, as opposed to just groups within the race, don't exist.
What's going on here?
Well, I think that is a clearly ideological attempt to subvert science.
Now, it's very fashionable to say that race doesn't exist in biology, that it's purely a sociological prejudice.
That's obvious folly.
And, in fact, these days, when you have forensic specialists that work for crime departments and you've only found one thigh bone or one or several vertebrae of a decomposing body, they can figure out what race the body is.
If it's pure sociology, the people who are teaching these courses have to dance all around the subject.
Well, you can figure it out, all right, but remember, it's pure sociology we've got under the microscope.
Right, the fact that the bones are obviously different is a minor scientific fact of no social importance whatsoever.
The cry that the cultural Marxists like to use to silence their opponents above all other is, of course, the cry of racism.
And it seems to me that It's very important to understand what racism isn't.
Racism is not saying that there are differences among races.
It's not just science and biology.
All of history attests to this.
Who is the Mozart of the Hottentots?
Who is the Tolstoy of the Igbos?
Races are different.
If we look around the world today, we see races are different.
That's right.
Well, you see, you'd be hard-pressed to find the stereotypes intermingling.
Even in Europe, it just doesn't work.
Our English mechanics, we've found from driving some of their cars.
There is an old joke in Europe that heaven has English police...
German mechanics, French cooks, Italian lovers, and the whole thing's run by the Swiss.
Hell, has German police, French mechanics, English cooks, Swiss lovers, and it's all run by the Italians.
Now, those kinds of folk observations...
Of course, speak truth.
When we're painting a broad picture about groups, whether we're talking about ethnic groups within a race or races, clearly there are differences.
And if the differences are real, it's not an ism of any sort.
It's just fact.
Well, that's right.
And these days, you can be accused of racism simply because you quote statistics.
In fact, I don't want to...
Act as I'm beating on this Puerto Rican issue, but Scott McConnell, who was editorial page editor of the New York Post, was fired.
Because he published a number of statistics explaining why Puerto Rico would be a bad addition to the United States as a state.
And he said to me, well, it looks as though I've been fired for publishing facts, publishing statistics.
I mean, this is an astonishing state of affairs.
Facts get in the way of ideology.
And more and more we're seeing facts now eliminated from the bastions of political correctness, even our colleges and universities, in favor of the feeling-type classes.
I think, in fact, the suppression of the biological fact of race...
is a spectacular example of this.
The Human Genome Project is going to show without a doubt.
That races have different distributions of genetic material.
That's all there is to it, that affect all kinds of characteristics.
And yet we're pretending this crazy notion that it's pure sociological myth.
And since you brought it up now, I'll let you answer the question, what is real racism?
Real racism.
And it's funny because the people who do it are the cultural marches.
That's it.
Is insisting that a member, an individual...
From the group must have all the group characteristics.
That they have designed.
Right. In fact, individual variation is larger than any group statistics or group characteristics.
There are, to take an example, there are very polite German policemen and very inefficient Swiss.
The individual variation is far too wide when you're dealing one-on-one with an individual to say because he's white, black, Hispanic, it's a woman, a man, whatever, to say therefore they have these characteristics as wrong.
But who does that?
For example, it is the politically correct.
For example, they're the ones who say that Clarence Thomas isn't a real black.
Because he happens to be a conservative jurist on the high court.
They're the ones who will say that real women cannot be those that are pro-life, are conservative in their viewpoint, because they're not concerned about the so-called women's issues.
In other words, they weren't designed after our own image.
And their whole picture of society is where everybody is nothing but a member of a group.
On the other hand, you can have a group difference, which may not appear large.
But if you, say, have a 15-point IQ difference between blacks and whites, there are, of course, many blacks who are far more intelligent than the vast majority of whites, but you end up with aggregate societies that have markedly different characteristics.
And I think the same is true in all kinds of other characteristics as well.
It's not an accident that professional sports, football or basketball, for example, are dominated by blacks.
We've got to take a break.
I'm told our guest, Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance.
Next Revolution will return in a moment.
Don't touch that remote.
Brad Kina, Bill Lind, live from Café Zurich with us tonight on Next Revolution is Jared Taylor.
1-800-5000-NET is our number.
So give us a ring and tell us what you think.
We were talking about race.
I didn't mean to interrupt you.
We were talking about...
The various aspects of genetics.
Now, you were drawing an assertion that we wanted to get to.
Well, I think that the racial differences that we see, the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that they are largely of genetic origin.
The idea that somehow culture dropped from the sky and the lucky group's got the good ones, that's just not true.
Are you suggesting that the reason we have more, say, black cornerbacks in the NFL, to use just an analogy, is because of race and genetics?
I'm less familiar with how genetics plays itself out in the physical structure.
I think there is absolutely no doubt that genetics plays a part in the fact that track events are dominated by blacks, sprints are dominated by West Africans, and long-distance events are dominated by East Africans, who are physically different from each other.
Now, the interesting thing here, though, is when we get beyond physical differences, as you said, if we're talking about training a coroner, very quickly they can be trained to see whether the body they're looked at.
Just from a few bones is black or white or Asian.
But if we're talking about the mind, it seems to me there the answer to the question of whether the differences are genetic or cultural, first of all, has to be we don't know.
We're only beginning to understand the human genome.
We are only beginning to understand how the brain works.
And so it seems to me that whatever evidence there is at the moment has to be regarded as very, very partial.
Well, we know a lot more than we used to.
But still not very much.
Well, there is a little bit that we know at the biochemical level.
That there are genes that are being discovered all the time, and the distributions, as I mentioned earlier, are going to be found to be different in the different ethnic groups.
At the same time, there's a great deal of, if you will, external evidence.
For example, if you take identical twins separated at birth and reared apart, they are astonishingly similar.
They are more similar to each other, despite different environments, than are fraternal twins reared in the same household.
Now, this, of course, is an interesting shift that takes us back to the Victorians.
The Victorians said that...
Nature, inheritance, was largely determinative.
The modern theory that started to come along in the 30s, 40s, etc., Dr. Spock, all of the rest of it said, no, no, it's all environment, inheritance doesn't matter.
Now what we're finding from exactly the kind of study you're talking about, and this is quite apart from race, is that yes, an enormous amount of what a person is is a function of their inheritance, not their environment.
That's right.
And it's interesting to me that the homosexual lobby is delighted to...
You endorse any kind of genetic influence on behavior when it has to do with homosexuality.
They can say,"See, see, it's in the genes.
We're not bad people." Whereas the feminists, the feminists are, despite overwhelming historical evidence from every society known to man...
Insist that the sexes psychologically are interchangeable.
It's just the most willful blindness you can imagine.
But again, it's willful precisely because it's ideology at work.
But I want to come back to the cultural issue because I think there's also a different take on that.
A lot of voices say that the principal difference among the races is cultural.
This may be true in my view.
Again, I think we are very early in our understanding of genetics.
But the assumption...
Is that if a difference is cultural, it's minor and easily changed.
And that, of course, is not true at all.
Cultural differences are among the hardest things to change.
Well, what are the points that the bell curve makes?
And the bell curve, as I'm sure you know, makes a case for the genetic origin of these differences.
But its conclusion, I think in some respects, it's a little bit disingenuous to say so.
Their view is, well, even if it's all cultural, it's just as tough to change, just as difficult, so it makes no difference.
Groups are different, and we have to deal with those differences.
My view is that, as I say, not only at the biochemical level, but, for example, if you take studies of black children reared in upper middle class...
They grow up to be more like blacks in terms of average intelligence, in terms of their personality profile, than the middle class white children they grow up with.
And you have controls of white children adopted into the same families.
Likewise, wherever you find multiracial societies, you'll find the same sort of ordering of ability and achievement.
Jews are successful wherever they go.
Chinese are successful wherever they go.
This doesn't mean whites are on top.
Oh, no, it certainly doesn't.
In fact, all of this evidence consistently shows that the North Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians.
The average IQ for Japanese and Koreans being about 103, 105.
And in fact, the components of intelligence for North Asians has a higher spatial mathematical component than verbal, which is why you find them dominating engineering departments, computer programming departments.
You are talking about research and facts.
You're not stating conjecture or opinion.
I have heard these facts stated and cut down elsewhere.
You see, not on the basis of the facts, but on the basis that they were mentioned.
And so, you see, in our society, we are not allowed to talk about this without some kind of gauntlet of trouble.
These facts provoke hysteria, outright hysteria.
And it's an astonishing state of...
You mentioned that the paradigm shifted in the 1930s.
It wasn't because the facts had changed.
It was because an interpretation had been forced upon the facts for ideological reasons.
That's exactly right.
That's what's driving the train here.
This is the great poison of our century.
This is ideology at work.
Just as Marxist ideology said, you cannot acknowledge the facts of marketplace behavior.
So the cultural Marxism says you cannot acknowledge facts like differences among races, sexes, etc.
Well defined.
We've got some calls yet to come.
Our producer, Lisa Johnston, however, has called a time out.
Next Revolution will be back in a moment.
Stay there.
Welcome back.
This is Next Revolution.
It's the program created to fight the tyranny of cultural Marxism.
I'm Brad Kena.
With me, Bill Lind.
Also tonight, Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance.
Let's go back to your phone calls and talk with Thomas in Las Vegas, Nevada.
A roll of the dice.
Good evening, Thomas.
Good evening.
Can you hear me?
We certainly can.
Okay. Of Scottish descent, and my family has been here since the Mayflower, our family line.
Do you find yourself thrifty?
Huh? Sorry, I had to say that.
But anyway, from what I've studied, you know, history being a big deal with me, our country was mainly founded on and by and built up of basically British, English, and European and Southern European whites,
okay? And basically we all share the same social, you know, ethical, moral, religious, spiritual backgrounds, if you can gather my drift.
And so we basically have like a common denominator.
And what I see happening now, and it seems to be almost contrived, the current immigration policies seem to be bringing in a flux of people that don't have that same background.
I think that's right.
Contrived is the right word.
That is absolutely correct.
It is a weapon.
And from Bill Clinton on down, and this is not a respecter of parties, the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats, you hear them talking bleefully about how they're using this in order to make this diverse, multicultural election.
It is a weapon.
Well, I'll have to take issue with you on that.
When the 65 Act went through, The people who were promoting it promised up and down, and I believe, actually, that they were sincere.
Maybe I'm naive, but they promised up and down that this would not change the ethnic makeup of America.
I've got a bridge up in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about after the show.
One of the things that adds to it being contrived, I think, today, they've taken what exists, the regime that exists, and now controlling it is the language.
That's one thing I wanted to mention.
You control...
Multiculturalism in the communities by saying there cannot be an English-only law.
We have to allow bilingual education so that people who come in from their cultures will only speak the language of their cultures, and we're going to keep and purify almost like it was an endangered species.
But you see, this, Brad, is part of...
There are two different ways to deal with the reality that races and ethnic groups within races are different, and sometimes you do get a state where you have some of these differences.
We've been black and white almost since the beginning.
That is, do you allow relations among the various groups to work themselves out naturally, in which case you get a hierarchy with certain people better at certain things?
On the whole, again, individuals, no.
The individual variation always transcends the norm.
But looked at as groups, certain groups do certain things better.
If you look at the old Austro-Hungarian umpire, Bohemians did one thing, Slovaks did a third thing.
Or do you try, through the power of the state and through ideology, to force...
All of these to be somehow the same, to be equal.
And that, of course, is the very heart of any kind of Marxism is enforced equality.
I want to take another call.
Hassan in Orlando, Florida.
Good evening.
Hi, how are you doing?
Hi there, Brad.
Yeah, I agree about diversity is a problem in this country according to what you have talked and discussed.
But I see the real factor, the primordial factor.
is the values and the institution that was the basis for this country.
And now, especially during history, but now it's degrading because of the feminist movement, of those homosexuals, gay and lesbian.
And those are destroying the community and the society that was branched together and was bound together.
And that's, I think, the real factor behind this problem.
But it seems to me the idea of America as a set of values.
I mean, people don't come across the border from Mexico or boat their way in from Haiti because they're great admirers of Jefferson or the Bill of Rights.
They come because life is better here.
It's as simple as that.
And they bring their values with them.
But here's the irony.
The America they are desperate to reach, the picture in their mind, is Ozzie and Harriet's America.
It's America of 1955.
It's the very America that the politically...
Correct. Most despise and scorn.
That is absolutely true.
Unfortunately, we are out of time, a moment I most despise and scorn.
But to get American Renaissance, this is how you get this.
It's Post Office Box 527.
Oakton, Virginia, 22124.
Now, you allow a free sample issue.
That's a very good thing.
And it's pretty reasonable.
My goodness, 12 monthly issues.
Only $24 for the annual subscription.
Again, Box 527, Oakton, Virginia.
That's 22124.
And we have a web page, amran.com.
You heard it here first.
Up next, how to divide cities in two.
My commentary when Next Revolution returns.
Don't go away.
At the beginning of this show every week, we introduce Next Revolution as the program that says what people are thinking but are afraid to say.
These days, the America we used to know has become just that: an image that people still think about but are afraid to advocate.
Through political correctness, the popular culture has silenced proponents of America's Judeo-Christian past, dictating instead the ideology of multiculturalism.
Consequently, much of America has become a nation of people who still think traditionally, but are afraid to say so publicly.
As in the days of the old Soviet Union, people tend to say what the pollsters want to hear, and then in secret vote completely the opposite.
In the end, communism died because it was forced upon an unwilling citizenry.
Perhaps the best modern-day example of this is found in a very unlikely place: Southern California.
People in Southern California have often rightly been accused of ignorance and apathy.
Ask Californians what they think about Washington, and they'll likely tell you they don't know and they don't care.
But remind them their tax dollars are supporting welfare and bilingual immigration for illegal immigrants, and they go ballistic.
This reality makes California a dangerous state for Washington's cultural engineers.
Why? Because California is one of only nine states allowing citizen initiatives on the ballot this fall.
On one such initiative, three years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly against rights for illegal immigrants.
Washington and the popular culture portrayed that vote as intolerance and racism.
A federal judge all but struck down the initiative.
But Californians know what they want.
Most resent the outsiders who keep interfering.
Washington's multicultural experiment with America continues to have a devastating effect on Southern California, which may have as many as one million or more illegal aliens, most living in the poorer sections of San Diego and Los Angeles.
Which brings us to the latest controversy, and one that may serve as the model for the future.
It is the proposed division of the nation's second largest city into two cities.
Residents of the northern half of Los Angeles have Proposed a type of secession from the southern half of Los Angeles, a move that would create perhaps the nation's fifth largest city.
For years, residents of communities in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley have grown tired of the water, tax, and cultural struggles with the rest of Los Angeles.
After all, what does crime-riddled Watts have in common with communities like Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys?
In the golden days of the 50s and early 60s, Los Angeles was a favorite tourist destination made famous by Hollywood.
Beverly Hills and neighboring Knott's Berry Farm.
The Northern Valley was largely a suburb, a sleepy one, home to little old ladies from Pasadena, Jan and Dean, and little surfer girls.
Then came multiculturalism, with its emphasis on separate languages and cultures.
The ideology of cultural Marxism taught all cultures could live happily together.
As the'90s have demonstrated, America's second largest city is now known for its warring blacks and Hispanics in the community known as South Central LA.
Despite history's contrary view, Southern California is a picture of what's happening in the rest of the country, the growing segregation of an unnaturally multiculturalized America.
If the valley, as it's called, does manage to split off from Los Angeles, it will establish a likely trend for several other communities across the nation.
One can easily picture Houston, Phoenix, and Miami dividing into two separate communities, each speaking a different language.
That is precisely the direction America is headed, and it may be too late.
For real reform.
That's our show for tonight.
I'm Brad Kena.
And I'm Bill Lin.
For real reform.
▲
Export Selection