Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 25, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

02:25:18

The Definitive Jared Taylor Interview

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, good.
	So tell me who you are and, I mean, through the New Century Foundation, how you started all that.
	Give me a little background on that.
	I am the editor of American Renaissance, and I'm the president of New Century Foundation, which is a legal entity that runs American Renaissance.
	And what is American Renaissance?
	It's primarily a website, but we also publish a few books.
	We have conferences.
	We publish monographs.
	And the work that we're involved in is really something that I would describe in two terms.
	One is race realism, and that's a recognition that race is a biological reality and that the races are not entirely equivalent.
	There's an enormous amount of overlap, obviously, but people of different races consistently build different kinds of societies.
	The other aspect of our work is white advocacy.
	It's the recognition that whites as a group have legitimate interests that they must defend, just as every other race has legitimate interests that it must defend.
	And so let's go right to that, I guess.
	So you're known as a race realist, right?
	Like you said, because people call you white supremacist and you're saying, I'm not a white supremacist.
	No, that's a silly term.
	So could you, just for us say...
	Tell me why you're not white.
	Why are you a white supremacist?
	A white supremacist is presumably someone who wants white people to rule over people of other races.
	That was a historical term that had a certain amount of accuracy.
	When Europeans were colonizing Africa, for example, they believed that they should rule over black people.
	I don't know anyone who wants that.
	Any kind of white advocate today simply wants white people to be left alone in order to pursue their own destiny so that they can develop a culture without the unwanted presence of people who are in some way unlike themselves.
	Furthermore, a white supremacist presumably thinks that whites are superior to people of all other races.
	I don't think that for a moment.
	I think that East Asians are, in many objective terms, superior to whites.
	They have higher IQs, lower rates of legitimacy, lower rates of crime, and they too build very, very admirable societies.
	They, of course, have the right to build a society that reflects their own heritage, their own values.
	And they have the good sense, unlike whites, to more or less keep their societies to themselves.
	You don't find mass immigration to Taiwan or China or to Japan.
	And that is the understanding of race and the reflection of the importance of race that I wish that more white countries had.
	And this is something that's happening in Europe as well.
	So it's a big issue in Europe.
	A huge issue in Europe.
	Right. So what is it about, you know, why?
	Because it's true, like every other race, cultures, you know, are okay with saying, you know, black power or Latino this or even the Jewish religion and Muslims and all this.
	And so there's something going on in the white European culture where they're not thinking that way.
	And this is what you're addressing, right?
	So can you talk about that a little bit?
	That is the most difficult question to answer.
	Why is it that whites, uniquely among all the people of the world, seem to think that it is virtuous to become a minority in their own homeland?
	You would never find an Asian or an African or a Latin American thinking that that was a good thing.
	Why is it that whites do this?
	Honestly, I don't have a good answer for you.
	There are a number of speculative Attempts to find some sort of cause.
	And I would hasten to add that not all white societies operate that way.
	The societies that were on the other side of what we used to call the Iron Curtain, those societies for which we felt a great deal of pity, they seem to have been protected from some of the contemporary mental poisons.
	And I call them poisons, advisedly, that have infected whites on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
	So they believe, as the Hungarians do, that it is perfectly legitimate for Hungary to be a country for Hungarians, just as the Japanese believe that Japan should be a country for Japanese.
	The only other interesting exception to this is Israel.
	Israelis believe that Israel should be Jewish.
	And in my view, that is no different at all from American whites thinking that the United States should be majority white.
	Yitzhak Shamir, who was at one time a prime minister, he said that he was proud of many of the things that he'd done, but the thing that he cared about most was that Israel remained at least 80% Jewish.
	And no one I have heard of ever criticized him for that.
	But if a president of the United States were to say, you know, I did a lot of things while I was in office, but the main thing of which I'm proud is that I ensured that whites remained 80% of the population.
	Well, he'd be considered a white supremacist and an earthly assistant of the devil.
	Why is it okay for Israelis to wish to remain Jewish and Japan to wish to remain Japanese, but for the French not to be allowed to remain French?
	This to me is a great mystery, and it is not only a double standard, but it's an ultimately suicidal double standard.
	So it's a mystery, but I know you've thought about this, right?
	And it's the perfect storm because California is now majority non-white, right?
	So it's like there's something going on.
	So you've clearly thought about this.
	What do you think it is?
	There's got to be a reason for this.
	Well, there are a number of possible causes.
	The devastating psychological effect of the First World War.
	If you ever read about what Europeans wrote and thought about what they called the Great War, they had a real agonizing reappraisal of who they were as a people.
	How could we have?
	Blundered into something as bloody, horrible, and destructive as this war that we've all lived through.
	That was something that devastated them psychologically.
	And then, what is it, just 19 years later, go through another war of that kind?
	These had a really devastating and, I think, profoundly almost humiliating effect on the way white people thought about themselves.
	That's one aspect of it.
	Another is that I believe that of all the races, whites are the most altruistic.
	Of course, today we are depicted as rapacious and ruthless and the people who have caused unpleasantness for all the people all around the world.
	But if you look at the way white society operates through over centuries of stumbling along to get there, most of them operate on the assumption of one man, one vote.
	Most of them operate on the assumption of women's rights.
	Most of them operate on the assumption of freedom of speech, rule of law.
	All of these things run counter to a certain aspect of human nature.
	If I am more powerful than you, why should I grant you freedom of speech or a vote equal to mine?
	If I'm stronger than women, why should I care about women's rights?
	These are achievements of Western civilization that other societies are slowly stumbling towards, but very few of them get them right in the way that white societies do.
	All of these hallmarks of Western civilization show an unusual concern for the attitudes of others, those who are weaker than we are, those who are poorer, those who are of another sex.
	Also, gay rights, for example.
	Where did that start?
	White people are now considered to be the terrible historic oppressors of homosexuals.
	Gay rights got started in Western countries, white countries.
	Where did the environmental movement start?
	We are concerned not only about the weaker or less advantaged members of our own species, we care about other species as well.
	The Japanese are happy to eat the whales.
	We're trying very hard to save the whales.
	That's a bit of a...
	An exaggeration because the Japanese are very environmentally conscious now too.
	But all of these ideas started in the West.
	A willingness to be concerned about others to the point where we are willing to sacrifice some of our own basic interests because we want to help others.
	Angela Merkel in 2015.
	Why did she let a million and a half Muslim, mostly young men, into her country?
	Why did she do that?
	I believe that there were several reasons, but one of the most important was she realized these people would be better off living in Germany.
	And she was willing to put their interests before any understanding of the historical and ultimately biological continuity of Germany as a nation.
	This is the sort of thing only white nations do.
	Now that we have Afghans streaming out of Afghanistan, how many of them are going to end up in Taiwan or China?
	Of course the argument is that the Western countries were involved in fighting the Taliban and these people might be in danger.
	A lot of people are going to come out who don't necessarily meet those qualifications.
	They're going to come out because they think life's going to be better outside of Afghanistan.
	Why will the Chinese not accept a single one?
	And why will the ones who accept these people be overwhelmingly white countries?
	It's because of this sense of altruism, which I believe in some cases has gone to a pathological extreme.
	So it's like the heart is a good intention.
	So are you saying that this side of the white civilization, the Western civilization and white culture is actually a bad thing?
	Because you don't seem to think it isn't.
	You seem to think that's one of the qualities that we have.
	Among members of the same tribe, altruism has been a very important thing.
	The expectation that others will treat you well and that you will treat them well.
	The ingredients of a high-trust society.
	This is a way to build a society that is far more successful than one in which people are suspicious of each other, don't give a damn about each other, and so within the nation itself.
	All of these attitudes, and as I say, it took centuries for Western people to stumble along to arrive at this view of how a society should operate.
	This all works very well, so long as we're talking about the same people, the people who have evolved under the same circumstances and are likely to reciprocate these ideas of mutual benefit of high trust.
	When you then inject a group...
	that does not have the same cultural background or religious background and, dare I say it, not the same biological substrate, then you get terrible problems.
	Socialism of the Scandinavian kind, that can work in a very homogeneous society of Scandinavians.
	Once you start putting in Muslims Africans, South Americans, people who don't have the same expectations, people who are willing to exploit a system because they don't care if exploiting it hurts other people.
	That system is going to break down.
	And so one of the great mistakes that whites have made in this altruistic spasm to which we're going through now is to assume that every single group is absolutely identical in every way.
	That, to me, is one of the great fallacies, one of the great underlying, and as I said before, possibly, ultimately, suicidal fallacies of the way Western people view the world.
	Right now, we're living in a time, you mentioned in this, your answer, suspicion and mistrust.
	Yes. I mean, when you said that, I said, well, that's kind of where we are now.
	Yes, it is.
	The suspicion and mistrust.
	In the United States breaks down primarily along race and race-related lines.
	You're always going to have human groups that are suspicious of each other for differences of religion, differences of language, differences of culture.
	But in any society, the most difficult fault line to paper over is race.
	It's because race is visible, race is biological, and race is also associated with certain behavioral characteristics at the margin.
	As I say, there's an enormous amount of overlap, and I get very tired of hearing people accuse me of thinking that all whites are smarter than all blacks, anything as absurd as that.
	There's a tremendous amount of overlap, but there are differences at the average and differences at the margin that make.
	That make a society more difficult to operate if you're trying to mix in disparate parts.
	We have what I describe as an idiotic slogan in these United States that diversity is not only a strength, it's our greatest strength.
	Is that so?
	Is it really?
	Is it really a source of strength?
	Or is it a source of division?
	Look at the way during 2020.
	What was it?
	200 cities in the United States had to establish curfews to stop the rioting and the looting.
	30 American states had to call out the National Guard to keep the peace.
	None of that would have happened if the United States did not have different races trying to live together in the same territory.
	All of that was a source of, all of that was caused by this diversity which is alleged to be America's greatest strength.
	Yeah, and also America's got another complication that's referred to by the mainstream media as the original sin, right, of slavery.
	So that's a little bit complicated.
	Well, I would make a different point.
	Look at any multiracial society and you will find the same problems.
	Any multiracial society.
	Especially a multiracial society in which you find large numbers of blacks.
	It may be.
	That East Asians and whites can live peacefully together.
	You almost never get serious problems pitting East Asians and whites against each other.
	But once you mix in blacks and to a somewhat lesser extent Hispanics, you're going to have friction of a very serious kind.
	Look at crime rates in Canada.
	Look at crime rates in Britain.
	You will find exactly the same patterns.
	Poverty rates, illegitimacy rates that you find in the United States without this original sin, as you call it.
	Furthermore, let us not forget that virtually every society in the world has had slavery.
	And slavery was abolished all around the world by whites.
	This was a white idea.
	And slavery still exists in many societies in Africa.
	But we are supposed to hang our heads for eternity, I suppose, that whites at one time had black slaves.
	This is all part of the double standard that is worked against whites and exclusively against whites.
	So there was something in the...
	I'm changing a little bit, but I saw your video, your recent one, about did we learn anything?
	And honestly, when you were saying that most, a bunch of, you know, left-wing liberals would agree with...
	Everything you said really about the war and the absurdity of the government, which I thought was interesting and not so radical.
	So here's my question: what is extremism if it's outside the purview of You know, the New York Times, the Watch Post, Wall Street Journal, and the GOP, suddenly it's extremism.
	So it seemed like what you were saying, you're considered an extremist, right?
	They're saying out there.
	And yet what you were saying made a lot of sense in terms of the war.
	You're talking about the war in Iraq.
	Yeah, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	You just totally went off on how absurd that whole thing was and how we're trying to help and how we're trying to bring...
	And I was listening to it, I was going like, well...
	A bunch of Bernie bros would agree with that.
	They probably would.
	Those are two different wars, of course.
	The one in Afghanistan, the one in Iraq.
	The one in Iraq, I find, really, to be a criminal enterprise.
	I suppose that's extreme.
	Because the people who engineered that war, George W. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Fythe, Wolfowitz, they're all walking around with their heads held high.
	But that war was launched on a bunch of completely false pretexts.
	Saddam Hussein was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction he was going to use on us.
	He didn't.
	And we had UN inspectors in there going everywhere they wanted.
	And they said, we can't find a thing.
	We said, no, no, no.
	We know better.
	We're going to go in there and kill, what, 400,000 people, as it turned out?
	They weren't even there.
	Now, at Juremberg, we hung Nazis for waging what we called aggressive war.
	Now, those guys who started that war, they certainly started, I'm sorry, both the Nazis and the people who started the war in Iraq.
	They certainly launched an aggressive war against a country that was no threat to us whatsoever.
	They certainly aren't going to swing for it, but I think that they committed a war crime.
	Now, is that an extreme view?
	Maybe it is.
	It's certainly an out-of-the-ordinary view in the United States today, but I think, again...
	What they did was really unconscionable.
	Sorry, let me...
	your mind just went off.
	So there's this thing about these wars that we do that we're losing.
	May I talk about the one in Afghanistan?
	We had some justification to go in there because we told the Taliban, okay, hand over Bin Laden.
	Bin Laden is claiming this assault on America that killed 3,000 people.
	We'd like to get our hands on him.
	And they said, nope, nope, you're going to have to come and get him.
	So we had to go and get him.
	But once we'd established that he was not there, he ran off into Pakistan.
	We should come home.
	Instead, we spent 20 years trying to turn Afghans into essentially Americans.
	A crazy, utterly crazy idea.
	And this is part and parcel with this idea that we can have a nation made of people from Bhutan and from Malaysia and from Haiti and Guatemala and they're all going to turn out to be just like the lineal descendants or the ideological descendants of Thomas Jefferson.
	It's obviously...
	Not working.
	But we take this folly and we apply it overseas in a way that I think was catastrophically destructive to Afghanistan and catastrophically destructive to us, to our reputation.
	And we're supposed to have spent, what, $8 trillion on the war against terror?
	$8 trillion would do a lot of good here in the United States.
	Here we have bridges falling down and roads with potholes in them, much less all the other ways we might want to spend $8 trillion.
	All of this based on a kind of messianic and at the same time completely deluded view that all human beings are essentially the same.
	And if we shoot enough of them, then the Afghans are going to want to wear bikinis and vote for Joe Biden.
	This stuff is utterly insane.
	It has to do with this mistaken view of human nature and the differences between human groups.
	So you're familiar with the Northwest Front, right?
	Which is in Covington, and they want to do, they kind of believe what you're believing.
	I mean, you're saying in terms of not that they, so it's, I mean, some of those people are more extreme.
	They want a total ethno-white state.
	But they're also saying, listen, we just want to, up in Montana and Wyoming, and so what do you think of that idea?
	That they want to do their own area and say, look, we just want to have our culture leave us alone.
	The idea of separation and cultural preservation is one that I think is entirely 100% legitimate.
	And my suspicion is that if in the privacy of the ballot box you were to ask white people what sort of world do they really want to live in?
	What sort of nation do they really want to live in?
	Do they really want to live in the kind of multi-culti, diverse sort of society we're supposed to want to live in?
	I think not.
	And if you ask a white American, can you name, say, half a dozen neighborhoods you'd like to live in?
	How many of them are going to name a neighborhood in which whites are a minority?
	If you're going to ask them, name half a dozen schools you would like your child to attend, how many white Americans are going to suggest that I want them to attend one that's majority Hispanic or black?
	Zero. Or very close to zero.
	And yet, We have set in motion all of these policies that are going to make the entire United States minority white and gradually every one of these neighborhoods, every one of these schools are going to become the neighborhoods and schools that white Americans do not want to be part of.
	Does this make sense?
	And is it, and this is perhaps the more important question, is it evil?
	For whites to wish to live in a racially and culturally coherent neighborhood.
	When blacks say,"I'm so tired of white people today, I'm just gonna relax and kick back with the homies." There's nothing wrong with that.
	When Koreans want to attend Korean churches, of which we have a great many, does someone say,"Oh, this is Korean supremacy." No.
	It is only when whites express the same perfectly normal, perfectly healthy desire to be around people like themselves that they are considered evil.
	At the same time, I have never advocated any kind of forcible separation.
	If there are white people and black people and Hispanics and Asians and who knows who all who want to mix it up in a diverse society, God bless them.
	I have no objection to their doing that.
	But they should not consider themselves the moral superiors of the Koreans who want to go to Korean churches, the black people who want to have their black firefighters association, or white people who wish to live among people like themselves.
	That is the fundamental and ultimately possibly fatal double standard that whites live with today.
	So where do you think all this is going?
	What is your prognosis to the future?
	I think that if Western civilization is to survive in any genuinely healthy and meaningful way in North America, in the long term, there will have to be parts of the continent that are self-consciously,
	numerically majority white.
	If that doesn't happen, whites will become an increasingly tiny minority.
	And, by the way, a despised minority.
	Even now, we are considered to be the ones who are to blame for anything that's ever gone wrong for non-whites anywhere in the world, anytime in history.
	It's quite a remarkable thing.
	We're all born with white privilege, unearned white privilege, and apparently we oppress people simply by remaining silent.
	You know the slogan"white silence is violence"?
	Good grief!
	Do we have superpowers?
	Simply by remaining silence or somehow committing violence against black people?
	Wow! I wish I had the capability to do that.
	I'd like to think that I wouldn't.
	I don't think I would.
	But the point is, even as a majority, whites are increasingly a despised people.
	We're almost a stateless people.
	We don't have a government that looks after our interests, that's for sure.
	In any case, four whites...
	To remain a coherent group and to be the guardians of, I think, a very, very valuable history, tradition.
	There will have to be places that are numerically and self-consciously majority white.
	Whether that will happen, I don't know.
	Such places are likely to remain in Eastern Europe.
	But even those are under terrible assault.
	As you know, all of the European Union has ganged up against Poland and the Czechs and Slovaks and Hungarians.
	No, no, no.
	You can't remain majority white.
	That's no good.
	That's white supremacists.
	So how long will they be able to hold out?
	I don't know.
	But for my people to survive, just like for any people to survive, there has to be An area in which they are the unquestioned majority.
	Where does violence come in all this?
	Violence. It doesn't come into any of it.
	But do you think if people feel threatened?
	I'm not talking about what you think.
	I'm just saying in the history, where the world is right now, where does violence fit in this?
	Because you're not the only person who believes this.
	We were interviewing a young man, he was in his 40s, in California.
	Who feels this, and he's a working class person who feels exactly the same way.
	And he lives in a majority non-white area, used to be a completely white, and he's got this anxiety about it.
	And he's angry about it.
	So where does violence play into this?
	Because we're living in difficult times.
	As far as I'm concerned, if there's no peaceful solution, there's no solution.
	Now, if he is angry, I don't blame him.
	I think he has every right to be angry.
	He is probably a guy who can't afford to live in a neighborhood that is not majority non-white.
	And he sees the kind of message that is constantly being beamed out, especially to blacks, but also to Hispanics and also to Asians, that white people are the cause of your problems.
	If we had set out to try to teach black people to hate white people, we couldn't have done a better job.
	Now we're at the point where we tell them that math is racist, music theory is racist, white people are all racist, no matter how hard they try.
	You can be a white ally, you can try to be an anti-racist, but you will never be anything but an aspiring anti-racist because you're white.
	What kind of talk is that?
	And we constantly tell them, the police are trying to kill you, judges want to hang you, teachers despise you, the American...
	The population as a whole hates you.
	Good grief!
	If I were told that day after day after day, I might get hopped in that.
	It's surprising to me that we don't have actually more black-on-white crime than we do.
	In any case, think about the effect this message has on whites, especially ordinary working-class whites who have never done an oppressive thing to a non-white person in their life.
	Who are lumped in with this tradition of colonization, lynching, slavery, something with which they have absolutely nothing.
	But simply because they're white, they have to carry this albatross around their necks for the rest of their lives as a kind of heritable sin, an inherited sin simply by being white.
	Now, these young people, I tell you, I know plenty who are hopping mad.
	All their lives, from kindergarten on, they've got this message.
	Now, what they will do with that anger, I hope, is going to be constructive and political.
	Now, there are people who say, okay, there are people who think the same way you do, and they go out and shoot people.
	So, shouldn't you stop thinking what you think?
	That was probably your next question.
	Well, I have a reply to that.
	And I would tell you something of a parable.
	Let us imagine...
	That I am very concerned about climate change.
	I am really committed to saving the planet.
	And I believe that there are important industries out there that are not doing what they should do.
	They're heating up the planet.
	They're endangering the survival of our species, of our descendants.
	And someone who has read what I wrote, then goes out and shoots up the executive floor of ExxonMobil.
	Should I then change?
	What I say if I think I'm right?
	The answer to that question is no.
	I'm right.
	And the people who disagree with me are wrong.
	Sorry. Now, can I guarantee that the people who agree with me will all behave in a reasonable way?
	No, I cannot.
	It's the same with people who approve of abortion or who disapprove of abortion.
	There are some people who want to shoot abortionists.
	Does that mean that people who are opposed to abortion are wrong and should shut up?
	No. There's always a question of who is right and wrong, and there's always a question of tactics.
	I have always condemned, in the harshest terms, any kind of violence in the name of any political position.
	I know, and I wasn't going to ask that question, but I'm glad you answered it, because I wasn't trying to connect that, you know, that your thinking is leading to violence.
	I was thinking more.
	I was more interested in we're living in really tumultuous times there are people that are there's all these militia groups that are angry these three percenters who are like armed up to the teeth who are saying the civil wars are happening
	and talk about like and then they they're white most of them who are feeling this way and they're feeling this pressure
	It's boiling.
	I was thinking more about how do you see that because if you said this only can be resolved...
	Peacefully. But if it blows up, what next?
	That would not be a good thing, right?
	No. I do worry about that.
	Yes, I do.
	I think the United States could blow up for a variety of reasons.
	I don't think it's absolutely inconceivable.
	Well, look what happened after May of 2020.
	The United States, in effect, did blow up.
	It was an extraordinary, what, nine, ten months of constant rioting?
	What does that say about the United States?
	What does that say about any sense of unity that we have?
	We already are at each other's throats in the most horrifying way.
	Is that going to get worse?
	Is that going to get better?
	And what could touch it off next?
	I remember back when Barack Obama was elected.
	So many people.
	We call this a transformational event.
	America is going to be a new place.
	We've turned the corner.
	Race relations will get so much better because we elected a black president.
	I was on a radio program and I said,"No, it's not going to change anything." It's not going to make black people less likely to commit murder or have illegitimate children.
	It's not going to make Hispanics suddenly want to have black neighbors.
	It's not going to make white people suddenly want to have black or Hispanic.
	Nothing is going to change.
	And I remember being derided as actually taking a bad faith position.
	No, it's just being realistic.
	There was a black man elected governor of Virginia.
	There was a similar sorts of...
	Doug Wilder was his name.
	Similar kinds of hosannas.
	Oh my gosh, the Confederacy is over.
	Nothing changed.
	Nothing changed because human nature doesn't change.
	To the point that after Obama got elected, I think the 800% rise in the Patriot movement, which is all militias, and they were mostly, you know...
	Attached to this white supremacy idea, which I don't know.
	I don't know if it's all true because, you know, not everybody's white supremacist, but there was a growth of the militia movement.
	First of all, nobody is white supremacist in the way this word is used.
	Whether they have a racial consciousness and they think they're trying to fight for a white ethnostate, I think, as a matter of fact, only a very small number of actual militia members or oath keepers, the three percenters.
	I think a very small number of them even think in those terms.
	The Proud Boys, for example, they're run by a black Cuban, for heaven's sake, and they're repeatedly called a white supremacist group.
	Well, what's this?
	What's this?
	No, the idea that these people are motivated by race or racial hatred.
	No, they hate the US federal government.
	It's like Timothy McVeigh.
	He did kill, what, 180 people?
	168. 168.
	Thank you.
	You can say that again so you get the right number.
	Was that 1995?
	That was 1995.
	April 19th, 1995.
	Good grief.
	You're well informed.
	He did that primarily because he was furious about what happened at Ruby Ridge and especially at Waco.
	He thought the government had massacred these people in an absolutely unforgivable way.
	Now, was he a white supremacist?
	He apparently had read a book called The Turner Diaries, which is a favorite in certain racially conscious white circles, but that seemed to be more something that gave him an idea of how to go about taking revenge on what he thought of as an overweening federal government.
	That is, in my view, the main motivation of militia people.
	Certainly that's the case of the Oath Keepers.
	I know some people in Oath Keepers and so I've been able to talk to them in some detail about what their views are.
	You know the origin of that term, Oath Keepers.
	These are people who have, for some reason, in some professional capacity, taken an oath to defend the Constitution.
	So they're either in the military or they're in law enforcement or government at a high level.
	And those are people who believe that the government today, the federal government, is violating the Constitution.
	That's their number one concern.
	Furthermore, this idea that white supremacy is driving everything wrong with the country, and there are some people who clearly apparently believe that.
	Take the January 6th event, the riot at the Capitol.
	This is routinely called a white supremacist uprising.
	This to me is completely cuckoo.
	Were those people calling for segregated schools?
	Were they opposed to school busing?
	Were they demanding that illegal immigrants be expelled from the country?
	No. Nothing.
	None of that.
	There was one Confederate flag, as I understand it, that walked around the Capitol.
	That guy's from Pennsylvania.
	I know nothing about his political views.
	What was white supremacist about that gathering?
	Mostly... It seems to me that the most extreme and motivated people were believers in QAnon.
	And QAnon is a goofball thing I have a hard time making head or tails of, but there's certainly no racial element in that.
	And yet, people have this preconceived notion that if something goes wrong and white people are involved, it had to be white supremacists.
	And that this was some kind of armed insurrection.
	Good grief, armed with what?
	Police riot shields and bear spray.
	I mean, you wouldn't even find some sort of foolhardy attempt to pull off a coup and up revolta with people who are just armed with bear spray, for heaven's sake.
	But this idea that, oh, we've got to keep an eye on these white people, especially you get a few white people together, and man, oh man, the stormtroopers are going to start marching and they start hanging black people.
	Completely cuckoo stuff.
	So, please be careful.
	When you describe militias or some of these other groups as white supremacists, I don't think they, even for the most part, have a consciousness of race, much less any sense that they are superior and they want to dominate people of other races.
	I think that's very dangerous and faulty thinking.
	Yeah, I agree.
	But this is what's been labeled, so that's where the media comes from.
	It should have been labeled.
	You'd like to answer, and there's a lot of things in what you answer that I want to go back.
	And one is the McVeigh, because McVeigh actually, You're totally right.
	It's 100% against the government.
	That's his motivation.
	But he did have, I guess, his white nationalism aspect because he had been influenced by the Aryan nation and he, during the military, was thrown out because of his views on that.
	So he did have a little bit of that.
	He was honorably discharged.
	Right, but they did that because he had some problems.
	That's why they asked him to leave.
	And he was honorably discharged, but he was...
	Because I did a lot of studies.
	Meaning it's like he did have a little bit of that.
	Like he had some racial thing.
	But you're right.
	His main motivation was anti-government.
	But he wasn't squeaky clean on that one.
	But he mostly killed white people, did he not?
	Yeah, no.
	That's why he got mad.
	Because he got really upset in the war.
	Because... In Iraq.
	because they were killing these Iraqis and he didn't know why they were killing them.
	Like he was going, this is ridiculous.
	So that's where he started going like something's wrong.
	But he had the antipathy towards black people early on.
	Apparently some of that.
	And you know, it means an awful lot.
	Because... The whole idea that this is white supremacy.
	Remember, Merrick Garland has just informed us that white supremacy is the number one domestic terror threat.
	And the way this word is thrown around, am I part of the number one domestic terror threat?
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	And the way we, in the Middle East, we killed American citizens just because we didn't like them.
	I mean, I'm perhaps exaggerating a little, but Anwar al-Awlaki, he was a U.S. citizen.
	We killed him just because we didn't like him.
	And a buddy of his, whose name I forget, another American citizen, a Hellfire missile blew him to bits.
	Is there a Hellfire missile out there somewhere with my name on it?
	I don't think so.
	I hope not.
	But all of this hysteria about white supremacy.
	How far is that going to go?
	Where is that going to lead?
	I'm frankly worried.
	Where do you think it's going to lead?
	In the worst case?
	Oh, worst case?
	Worst case?
	Well, worst case would be a hellfire missile.
	But I don't think that's going to happen.
	I genuinely do not.
	Now, the intermediate possible cases are if we had nothing but Sonia Sotomayor's And Elena Kagan's on the Supreme Court.
	I can imagine an end run around the First Amendment that makes what I say against the law.
	In fact, against the law.
	You believe that?
	I think it's not impossible.
	It's not impossible.
	Already we have speech codes in Europe, and I don't see the American government saying,"Hey, hey, hey, you've got to get rid of those things." No, we're perfectly happy with that.
	You can't take certain racial positions in most of Western Europe.
	Australia, New Zealand, they've all got speech codes.
	And is that so outlandish for the United States?
	There have been a number of books arguing strongly that the kind of things that I say are inherently dangerous and should be squelched.
	Now, I'd like to think that's not going to happen, but certainly private enterprise takes the view that my speech should be squelched.
	I was kicked off of Twitter in 2017 for saying exactly the kinds of things I'm saying to you right now.
	You cannot send a Facebook message with a URL that includes amren.com, our URL.
	They will not let you do it.
	We are considered so loathsome that, or Twitter for example, you can't send a tweet with our URL in it.
	Our YouTube channel blasted years ago.
	And even if you try to look up a complete phrase from an article in American Renaissance in Google, you will not find our website.
	Because their algorithm very carefully tries to keep us under wraps.
	It's true.
	When I was looking for it, you can find it, but you have to go.
	It doesn't come up.
	There's like ads, ads, ads, ads, and then we find it.
	But how does that make you feel?
	Seriously, you're an American citizen.
	And here you are.
	I find it absurd.
	I run a non-profit 501c3 organization vetted by the federal government.
	The federal government thinks that I have a legitimate educational role.
	I have a point of view.
	I break absolutely no laws.
	And despite this, I'm being muddled as systematically as this.
	Is this really the land of the free and the home of the brave?
	So this does give me a certain pause in terms of what the future holds for dissidents.
	I'm like a Soviet dissident.
	Remember those guys?
	They got dragged off to mental institutions.
	Maybe that's in store for people who persist in saying the sorts of things I say despite being told how evil and wrong and upsetting I am.
	I don't know.
	But we certainly are moving.
	In the direction of suppression of free speech.
	Whether it comes to the point of doing it absolutely legally, or whether the government just leaves it to private enterprise to do their job for them.
	I don't know.
	Whether or not I will end up in jail if I persist in saying these things, or fined.
	Even as it is, if a bank doesn't want to do business with New Century Foundation, they will deny us service.
	Or me personally.
	PayPal won't let me have a personal account.
	If enough places gang up on you, say it becomes impossible for an alleged white supremacist to open a bank account, how are you supposed to live?
	These things, and that can all be done within the private sector.
	Frankly, I do not discount the possibility that the Biden administration, someone in the control of the currency or the Fed will get together with the Southern Poverty Law Center or the ADL, these people who think that I poisoned the air simply by breathing, and they will get themselves up a little list and they'll send the word out to every bank in the country.
	And we'd rather you just didn't do any business with these guys.
	What happens if you can't have a bank account?
	Hard to live, isn't it?
	But we are already definitely moving in that direction.
	So, in other words, maybe the government doesn't have to make an end run around the First Amendment.
	We get squelched, and we can still pride ourselves on our love of liberty and the First Amendment, the Constitution.
	As a practical matter, that becomes a dead letter for people that the authorities disagree with.
	So, how do you see, because, okay, so now I'm just going to do this just to be, you know, to push.
	Because this is the view that you are, because you said it to me, you said everybody says you're a white supremacist, you're a horrible person that you make people feel.
	So that's, let's say, somebody's watching this and they go like, yeah, he is.
	I've looked them up and they're on Google looking while they're watching, because this is what people watch shows now.
	But you're a hate monger and you promote this ideology of whites only.
	How do you answer to that?
	How do I answer to it?
	To those people that, because you seem, like you're saying, you're being muzzled, you're out there in a culture, you're a bad person, and somebody is going to say to me, or to you, to us, to, you know, looking at the things, going like, yeah, he is, he's a...
	That's their choice.
	Now, the only thing that I ask is that they read something that I have written, or they listen to something I have said.
	Now, the whole idea of the Southern Poverty Law Center is to say, no, no, no, no, you don't actually have to listen to this Jared Taylor guy.
	We've got him figured out.
	He's a hate monger.
	Just put him in that mental category of yours and move on.
	That is their whole purpose.
	That's their reason for living.
	Now, if after having heard me speak, as you have, you decide that I'm your moral inferior, that is your choice.
	But I'm not going to change.
	I've been thinking about these things for a whole lot longer than you have.
	And I have arrived at my views, I think, through a very careful analysis of history, of human nature, a careful consideration of what is moral and what is not.
	Now, I suppose I shouldn't say that faced with data that completely undermines my position, I would not change my point of view.
	But I find that exceedingly unlikely.
	Now, if after having...
	If we've gone through an entire conversation, someone would decide that I should be shut up.
	That's his right.
	But in the United States, we are not supposed to be a society that shuts people up.
	Fair enough.
	It is estimated that by mid-century this country will be Majority, non-white.
	That's correct.
	Is that correct?
	Can you talk about that?
	Is that a fact?
	All the statistics certainly point in that direction.
	Repeat the question.
	Give me the numbers.
	I'm going to be in your video, but not my video.
	Well, the demographic future of the United States.
	Let's go back to 1960.
	The United States was almost 90% white.
	In 1965, we changed immigration policy.
	Up until then, immigration policy was designed to keep the country majority white.
	And apparently that was a racial scandal.
	It was bad fighting the Cold War.
	We were trying to impress all these third world countries.
	And if they wouldn't even let them into this country, how can we fight the Soviets?
	The Soviets didn't let in a bunch of Africans and Latin Americans either.
	But in any case, we changed our policy.
	It was changed on the assumption that racial balance would not Change in any important way.
	This was said explicitly and repeatedly.
	I have absolutely no doubt that if in 1965, when Congress was deliberating this, if someone said, well, you realize, in not even a century, you white people, you're going to be a minority in the United States.
	They would have said, what?
	The answer to this law is not just no, the answer is hell no.
	They would never have done this.
	This is something that we stumbled into as an act of almost absent-mindedness for a whole host, I believe, of completely cuckoo reasons like the one I just described.
	But this has clearly changed the United States in a whole host of ways.
	And maybe the people who have come here, I'm sure they have benefited in many ways, but I believe whites have not.
	Whites are systematically losing control of their own destiny.
	If you look at every arts institution in the country is trying very, very hard to find non-whites to showcase.
	Classical music is a great example.
	There are not very many non-white classical music composers, but we are trying mighty hard to dig them up and showcase them.
	How long will Shakespeare really remain part of the canon?
	People are taking pieces of literature that we've taught for years.
	Huckleberry Finn, no, no, no, that's got a bad word in it.
	Heart of Darkness, that's no good either.
	Increasingly, the entire curriculum is being changed because Western civilization is...
	Eurocentric, no question about it.
	But by being Eurocentric, it is sexist and classist, but most of all, white supremacist.
	And at the same time, all of the texture of life in the United States, as it changes race, it changes in ways that white people do not find agreeable.
	And that's why they leave.
	Of course, they are roundly criticized for that.
	This is a terrible thing.
	Somehow, when they leave a place that becomes majority Hispanic, where do they end up?
	In a place that's majority black?
	In a place that's majority Asian?
	No. Somehow, they find those remaining places that are majority white.
	And so, in their bones, they realize that this changing America is not changing in a way that will be good for them.
	There was, in fact, some of the, I think, a lot of the most reprehensible behavior in the United States comes from these outspokenly liberal people who are always talking about diversity and the joys of multi-this and multi-that.
	Somebody like Hillary Clinton, you know, Hillary Clinton and Bill.
	They'd have been Chappaqua, New York.
	That's about as white a place as you're going to find this side of Iceland.
	And I remember I got in a debate with, who was that famous talk show TV, Donahue, Phil Donahue.
	He's just roaring and roaring about how great diversity is.
	And I should have asked him, well, Phil, baby, where do you live?
	As it turns out, I thought he might live in Manhattan.
	He'd sing things that made it sound as though he lived in Manhattan.
	He was living in Greenwich, Connecticut.
	Another, I mean, it might as well be Budapest, for heaven's sake.
	Now this stuff is to me despicable.
	These are people who say,"Yes!" Diversity is wonderful.
	It's great when there are people in your children's class who can't speak English and your teacher spent most of the time trying to teach them English.
	At PTA meetings, there are five interpreters in the room.
	This stuff is wonderful, but I will nobly forego these experiences so that you poor, slob, blue-collar whites can enjoy that while I send my children to Sidwell Friends School.
	This is utterly contemptible in my view.
	Yes. Let me add one more thing.
	The odd thing about being a respectable person in the United States is that you don't have to actually do anything.
	All you have to do is say the right things.
	All you have to do is say,"I love diversity." You don't have to have any of it in your life.
	The only thing you really have to do is vote Democrat.
	If you vote Democrat and you say the right things, you are a good person.
	But if you say the wrong things, like me, then, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, hopeless.
	Trump seems to...
	I mean, he was basically...
	Is he a reason why the people...
	Because he's very popular.
	And, you know, white people love him.
	And they feel like he was there for them, the way he disparages other...
	Like the Hispanic, you know, when he did that.
	I mean, do you think that Trump has, as an idea, not even as a person, because as a person, he's full of problems, right?
	He's not that successful as a businessman.
	He's a showman.
	And I know him because I directed him on Apprentice the first seasons.
	I was like, I know him well.
	So he's kind of a symbol, in my view.
	So do you think he, like, what does he represent for you?
	For me?
	Yeah, for you.
	He is a guy with a very large number of personal defects that repel me, who has stumbled in an instinctive sort of way on a vague understanding of what America should be.
	I don't think he would ever put it in racial terms.
	I don't think he would ever say,"Well, the United States started off as a majority white country and should stay that way." But he has somehow tumbled to the idea that maybe not all Muslims are going to fit in so well.
	I mean, if they really do demand separate swimming pool hours so the girls can swim a cart for the boys, and they want halal food, and some of them actually want to kill us, what really good reason is there to have Muslims in the country?
	I mean, he has this sort of odd notion that, you know, they're not making the best Americans.
	At the same time, he doesn't like people waltzing across the border illegally.
	He certainly doesn't like them going on welfare.
	He certainly doesn't like them suddenly showing up and need dialysis, for heaven's sake.
	Most Americans don't want that.
	But also, is it revolutionary to say America first?
	Is America supposed to be constantly bleeding for the benefit of the rest of the world?
	Most Americans think no.
	Why should it be shocking that an American president say America first?
	Why is it shocking that he wants to bring back jobs?
	Why is it that he wants NATO to pay its fair share?
	Why is it that he wants people who are seeking asylum, if we're going by the first safe country rule, to stay in the first safe country they got to, rather than getting here and then asylum after having crossed the border illegally?
	These are all very sort of simple-minded things that do not reflect, in my view, anything like a systematic understanding or a careful understanding of race, of American history, the importance of demographics.
	As I said before, that he has just sort of stumbled onto these ideas in an instinctive sort of way.
	Yes, but he did say on the immigration thing, and he was saying, if we're going to have people come here, they might as well not come from shithole countries, which meant Africa, and he said they should come from Northern Europe.
	He actually said that, right?
	So he does have a sense of this.
	Maybe it's not a knowledgeable one, because he's a man who...
	He'll throw out anything.
	But at the same time, remember, he was going to build this big wall, but there's going to be a big, beautiful hole in the wall.
	My question is more that he actually has that instinct, and so a lot of people are that like-minded.
	They kind of know it, don't you think?
	I don't know.
	How many...
	White people who voted for him voted for him for that reason.
	It's impossible to know.
	And I had a surprising and, in some ways, disappointing experience when he came to the North Virginia area to give a talk.
	This was in 2016.
	He was campaigning.
	And the word went out just a few days before he was to speak.
	And you could try to get a reserved seat.
	Mostly you couldn't.
	But I went down there and wanted to hear him speak.
	But I also took a mic and I thought I would interview some of the people waiting in line to speak to him.
	Now, it was a sweltering hot day.
	And yet people were standing in line, miles and miles and miles, standing in line.
	Most of them knew they were not going to be able to speak to him because there was only 600 people going to be getting in.
	And I asked them,"What is it that you like about Donald Trump?" And not one of them, I must have spoken to 20 or 30 people, not one of them said anything.
	That had to do with race or the demographic future of the United States.
	And even when I would open the door and say, well, you know, this idea, he was at the time promising to expel every single illegal immigrant.
	Nobody said that was why they wanted to vote for him.
	And I would say, well, what about that?
	You know, what about the changing future of the United States, white-speaking minority?
	Oh, no, no, I'm not worried about that.
	What they wanted was a man who was going to bring industry back.
	Bring jobs back.
	Make America great.
	They, so far as I could tell, did not think of it in racial terms at all.
	Now, another thing they loved about him was his unwillingness.
	To kowtow and to be deferential.
	A guy who spoke his mind who didn't obviously have 25 focus groups telling him what to say.
	They liked that kind of spontaneous.
	I like that about him too.
	He's a genuine guy.
	Unlike, for heaven's sake, Joe Biden, could that guy move a muscle without somebody pulling a string?
	I don't know.
	But most politicians are obviously these blow-dried simulacra of a human being.
	He's a genuine guy.
	I think people like that too.
	But again, How many people voted him for the reasons that I did?
	At the time, a lot of reporters wanted to talk to me because their attitude was,"Mmm, look at this wicked Jared Taylor.
	He supports Donald Trump, but Donald Trump must be just as bad." And then they were stuck with this Frankenstein monster, the racist Donald Trump.
	But anyway, I'm jabbering on.
	No, no, no, it's good.
	Meaning, again, I'm not trying to, because I think you think that I'm trying to equate him to, you know, it's in reverse.
	Because there is a consciousness, there's a large population in the white community that has...
	Race consciousness, let's put it that way.
	How large?
	Why do you say large?
	It's definitely not a majority.
	I'm not talking about that.
	I was going to say, when I read it, they say 20%, which actually makes sense.
	It's like people that care about it.
	So I'm saying, I'm not talking about, therefore, you know, because you supported him, he's a white supremacist.
	I'm not accusing you.
	I know, but I think you think I'm thinking that way.
	But what I'm thinking is, That was Donald Trump for this 20% of white, whatever the number is.
	Let's say half of whites have a consciousness of who they are.
	If there were that many, I mean, there are 175 whites in this country.
	If there were that many, we'd be living in a very different country.
	Fair enough.
	So let's say whatever the number is, that those people, when they hear him...
	There's a connection.
	There's gotta be a connection.
	You mean a racial connection?
	Yeah, there's gotta be.
	Why can't it be?
	Or how he thinks.
	No, that he actually, because I actually think he thinks that way.
	But why can't?
	They be attracted to the things they say they're attracted by.
	Oh, I think that's the majority of them.
	I'm just, I'm talking about those people, some people that, I'm talking about these fringe groups, or the people that are considered fringe groups.
	Yeah, right.
	I'm talking about the people that this culture is considering fringe.
	Right. Right?
	I mean, you don't seem fringe at all.
	Boy, can I fool them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I'm just saying that there is something about him that actually, he's...
	Well, let's do it this way.
	Anyone with a racial consciousness was clearly going to vote for him rather than Hillary Clinton.
	Even if he had arrived at these things through the back door or with blindfolds on, it didn't make any difference.
	Look, if someone says we need to stop...
	Immigration. Because of carrying capacity reasons.
	Because of ecological reasons.
	I'll vote for him.
	I don't care what the reason is.
	If it happens that this is going to slow down the dispossession of whites in the United States, I'm all for it.
	Even if, as I say, I admire people like George Washington, Robert E. Lee, people with real dignity, George C. Marshall.
	Donald Trump, for heaven's sake, a clown, a boob like him, a complete boor?
	No, he's personally repulsive to me, but I sure voted for him, and I'd vote for him probably again if I thought he had any chance of winning.
	Speaking of Donald Trump, I would like to talk about, during his era, going through the presidential times, like where this, These militia, this movement, this pushback,
	this consciousness that we are becoming the minority as white people has been building.
	There are people in the 80s who are the William Pierce who wrote the Turner Diary.
	I wouldn't mind if we can go a little bit on the history of all this.
	If I could go name some people and say, what do you think of this person?
	The first one being William Pierce in the Turner Diaries.
	What can you say about that?
	Everybody says it's the Bible.
	I never read the Turner Diaries.
	It's really bad, by the way.
	It's badly written.
	Well, he's not a novelist.
	He was a physics professor?
	Yeah, he was.
	I really hesitate to say anything about anybody else.
	I can tell you what I think.
	If you ask me, how do you and David Yu differ?
	That assumes, I know all there is to know about David Duke, and I can say, okay, I agree here and I don't agree here.
	I don't study these people.
	But you know their influence.
	You know their influence.
	Yes, they're influential.
	Yes, they are.
	And obviously there's a certain amount in common.
	They have a sense of white racial consciousness.
	I believe William Pierce had invented a religion, for heaven's sake.
	Isn't that true?
	Cosmotheism or something like that.
	Well, okay.
	Good for him.
	God bless him.
	But I really don't want to say that he's a good guy, he's a bad guy.
	I really do not want to be an empath.
	Fair enough.
	And then Christian identity.
	The influence of Christian identity.
	I think that's very, very small.
	I mean, I don't know.
	But what is it?
	As I understand it, it's the conviction that white people are the original chosen people, the original Jews.
	That seems to me to be an astonishing and preposterous view to take.
	But I believe that's what it's about.
	But my feeling is that that is a teeny, teeny, tiny, if you call me marginal, that's ultra-marginal.
	Yeah, no, and the reason I'm bringing it up, because these people up in, there's a guy called Matt Shea, people we're talking to in Northwest, who actually want to create, they're like big on this Northwest front, creating an ethno-state, and a lot of their belief starts with Christian identity.
	Is that so?
	Yeah, and so I'm just fascinated, like, how did that all, how those connections...
	You know, I don't know.
	There's a guy named Ben Klassen, have you heard of him?
	No, I have not.
	Church of the Creator.
	I think he's sort of faded away, but there was something related to Christian identity there.
	But honestly, I don't know very much about them.
	I don't know very much about the Ku Klux Klan.
	I've never met an active Klansman.
	Excuse me?
	He was out of the Klan by then.
	I just don't know those people.
	Now, you do know Richard Spencer.
	I've met him several times.
	So tell me what you think of Richard Spencer.
	As I say, I don't wish to be pinned down on what I think about these people.
	Because he believes in a lot of the stuff that you're believing, actually.
	I just talked to him, and he actually thinks that he actually now wants to...
	He's talking about, you know, we should recreate the Roman Empire and have the golden people rule it.
	I mean, it's kind of...
	I had a hard time grasping.
	Good for him.
	I can't figure that out either.
	I think he was once asked, who did he admire?
	This is on the record.
	And he said, Napoleon.
	That's about the last name that would come out of my mouth.
	But I don't want, as I say, it's not my job to tell you what's right and wrong about Richard Spence or anybody else.
	The thing is, I mentioned, because you were a little reluctant to even off-camera to say, when I said you're actually one of the thinkers, the deep thinkers in this arena of race in America, and a lot of people are influenced by what you do.
	I'm not even...
	I'm a thinker.
	I'm a popularizer.
	I've never come up with an original idea in my life.
	And it makes you sound like a deep thinker if you just point out some things that people took for granted a hundred years ago that are no longer talked about.
	That makes you sound like a wise man.
	It opens people's eyes.
	But I am not a deep thinker.
	I'm not a philosopher.
	All I've done is do a little bit of reading, and I think I'm pretty good at explaining.
	Ideas that other people, smarter than I am, came up with.
	So you call yourself a what?
	In that sense, a popularizer.
	And so you have to realize that you do have people read yourself and you influence a great deal of people.
	Well, I wish I influenced more.
	And so how do you do that?
	Like, how are you going to do that?
	Yes. What's the plan?
	Because you believe in what you believe.
	Yes, I do.
	Well, if you've got any ideas, let me know.
	But what we have been doing, of course, is write books.
	We have conferences.
	These days, of course, the Internet is the main way ideas get out.
	Now, the Internet is increasingly closed off to people like me.
	I find that absolutely reprehensible.
	What can we do about it?
	There's not much we can do.
	As I say, you can't tweet out or put in a Facebook message a URL that contains our website.
	Even if it's linking to an article from the New York Times, you can't even tweet that out because we are just persona non grata to those outfits.
	I can't talk to anybody in Twitter, anybody in Facebook.
	We had, at the time, I guess, how long ago?
	About two years ago, we had a growing YouTube channel, 125,000 subscribers.
	Whenever we'd put out a YouTube video, get 100,000 views, sometimes 200,000.
	We had some up there that had half a million views.
	Overnight. Gone.
	Because they just don't like what we say.
	How do you fight that?
	Well, you look for these alternative platforms.
	You do what you can.
	But now we're lucky to get 10,000 views.
	But, you know, again, if you've got any ideas to get the word out, you let me know.
	I'm not going to stand on street corners and yell at people to put flyers under windshield wipers.
	But no, we've tried to think of all the possible ways to get these ideas.
	Before people who are prepared to actually think about them.
	But again, to me, this is a sign of the insecurity and the weakness of the regime, of the guardians of orthodoxy.
	If I'm so horribly wrong, shouldn't a well-informed fifth grader be able to refute me?
	If I'm so evil, shouldn't that be visible at first glance?
	Why do they have to shut me up?
	Why can't they just say, okay, Taylor's wrong here, here, here, here, here.
	Case closed, go away.
	Why can't they do that?
	At one time, I believe YouTube was actually funding people to come up with videos that would counter folks like me.
	That apparently didn't work well enough.
	So, instead of countering us, refuting us, poof, gone.
	Can't get to us.
	If you are wanting to get the word out, if you are wanting to hear the word, where are you going to go if you want a video?
	Where are you going to go if you want to look at opinions hot off the press right now?
	You're going to go to Twitter and you're going to go to YouTube.
	You're not going to go to Bitchute or Odyssey or Gab.
	Those are essentially echo chambers for the people who have been driven from respectable society.
	I think that that is a very, very dangerous thing.
	And I'll tell you why.
	I'll tell you why it's dangerous.
	If you get people like Dylann Roof.
	Now, Dylann Roof was a crazy, drug-addle lunatic who ended up shooting nine completely innocent, unoffending blacks who had been very kind to him.
	The point is, if you have people who think that, not only are they demonized, but they have no way to express themselves.
	If they start talking on Twitter, saying some of the things I say, and they get kicked off.
	All these platforms.
	The way I put it is this: people who have a voice speak.
	People who don't have a voice are likely to blow up in very dangerous and disagreeable ways.
	And this will be a vicious cycle.
	You'll find somebody who has been taught all his life that white people are wicked.
	He's had it up to here.
	And every time he tries to talk about it, he is squelched.
	I'm surprised, frankly, that more of those guys have not gone round the bend and done horrible things.
	And of course, if that begins to happen, what's going to be the consequence?
	The consequence is even more repression, even more silencing, even more determination to shut people up.
	and I can see it building up in a very dangerous and destructive way.
	So we're saying, which actually I kind of concur that this is
	A new McVeigh is in the making in this atmosphere, potentially.
	Yes, new McVeighs are in the making.
	Take a guy like Branton Tarrant.
	He was the guy who shot up the mosques in New Zealand.
	He would be saying many of the things that I say.
	Now, if New Zealand had had an open, absolutely no-holds-barred discussion about what should the future of New Zealand be?
	Should it remain majority white?
	Should we welcome Muslims?
	What should we do with our country?
	And it had been widely debated, and the people of New Zealand would say, okay, being white, we're bored with that.
	We're going to be Asian, and we're going to be Muslim, and we're going to be multi-culti, but this had been widely discussed, widely agreed.
	I don't think you would have done that.
	But did that happen in New Zealand?
	Absolutely not.
	It's just the same as here in the United States.
	Why is it illegitimate to talk about the future, the demographic future of the United States in terms of the interests of whites?
	Why is that wrong?
	Why is that wrong?
	But it sure is wrong.
	And if you find that things that are important to you are deliberately and systematically squelched, that's going to do things to you.
	And I'm not a guy who's going to go around the bend and throw bombs or poison the water supply.
	I cannot speak for all white people, and I would never attempt to.
	But we are building up to a situation in which anything is possible.
	Are you worried about that?
	Yes, I'm worried about that.
	Yes, I'm worried about that.
	I wrote a long article that I tried to get published in Atlantic, anonymously, making this very point.
	Why is it that guys like Dylann Roof do the terrible things they did?
	And to try to explain that, yes, professionally I know a lot of young white guys, and every heritage but theirs is honored.
	Every race but theirs has legitimate interests.
	Every race but theirs has made great contributions to civilization.
	You keep telling that to people over and over and over, and they have no way to discuss this, no way out.
	I cannot guarantee that they're going to be peace-loving voters for the Democratic Party.
	But this is something, no, they wouldn't accept that.
	I tried to express myself as reasonably as possible.
	Once they found out, they were interested in the article, but they had to know finally who I really was.
	And once they found out, no, no, no, no, this would be eventually found out, we can't publish anything by charity.
	But I think this is a very important point that not enough people are making.
	We are really stuffing a powder keg and lighten the fuse.
	The media's responsibility in all this.
	It's very divisive.
	And I'm not talking about you on a personal...
	I mean, you can talk about whatever you want, but, you know, I'm not...
	But, you know, we're in an incredibly divisive moment in our culture, right?
	Politically, you know, it's like the cliché.
	It's like, you know, there's polarization.
	Okay, so let's talk about that.
	And then what's the role of media in all this?
	Where to begin?
	From the beginning.
	I can't do that.
	Gutenberg. All right, we'll start with him.
	No, the media systematically distort and exaggerated anything that they could call a white.
	It's quite interesting.
	If you look at all of the think tanks and their compilations of domestic terrorism, you'll find all of these cases of white right-wing domestic terror.
	You've got, I don't know, a black power guy here, a Muslim there, but we're scared of these white people.
	Now, if you actually look at the details, You would be amazed at some of the things that filter in there.
	And it's very hard to get to the details of what the ADL is actually counting up.
	But if a Klansman kills his wife, that's white supremacist terror.
	All of these incels, incels who can't get a girlfriend and they go out and shoot up every pretty blonde girl they can find, that's right-wing terror.
	That's white supremacist.
	It all gets lumped in.
	In fact, there have been a few cases of black anti-government types and that gets lumped in with right-wing terror.
	The way they count these things is extremely deceptive.
	And all of this is building up to What I mentioned just the other day about, well, just a moment ago, of Merrick Garland saying that the number one domestic terror threat is white supremacy.
	And where this is going to lead, I cannot tell you.
	But the media have hooped this up.
	The case of January 6th.
	This is supposed to be a white supremacist uprising?
	That is utter fantasy.
	And yet people repeat it over and over and over, the media especially.
	What was January 6th?
	I'm convinced, and I think anybody who looks into it with any objectivity at all, January 6th was something that was a spontaneous riot by people who were convinced that the election had been stoned.
	That was the main motivation of those people.
	They were convinced that Donald Trump was the legitimate president of the United States.
	They were not attacking.
	Democracy by going into the Capitol.
	I believe that they thought they were saving democracy.
	And if you were to ask them, I suspect that is exactly the answer that they would give to you.
	Do you think that was stolen?
	I mean, on a personal level.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	You don't aspire to that.
	What's that?
	I said you don't aspire to that idea that the whole thing was rigged.
	No, I don't know.
	I wish that some of the cases that were put to the courts had actually...
	Gone through discovery to get to the bottom of them.
	Were the cases all absolutely so pathetically flimsy that it was right to throw them out?
	I just don't know.
	It's not something that I've investigated.
	I do think, though, that probably on both sides of the political spectrum, more so than, say, 50 or 60 years ago, I think people are prepared to steal an election.
	Look at the way the U.S. press loathed Donald Trump.
	They hated him.
	I think Donald Trump is probably the most hated man in American history, worse than Benedict Arnold.
	If they thought, if people who were in a position to do so thought that by stealing a few votes here and there, they could keep him out of office, I think they would have done that.
	I hate to say that because I like the idea that the United States, people play by the rules, that this is a country that does not have corrupt elections, but the loathing for him.
	It was so spectacular that I, you know, I hope I'm wrong, but I think some Democrats would have done whatever it took to keep him from winning.
	I mean, it's interesting, this whole thing about the stealing election.
	I mean, I'm going off on saying that it's not going to do what we're doing, but in California, it's like now that's what they're saying.
	That's right.
	It's going to be stolen.
	Which hasn't even happened yet.
	I know.
	And it's clearly not the case, but on that one, it's like, so it started this.
	So let's talk about America.
	Like, there's no trust.
	No. I mean, what do you feel about our system of democracy?
	What's that?
	Let me give you a sobering statistic.
	In the 1950s, if you asked Americans, do you trust the federal government to do the right thing all the time or nearly always?
	About 80% of Americans said, yes, I do.
	Now, these days, you know what the number is?
	20 to 25%.
	That is a very sorrowful state for the country to be in.
	What accounts for it?
	I don't know.
	It would be hard for me to say that's the problem, that's the problem, that's the problem.
	But I think that certainly the things that I talk about and the extent to which the United States government utterly ignores them, the whole question of legitimacy of white.
	Racial consciousness?
	The whole question of the demographic future of the United States?
	Do we really want to become a white majority nation?
	A lot of people don't like that.
	You mean a white minority nation?
	I beg your pardon.
	White minority nation.
	Say it again.
	Do we really want to be...
	Do we really want to be a white minority nation?
	And even if we're not allowed to even say that, what kind of country is this?
	And the federal government goes whole hog for all of these new ideas.
	We're supposed to think that women are going to just perform great as infantrymen and artillerymen.
	Do most Americans really believe that?
	I don't think so.
	The people are out in the field with women in combat or alleged combat.
	I know several guys who've actually been in Iraq and Afghanistan and the general consensus is That if you're out there toting a rifle, a woman is about as useful as a rucksack full of rocks.
	But nobody in a position of authority, nobody with lots of ribbons on his chest would ever dare say that.
	Now, these are just a few of the things in which Americans think that their government is just not making any sense.
	How do you stop that?
	How do you reverse that?
	I don't know.
	But I am convinced that The ethnic, religious, racial diversity of the United States makes it increasingly a zero-sum game.
	If the government, as at one time doing, remember all of this equity in vaccinations business.
	The idea was blacks have been short-changed, Hispanics have been short-changed.
	When the vaccines come out, they'll be first in line.
	Huh? Is that right?
	Is that really fair?
	That kind of thinking that permeates the American government makes a whole lot of people wonder, really, is it head screwed on right?
	But the problem goes much deeper than that.
	Or the whole question of income inequality.
	Is this really the American dream?
	I mean, I read these statistics according to which the median income in the United States hasn't risen in 20 years.
	That's not a good thing.
	And all of these wealthy people, the 1%ers and the 0.1%ers getting richer and richer and richer.
	Is that a good thing?
	How do you stop that?
	What do you do about that?
	I don't have the answer to that question.
	But the point is...
	Americans don't trust their government.
	And that, to me, is at the root of all of this militia movement, not any kind of white racial consciousness.
	Right. I mean, just in terms of what you're just saying, that's an issue of, you know, that's not just a democratic problem.
	That's also a GOP problem, like, you know, of all these policies.
	So it's like, do these two, you know, I mean, I'm more of the George Washington saying we shouldn't have a party anyway, but that's where I believe.
	You're a real idealist.
	I'm a dreamer.
	So it starts there.
	So there's mistrust.
	Yes. So where does this end?
	Some people talk about the next civil war.
	Do you believe that?
	There will never be a civil war like the one we had before.
	Two opposing armies in the field.
	I cannot imagine that happening.
	But I can imagine a kind of peaceful secession or a mostly peaceful secession.
	If the southwestern part of the United States gets overwhelmingly Hispanic and they say adios amigos, are we really going to shoot them to keep them in the country?
	I don't think so.
	Now, we might shoot white people in the Pacific Northwest to keep them in the country because if white people want to go, that's white supremacy.
	If Hispanics want to go, that's brown pride.
	But I would not be surprised if 50 years from now we have, if not actually independent parts of the country, we have a kind of balkanization, an intense federalization.
	Look at the way all the states have reacted to this vaccine mandate from President Biden.
	A lot of states have said, no way.
	Now, is this the germ of an increasing assertion of local autonomy?
	I don't know.
	It could be.
	But this is, yet again, a great example of how fractured this country is.
	You were banned from Twitter, and I think it was when you were banned because you were promoting violence or something like that.
	No. The wording was affiliation with a...
	So I was banned on Twitter because the wording was...
	Because I'm not going to get my question.
	Okay. The official message from Twitter, as I recall, was I had to go because of an affiliation with a violent extremist group.
	Now, if that happens to you on Twitter and you ask,"Well, wait a minute.
	Who's the violent extremist group?
	Is American Renaissance a violent extremist group?
	Or am I affiliated with it?" You won't get an answer.
	This is just their catch-all term for saying we don't like the cut of your jib, as far as I can tell, because I have never been a promoter of violence of any kind.
	Right from the start, you will see legality, legality, legality.
	I've never been affiliated with a group that promoted violence.
	Yeah, I know that.
	I've looked at everything.
	That's clear.
	So that was their excuse.
	What do you do about that?
	What's the state of the First Amendment?
	Well... And put the question in your answer.
	The state of the First Amendment is we still have formal freedom of speech.
	And it is true.
	You cannot go to jail simply for having said something.
	Not yet.
	But I do not rule out a future in which the Supreme Court decides that certain forms of speech are so dangerous and so liable to sap.
	The common appreciation of our collective humanity that they decide this should be illegal.
	I do not rule it out.
	We find that kind of thinking all around the Western world.
	And I don't rule it out for the United States.
	But as a practical matter, it doesn't make any difference if it's the government that's squelching you.
	If every single private enterprise in the country is squelching you, you're squelched.
	The government doesn't have to bother.
	Now, there was a guy who was acting director of the Department of Homeland Security.
	And I wish I could remember his name.
	It's some sort of Irish name like MacIver or McGilley or something.
	And he was at the Heritage Foundation giving a talk about the state of the Internet.
	And he said, he said, and I thought this should have gotten vastly greater attention.
	He said, the government can't control all these bad people on the Internet.
	But an outfit like Cloudflare.
	You know what Cloudflare is?
	It is a group that you pay and they protect your website from denial of service attacks.
	Now, just about every website actually uses Cloudflare because you just never know when somebody's going to gang up on you.
	He was saying, but you know, a guy like Cloudflare, you're in the private sector.
	You could withdraw your services.
	You could withdraw your services.
	And then all these bad guys could be taken off the internet by these denial of service attacks.
	A denial of service attacks.
	It's a felony.
	And here's a guy at the Department of Homeland Security.
	It's like saying, this white supremacist, Jared Taylor, you know, if the rioters come his way, police officers, or if they want to burn down his house, you all pull back.
	He's saying that the law enforcement people don't protect them from this felony.
	This is an astonishing state of affairs, but it seems to me it reflects what the United States government actually...
	And this guy was under Trump.
	Yes, yes.
	So the First Amendment is still on the books, and you can't go to jail for saying certain things, but it is on very shaky legs.
	Now, another thing I would say to you is that look at the people who got caught up in this January 6th riot.
	That is already recognized as the largest law enforcement attempt in American history.
	Those guys have been treated completely differently from the way the BLM leaders have been treated.
	Anybody who looks into this has to recognize that.
	Why is that?
	Obviously, it's because they are on the right.
	They are considered white supremacists.
	They're considered anti-democrats.
	They're considered insurrectionists.
	So we are going to absolutely throw the book at them.
	So if you were one of those guys and you took a punch at a policeman, boy oh boy, you would wish, you would trade, you would pay any amount of money to have been in a BLM rally and punched a policeman instead.
	Now, is that a question of freedom of speech?
	Not yet.
	I do not yet call those people political prisoners, but some of them are close to being political prisoners.
	Held for months without charges.
	They can't see their lawyers.
	They are really treating them differently from the BLM rioters.
	And that's what that march on Saturday is all about, the J6.
	There's a rally in D.C. And rightly so.
	Are we a rule of law or are we a rule of politics?
	So the politicization of the word extremism, right, is really the debate between citizens' freedom and overreach of a government, right?
	And so where do you stand on that?
	Like extremism.
	See, extremism is a loaded word.
	Extremists are apparently people with whom you disagree.
	Likewise, a hater.
	According to all the watchdog groups, I am a hater.
	Am I really supposed to be running around hating people?
	If I were to hate anybody...
	It would be the white people who are running the country in a way such that white people are committing suicide.
	I do not blame the immigrants from wanting to come across the border and live in a country that their ancestors could not have built.
	They're better off.
	Who can possibly blame them?
	I blame the people who let them in.
	But somehow I'm a hater, as if you can somehow look deep into my mind,"Oh, he's motivated by hate." This stuff, this stuff is cuckoo.
	It's the same with extremism.
	So long as you are beyond a certain acceptable boundary and these boundaries shift all the time, then you become an extremist.
	So I don't think that's a useful word.
	It's no more a useful word than the word racist.
	What's a racist?
	I mean, that really shifts all the time, too.
	Nowadays, apparently, if you're white, you're racist just because you were born white.
	What does that mean?
	But that's sort of standard operating procedure.
	You cannot be a racist if you're non-white.
	By some sort of queer definition of racist.
	But anyway, no, I don't think it's a useful word.
	All these terms that have been trivialized, I mean, they're real racist.
	Is that the media doing that, or is there like an affair?
	The media are certainly active in that, but I think academics perhaps even more so.
	Something like critical race theory, that came out of academia first, and then it got picked up.
	I remember following it 10, 15 years ago.
	I think, this is just cuckoo stuff.
	But, you know, it made a jailbreak, and now it's amongst us everywhere.
	So what is cuckoo about it?
	For somebody who doesn't know what it is.
	Critical race theory is the view that people are inherently privileged or oppressive.
	And that you can add up all of the aspects of yourself to determine how much of an oppressor or how oppressed you are.
	And you have no say in the matter.
	If you are white, if you are Christian, if you are heterosexual, and if you think you are the same sex as was on your birth certificate when you were born, man, you are at the top of the heap.
	Now, I mean, I suppose you can compete at the bottom in terms of who is most oppressed.
	I suppose a one-legged, lesbian, Muslim, black person.
	I suppose that's the most oppressed person in America.
	But all of this based on our inherent characteristics, that whites are inherent oppressors.
	This is all part of critical race theory.
	Also, critical race theory assumes that all the laws, the entire system of the United States is built on white supremacy.
	That you don't even have to find white people who are consciously acting in a racist way for American society to be racist.
	That's what institutional or systemic racism is all about.
	All of these horrible outcomes that just sort of emanate.
	From the Constitution, from the Capitol building, from I don't know where.
	But it is a remarkable way of having racism without racists.
	So, and anyway, this is something that started in the universities and has percolated out.
	And so now there are some grade schools that are actually teaching this.
	You watch into the classroom.
	And you tell all your little fourth graders, okay, add up the ways in which you are an oppressor.
	And add up the ways in which you are oppressed.
	And then if you're an oppressor, you better feel bad about being an oppressor.
	What the heck business is this?
	But this was a bit of a sidetrack.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, it all comes together.
	But again, just to get back to another point I was making.
	Young white guys who have been...
	Had this stuff shoved down their throats ever since grade school.
	And eventually come to realize, well, wait a minute.
	Not only is this wrong, this is nasty.
	This is hateful.
	I just cannot vouch for their sanity and for their gentlemanliness and how they're going to react.
	You were born in Japan.
	Your parents were, you said they were missionaries, right?
	So when did you leave Japan?
	Age 16. Oh, so, oh, you were greatly, so you're fluent in Japanese, of course, I know you are.
	But, so, in that, were you influenced by your upbringing in Japan that was a homogenous, because you mentioned earlier, and then your knowledge that, in your view, that the Asian cultures are, you know, is this superior,
	or I don't know how you word it exactly, but did that have a big influence on the way you look at things?
	Everyone is surprised by my answer.
	I can, to the best of my knowledge, know.
	It had no influence at all.
	What had no influence?
	At age 16, I was a good little liberal.
	My parents were very liberal.
	Everyone is a child of God.
	The idea that race should be a criterion for making any kind of decision was anathema to them.
	And that's the way I felt.
	I would have criticized, if I'd thought about it, but I wasn't really thinking much in these terms, but I would have criticized the Japanese probably for being homogeneous.
	It was over a period of maybe the next 15, 16 years, I gradually lost my liberal illusions, and I clung to them desperately.
	I think it's far more fun to be a liberal, and it's far more comforting to think that the country is going in the right direction.
	Once you end up thinking of things I do, you realize the country has been on the road to nowhere for the last 60, 70 years.
	At the same time, liberals have this sense of being morally superior to people like me.
	And that's a fun feeling, too.
	I used to have that feeling.
	I didn't want to give that up.
	But I clung to all of these things quite desperately.
	But it was a whole concatenation of factors that led me finally to abandon these illusions.
	But I will say, having once been a liberal, I think I understand liberals better than people who never were.
	And people in my circle often think that liberals can't possibly believe the things they say.
	Of course they do!
	Of course they do.
	They believe very sincerely that they're on the side of the angels.
	They believe very sincerely that if we just treat them the right way, these Afghans coming into the country are going to be exactly like us and have the same values.
	We just have to work a little bit harder.
	They sincerely believe that.
	I don't doubt that for a moment.
	And so I think it gives me perhaps some sort of advantage in that I take liberals at their word, I think that they are wrong, and I'm prepared to try to explain to them why they're wrong.
	But if somebody thinks, oh, they're just lying and they're evil, you can't communicate with people if that's your view.
	So that may be, to the extent that I have influenced people, that may be part of it, because I take people at their word.
	If they say that this is the way I believe the world works, I try to explain to them why they're wrong, not why they are bad.
	And I suppose I'm sensitive to that also because that's the way I'm treated.
	People are not going to say, oh, Taylor's wrong about the facts or his logic.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Don't even think about the facts.
	Don't even think about the logic.
	He's just bad, so forget about it.
	That's just no way to argue.
	And it works on the right and it works on the left.
	People on the left call me a fascist, which is absurd.
	People on the right call people Marxists all the time.
	I think that's cuckoo.
	Marxism is a very specific thing.
	These people who are in BLM rallies, what do they know about labor theory of value?
	Or the dictatorship of the proletariat?
	What do they know about synthesis and their thesis and antithesis and synthesis?
	They don't know a thing about that.
	To call them Marxists is to, I think, treat them better than they deserve.
	But anyway, Marxist, fascist, it's two sides of the same ignoramus coin.
	I agree.
	Antifa? You know, I don't know what motivates those people.
	I've never been able to sit down and have a conversation with an Antifa person.
	They seem to have a hatred for the police and for all authority, as much as they do for someone like me.
	We have an annual conference and we are guarded by the state of Tennessee because if they were not there, these people would come in and tear us limb from limb.
	And the people who are out there in their masks and waving their black flags, they hate the police as much as they hate us.
	They are most abusive to any black police officer or black park policeman who is trying to maintain the peace.
	It's incredible the things they say to those guys because they hate the police first of all and they think these people are absolute idiots to be protecting us white supremacists.
	I think many of them are mentally unstable.
	And when you look at the photographs, if they're ever arrested, they look like their ears hang low on their heads, you know, their eyes go off in different directions.
	They just do not look like normal people.
	And the way they dress with safety pins through their noses, I know I should not be speaking about other people in this dismissive way.
	I just do not see a coherent view of the world other than just a desire to break things and a desire to be...
	Against any form of authority.
	Are they anarchists?
	But what sort of society is going to be organized once they're anarchists?
	Now, I understand you're going to be interviewing some of these people.
	Maybe you can tell me what motivates them.
	But they sure don't like me.
	No, but also, I mean, they're anarchists.
	I mean, there's actually two groups that are interested in blowing the whole thing up.
	I mean, to me, they're anti-Democrat anarchists.
	And then it's the Boogaloo, too, also the Boogaloos.
	They're like a group that go left, right, and they just hate cops.
	And their ideology is they want to just burn the whole place down.
	They want the end of the American experience, basically.
	So I don't understand.
	So what do you think of that?
	I think those people must be psychotic to burn the whole place down.
	They want to live in the ashes?
	Really? I mean, back in the day, I mean, a while ago, you used to be...
	Quoted as an expert, you know, in the news media before, and now you're like, you're thrown off and you're considered an extremist from ADL and the southern poverty.
	But at first, so how, what changed?
	Did you change or did society change from where you were?
	Because when you, you know, years ago you were actually able to...
	Well, it depends on what period you're talking about.
	80s, 90s.
	When I wrote my first book about race, Paved with Good Intentions, I was still an expert.
	As soon as I started publishing American Renaissance, I apparently turned into a hate monger.
	The contents of those two are slightly different.
	In Paved with Good Intentions, I didn't talk about racial differences in IQ.
	That is beyond the payoff.
	I also did not talk about racial consciousness among whites.
	I did talk about a lot of other things.
	But I think those are the two things that make you radioactive.
	Race differences in IQ and the idea that whites have legitimate interests just like everybody else.
	So I really don't fault the mainstream for treating me differently on account of that.
	But the ferocity of condemnation really has changed over the years.
	And there was a time before the Internet.
	I've been operating in these, swimming in these waters since before the Internet.
	And we had a paper publication.
	We would send out copies of the publication to radio stations.
	And, oh, maybe 10, 15, 20 would say,"Wow, this is interesting!" And they would have me on as a guest.
	That would be unthinkable today.
	Absolutely unthinkable.
	And I think this is the result of this increasing polarization, certainly along racial lines.
	It's at the point where Charles Murray, who is a very respected and careful academic, who has arrived at certain conclusions that are similar to mine, certainly by no means all, he cannot speak on a college campus without being mobbed.
	This is a terrible state of affairs.
	Universities, they get the name from, it's a cognate with universal.
	All the ideas are supposed to be there.
	And for a university to shout down a man like Charles Murray or someone like Ann Coulter.
	Ann Coulter has a point of view, but it's not a point of view that can be expressed on a university campus.
	Believe it or not, I used to be invited to speak on universities.
	I've probably been to about 20 of them.
	I even used to speak on the subject of race and IQ.
	There was a far greater openness in the 1990s to these ideas than there is today.
	And the change has not been that my views have been refuted.
	In fact, the more evidence comes out, the more we can look at the human genome, we find that there are certain genetic patterns associated with intelligence.
	And I would bet you, the next 20 mortgage payments, that those patterns are not going to be found equally distributed among all human groups.
	Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians are going to get the lion's share, and the rest of us get what's left.
	That's what's going to be found out.
	In other words, the science has not gone against my views one bit, but the zeitgeist certainly has, in a ferocious and even punitive way.
	So, yes, compared to when I was an expert, compared to when I was invited to Hillsdale College to talk, for example, I am saying a few things that are different.
	It is the mentality, this vindictive, really punitive view of dissidence that I think is new.
	And who is controlling that?
	It's not just the Democrat.
	I mean, what is it?
	Because we were talking about...
	And I think if we could get into this, how the politics, this right-left, old-school thinking is...
	I don't think anybody controls it.
	You can't find the Bilderbergers or the Sanhedrin or whoever it is.
	You don't have a group of nasty people figuring it all out.
	These are people who have been often to the same schools and have imbibed the same views of right and wrong, the same views of the blank slate for human beings, the same views of anybody who dissents is really a Ku Klux Klansman or a neo-Nazi.
	So they don't have to work together, they just think alike, and so these things work out the way they do.
	But there is a tendency...
	Among people, and my end of the political spectrum, to think that there is a certain kind of machinations and certain conspiracy to do this and that, I think there are very few really effective conspiracies in the world.
	Most people are pretty straightforward about what they think, what they do.
	And on the other hand, the conspiracy theory accusations go the other way.
	We talked about...
	The gradual reduction of whites to a minority in the United States.
	This is happening in Europe as well.
	By the end of this century, whites are likely to be a minority in Britain, in Spain, in France, perhaps even sooner.
	And there is a Frenchman by the name of Renaud Camus who has come up with the term"The Great Replacement." Well, the Great Replacement is happening.
	It's very clearly happening.
	But if I use that term, I am supposed to be subscribing to a conspiracy theory.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Is it happening or isn't it happening?
	And on the one hand, the people who decry my views will say, it's not even happening.
	And even to talk about it means that you are parroting a conspiracy theory.
	On the other hand, when they talk about the future of the Democratic Party and how its power will be nourished by all of these non-whites moving in, they celebrate the fact that there are fewer whites in the country.
	So, they can't have it both ways.
	Now, the conspiracy element comes in if someone were to assume, okay, the Sanhedrin gets in its room and says, okay, next year we're going to bring in 800,000 non-whites.
	That's not happening.
	That's just not happening.
	It's just that we are on autopilot in many aspects of society and we have a very well-established cheerleading section for certain policies and certain points of view.
	I don't think there's any conspiracy involved at all, but it is certainly something that is happening and if you oppose it, then you are wicked.
	It made me think of Charlottesville and, you know, who will not replace us.
	Since then, there seems to have been this, you know, public violence is okay.
	Like it's in the culture, like, you know, people beating up, violence in the street, on the plane.
	There's this thing, people are getting angry.
	Can you address that and talk about that and how you feel?
	Well, on the one hand, violence in the name of Black Lives Matter.
	Seems to be pretty much okay.
	There was a great deal of excuse making.
	In fact, this is not exactly the same, but it is part of the same thinking.
	The Southern Poverty Law Center used to designate black groups as haters if they were virulently anti-white.
	Now, a black group is not a hate group unless it hates in addition to whites.
	Homosexuals or women.
	Because, in the view of the SPLC, hating whites is a perfectly understandable emotion.
	Now, the SPLC is a little further out in front than the New York Times, but not that much further out.
	As a consequence, when black people decide to burn down the local target, it is not at all.
	The way whites would be treated if they decide that they're going to go into the U.S. Capitol and make sure that democracy is preserved by their lights of what democracy is or what the results should be.
	So there is a huge double standard as far as that's concerned.
	So that kind of violence...
	And look at the people who looted all of these...
	High-rent stores in Chicago and Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue.
	All these stores that were looted.
	And the way these people were treated is just effectively a slap on the wrist to an astonishing degree because they were thought to be acting in a righteous cause.
	Now, other aspects of violence.
	People beating each other up on airplanes.
	I have no idea where that comes from.
	That is an aspect I do not understand.
	The violence that really matters, of course, though, is the homicide rates in all of America's major cities.
	And I believe that there is a straight-line connection to this completely irrational condemnation of the police if, by actively policing, you end up dealing with more blacks, arresting more blacks.
	Imprisoning more blacks, getting into fights with more blacks, and to a lesser extent with Hispanics, and you're called a racist, you're just not going to do active policing anymore.
	And as active policing declines, crime will increase.
	At the same time, this utterly moon-calf idea of defunding the police, there is, believe it or not, In the United States, a certain number of people, not without influence, who seem to believe that it is the presence of police that causes crime.
	You just pull the police out of the south side of Chicago and those guys are suddenly going to stop shooting each other.
	Well, give it a try.
	Just don't give it a try for very long because it's not going to work out that way.
	So that is an important aspect of violence.
	With people beating each up on airplanes, I don't know where in the world that comes from.
	What is the importance of Rudy Ridge?
	In the history of this country like in terms of all this?
	I think most people wouldn't even know what you were talking about.
	When I talk about what?
	Ruby Ridge.
	I think most people in the United States, they have some only the vaguest notion of what Ruby Ridge was.
	Those who are deep into Second Amendment rights will remember, oh yeah, that guy wasn't entrapped by federal agents because he had a shot-off shotgun that was a quarter inch too short or something like that.
	But that is not in the forefront of, I think, anyone's mind.
	I think Waco is the same.
	Americans tend to have pretty short memories.
	So Waco, Ruby Ridge, those things that motivated Timothy McVeigh, I do not think most people even think about them anymore.
	But then, at that time, they were so important for people like McVeigh, right?
	That was the sort of thing that I think certainly stimulated the original militia movement.
	The people who think, my God, look at what the U.S. government is prepared to do.
	I ain't going to let that happen to me.
	And what do you think motivated the rebirth?
	Because basically, okay, then Oklahoma bombing happened, you know, things calmed down, and then the militia movement just took off.
	This is statistically.
	And when Obama was elected.
	And they called it, so in the early, in the 80s, they were called the militia movement, and then after, when Obama was elected, it was the...
	Patriot movement, which was really the militia, went up 800%.
	And I think maybe, and it was, because the first one in the 80s, just a little history from what I'm reading, is that in the 90s before Waco was like, it was Bill Clinton, there was the banning of the AR-15, there was, you know, there was all that together kind of,
	you know, built up.
	But then...
	Well, I assume the general New York Times, Washington Post, CNN view is that this is a reaction to Barack Obama and it's implicit to white supremacy.
	Now, I haven't seen the numbers that you're talking about, and I would not be inclined to put two and two together quite that way.
	I don't think that there was much of a reaction because of Obama, per se.
	I don't think so.
	Now, remember, Barack Obama was very down on private ownership of firearms.
	And the second time when he was elected, I remember asking a guy how many concealed carry permits had been issued in Fairfax County.
	This is the guy who worked in the clerk's office.
	He said,"Yes," in the month after he was re-elected.
	And I said,"I don't know, 200?" He said,"2,000." 2000.
	So I think gun control was certainly a big part of it.
	Now, to what extent race is involved?
	Again, my guess is that those who wish to inflate the figures of the white supremacists may be counting what is a militia, what is not, in ways that suit their purposes.
	I hate to be skeptical in this way, but I've seen too many cases in which I really knew the facts and the facts were presented in a distorted way.
	You could be right, but it just does not make sense to me in an intuitive sense.
	In the way that I know, to the extent that I know the militia movement, to the extent that I know people who have a white racial consciousness, perhaps that is some kind of sign of nascent white racial consciousness, but it does not ring uncritically true to me.
	This thing about the Second Amendment, because a lot of, you know, extremist groups in Europe have bases on different reasons.
	You know, they start like anti-Semitism and all that.
	Here, it's gun rights, gun rights, government overreach.
	So can you talk about that?
	Which is very, very American.
	It is very American.
	I agree.
	Can you put the question in the answer?
	Give me the history lesson to my audience from your perspective.
	If I knew more about the militia movement, I could probably tell you something that would be interesting or that you didn't know.
	I am by no means a student of the militia movement, but there is no question that it is very, very tightly tied to an appreciation of the Second Amendment.
	Let us not forget, the Second Amendment goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson's idea that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
	That blood is its natural manure.
	They wanted an armed populace because an armed populace would not submit to dictatorial rule.
	That goes all the way back to the founding.
	And as the federal government becomes more and more intrusive, Pokes its nose into every little corner of our lives.
	There are more and more white people, and not just white people, who are going to say,"Hold on, I need to be prepared for the real push." And weapons become the symbol of that.
	So, I think that primarily it is a gesture and it is a way of thinking that is against overweening government control.
	That's, to me, the prime mover of the militia movement.
	Why is it that it's mostly whites?
	I suppose it's mostly whites who run around in the woods and hunt.
	They're more likely to do that.
	But don't forget, there is, I don't suppose you've ever heard of the NFA Coalition.
	Do you know about them?
	Well, the NFA stands for No Fucking Around.
	And it's a group of black people who dress in black.
	They have the AR-15s.
	They have marched around in the 100s and the 200s.
	And they are going to fight both the government and Whitey if Whitey gets happy.
	So this is something that is not exclusively a white organization.
	NFA seems to have sort of fallen on hard times and has been disbanded.
	But those guys, if you see the videos of them marching through Louisville, Kentucky, or at Stone Mountain, Georgia, you've got...
	200 guys marching with their ARs.
	It's a pretty impressive sight.
	I've never seen a white militia demonstration on that scale.
	Yeah, I saw those videos.
	So that's a very uniquely American thing.
	Yes, it is.
	Do you think it's a good thing?
	On a historical term, it makes us different than other countries and Europe?
	I believe in the right to bear arms, yes.
	I've been dismayed at the sheepish way in which the Australians and the New Zealanders have said yes ma'am, yes sir, and handed over their weapons.
	I think, what's the slogan?
	When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
	I think that, and once again, this becomes a racial argument.
	But in the hands of the Swiss, for example.
	As you probably know, every Swiss man of military age has a fully automatic rifle in his closet because you never know when the militia needs to be called out.
	Those people don't shoot each other.
	Also in Israel, the place is just bristling with fully automatic firearms.
	They don't shoot each other, but somehow the people in the south side of Chicago do shoot each other.
	What's the difference?
	Well, did they just not get proper gun training when they were growing up?
	Were they not Boy Scouts and they didn't get the shooting merit badge?
	No, I think there are deeper explanations for these differences.
	And what are they?
	Race. It would be hard to find a well-armed black society anywhere that does not use its firearms a different way from whites.
	Now, this NFA coalition, these black guys who are marching around with their ARs, I suspect that if you looked into the criminal backgrounds of those people, the accidental discharge rates, you would probably find statistically significant differences between them and the Michigan militia.
	But I could be wrong.
	I don't know either.
	You're not going to get a grant to study that either, I can assure you.
	Why? Because you might find inconvenient facts.
	I might be right, you see.
	So, something that was interesting about, what's his name?
	I got his name down.
	I was talking.
	Guillaume Fay.
	He brings this thing, this notion.
	From the Italian words, and it doesn't exist, he couldn't translate it in English, which is populo civiltà, which I guess would be popular civility or something.
	He was saying that ethnopolitics is race, culture, and civilization, what people should think about.
	And that he thinks that geopolitics is going to be...
	Out of the way, and then the 21st century is going to be about ethnopolitics everywhere in the West.
	Well, I hope that's true.
	So can you talk about what that is for somebody who doesn't know?
	Because that was an interesting notion.
	Well, the notion of ethnopolitics, the notion of people banding around a common cultural and racial heritage, that has been part of Western civilization from the Romans, from the Greeks, for heaven's sake.
	They took it all for granted.
	And in his view, this is a temporary aberration.
	This is maybe a century of self-imposed insanity which will self-correct eventually and white Western people will realize that their destiny lies in maintaining this heritage.
	I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as he is.
	The point that I make frequently is that this ethno-nationalism is taken for granted by all non-white people.
	And unless white people are prepared to take it for granted, we are, what, 8% of the world population?
	And for that, that is an additional reason why we need to have parts of the globe in which we are the majority.
	If in the United States, everybody becomes cafe au lait through miscegenation, or if that happens in Europe, that means white people disappear.
	Nobody else is going to disappear.
	There are these large areas that are still Asian, African, Latino-American.
	We are the only people who disappear under this scenario.
	Do you think that...
	So in order for that to be true, then there also shouldn't be any mixing?
	I believe in complete freedom of association.
	As I've said many times, if people wish to mix, God bless them.
	But I think most people do not wish to mix, and the people who do wish to mix should not reproach those who don't wish to mix and put all these insuperable barriers in our way.
	So it's really that.
	It's suddenly the double standards is really what you're fighting.
	Indeed. Let me just...
	one more thing here.
	Oh, what were the modern political thought leaders that had the greatest impact on you?
	Oh, gosh.
	Modern... Well, maybe not modern.
	I mean, like, I'm interested in the modern just because of contemporary or modern and maybe even in the past.
	Well, the fact is, my views...
	Are not much different from those of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland.
	All of those people took it for granted that the United States was meant to be an extension of Europe.
	And the idea that it should become something else would have just rocked the foundations of everything they thought about the United States.
	May I remind you, the very first citizenship law passed by the very first Congress.
	Here's a brand new country.
	We've got to decide what kind of country we are.
	Citizenship was restricted to white people of good character.
	They took it absolutely for granted.
	And for it to be the mixing pot that it is now, they would have thought, how on earth could that possibly happen?
	And so my views are more faithful to the founding views of the United States than is acceptable today.
	So you don't have to go back very far to find people who viewed the world the way I do in American history.
	Practically everybody did up until about the 1950s.
	If you're talking about US presidents alone, you have to get to John F. Kennedy to find somebody who had a view of race that is even approaching acceptability by today's standards.
	Everybody else before that is just a foaming, raving white supremacist.
	Including Eisenhower.
	But as far as the science of the understanding of race, there are people who did very important work such as Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Michael Levin,
	Linda Gottfredson, and now the people who are doing these genome-wide association studies who are really finding the actual Genetic contributions to different human traits.
	Those are people who I think are extremely impressive, and science, I'm convinced, will certainly prove race realists right.
	So, on the one hand, you have simply the traditional thinking about race in the United States, and then you have modern science that justifies an understanding of the races as not equivalent and interchangeable.
	The thing about all these presidents who you were influenced, so even Eisenhower and whatnot, so we can accept the fact that until that history, of course they believed this, and the system in the United States was fine.
	There was Jim Crow, before that there was slavery.
	The racial minority, the blacks, were kept in their place.
	I'm not even judging it.
	Like, good, bad, but I don't really care.
	So in the 60s, when things started changing, is what you were referring to the laws of 1965, immigration laws.
	64 was the Civil Rights Act.
	So you think, from your perspective, that was where things changed radically?
	Because before, of course, they were Teddy Roosevelt and those guys.
	I mean, it wasn't really an issue at that point.
	No, it was not an issue.
	Right, so it wasn't...
	You can go back further than that.
	Brown v.
	Board of Education, 1954.
	Shelley v.
	Kramer that outlawed restrictive covenants.
	I think that was actually in the 1940s, for heaven's sake.
	The integration of the armed services by executive order, by Truman.
	It was definitely moving in the direction of not only equality, but then as you keep going, affirmative action and racial preferences.
	All of this has been moving in that direction, certainly since, I'd say, the 1940s or 50s.
	Now, what does one do about that?
	I think, as I say, well, one way to put it, one way to think of race relations in the United States.
	We certainly had slavery, we had legal segregation, we had Jim Crow, all of these things.
	Now we have alleged equality, but...
	Preferences for blacks because they didn't immediately come to the same level as whites in achievement as soon as the actual obstacles put in their way were taken away.
	All of this is some attempt.
	To try to reconcile the fact that you have dissimilar people living in the same society.
	What do you do about that?
	And my view of American history is that all of these ways to deal with it have failed.
	They failed because there is no good way to deal with it.
	There is simply no good way to have blacks and whites living together in the same society at a large scale if minorities are There are only a few of them.
	They will forcibly be required to adapt.
	They can be religious minorities, they can be racial minorities, but once they reach a certain critical mass, then they will be faithful to their own heritage in ways that may make them dissimilar and add centripetal forces to what we hope would be a united country.
	This inevitably happens.
	So that, to me, was the original sin of the United States.
	Well, slavery was its own original sin in a particular way.
	But the other, the next original sin, was this assumption that race can be made not to matter.
	And as you know, the United States has given up on that idea.
	You can't say race can be made not to matter.
	It really matters a lot.
	And whitey, you have got to pay attention to race.
	If white people say, well, I try to be colorblind, I try to treat everybody the same, that's not good enough.
	If you had told the people in the 50s and 60s in the civil rights movement, you know, there's going to come a time when not only are white people supposed to treat black people exactly the same as white people, that's not going to be good enough.
	You have got to be a white ally and you've got to be dismantling your own internal this and you're suffering from unconscious prejudice.
	They wouldn't have believed you.
	But that's the role we live in today.
	All of these are these crazy phases we've gone through.
	Trying to build a multi-racial society which we should never, ever have attempted in the first place.
	Is there an example in the history of a society trying this and failing or succeeding?
	Failing? Or is this the only time in history that this has happened?
	Failing? Everyone's failed.
	Give me one that succeeded.
	Well, which ones are failed?
	Because I don't even know where it happened before.
	Well, look.
	All of Europe.
	All of Europe.
	The Western European countries that have accepted large numbers of, say take the case of France, the North Africans.
	Why is it that every New Year's Eve you have to get the fire brigade out to douse the hundreds of cars that are set on fire?
	Are those the people from, I don't know, Nantes burning the cars, the people who live in Paris?
	No, no, there is clearly a racial religious element to this.
	Add all of the Muslim attacks, not only in Paris, but in Germany.
	These are the fruits of diversity.
	To me, it is insane to try to build a society on this basis.
	Likewise, crime rates, illegitimacy rates, poverty rates go to the United Kingdom.
	The United Kingdom does not have the history of slavery or lynching or Jim Crow, all these horrible things from our past, and yet you find exactly the same patterns.
	The same thing in Canada.
	All of these attempts to build a multiracial society are foundering on what I conceive to be the brute facts of human nature and biology.
	Where does this come from, this need, this drive for multiculturalism?
	Is it a power thing, or what is it in your view?
	You asked this question a different way before.
	I don't know.
	There are some people who...
	Who argue, and there's a certain plausible aspect to this, that it's a perverse form of white supremacy.
	The old white supremacy was, yes, we are better than these non-whites.
	We're going to rule over them.
	We're going to Christianize them.
	We're going to civilize them.
	And we're going to lift them up.
	They're not going to get very high, but we're going to do our best.
	And life is going to be better for them because we have held them in hand.
	Now, the perverse form of white supremacy seems to be that, okay, if black people and Hispanic don't do as well in school, and if they commit more crime, that is our fault.
	Somehow we as whites, we have this amazing power to make people fail, even if we're not trying.
	That somehow white society is structured in a way that magically makes them fail.
	It's a twisted view of the power of whites.
	And when you see the real divisions, the really hostile divisions of the United States, some of them are obviously racial.
	But perhaps even more hostile are what John Derbyshire calls the good whites, as opposed to the bad whites.
	The good whites.
	are those who promote diversity even if they live in white enclaves.
	And the bad whites are people like me who live in our own white enclaves but say the wrong things.
	That is the real hostility.
	And it's the good whites.
	Who appear to think that we bad whites, without even thinking about it, without even deliberately taking any conscious action, we are able to oppress non-whites.
	Now how come Asians escape from this oppression and float to the top of society?
	That's a question that's left unanswered.
	But it is putting white people at the center of the universe.
	Just as the colonialists did.
	Just as the real white supremacists did.
	We're the ones who matter.
	And blacks are not going to get ahead unless white people transform themselves.
	What kind of crazy thinking is that?
	That reduces blacks and Hispanics basically to marionettes.
	They can't get ahead on their own.
	We white people have to become members of the church of white privilege and fight the inherent racism in music theory and we have to rename things and tear down statues of Robert E. Lee.
	Unless we do all these things, those poor blacks and Hispanics are not going to make any progress.
	Again, this is an inverted and twisted form of white supremacy.
	It's very clear.
	That if a black person graduates from high school, if he gets married before he has children, if he gets a job, any job, and keeps it, he's gonna do just fine.
	The idea that somehow there is this implacable miasma of anti-blackness in America that they are facing every day.
	This is cuckoo.
	But that's standard black ideology.
	Every day we face this white supremacist.
	Give me a break.
	What did you face today that was white supremacist?
	What did you face yesterday that was white supremacist?
	Occasionally you get these blacks who say,"Well, wait a minute.
	I didn't run into a single white supremacist all day.
	I wasn't the victim of a micro or a microaggression all day." But those people are low.
	They're breaking ranks.
	No, no.
	Don't forget to blame Whitey.
	Because Whitey, in effect, is a superman.
	Without even wanting to, we can oppress them.
	So it's interesting you say about the whole, because there's that, and then there's, you know, this idea that white is kind of a narcissistic culture, because, I mean, you know, it's like what we were saying about Afghanistan, like going over there and thinking you're going to, and so, I mean, we've...
	Narcissistic is a very good expression.
	That's not a word that had occurred to me, but that's a very good one.
	Whites are so self-absorbed.
	That they think they can manipulate all of these non-whites in this extraordinary way.
	And at the same time, we go into Afghanistan thinking, what they really most want is to be just like us.
	We're so wonderful.
	They all want to be like us.
	And you remember, after the 9-11 attacks, what did George Bush say when he went to the joint session of Congress?
	He says, they attacked us because they hate our freedoms.
	What the heck?
	Are Osama and the boys supposed to sit around their caves saying,"Oh, those white people, they've got so much freedom, we absolutely have to kill as many of them as possible." No!
	We do certain things that they don't like.
	And when we go over there and we tell them,"Hey, you got it all wrong.
	You know, you got to love homosexuals.
	And you've got to, you know, get your Jesuit women in bikinis rather than burkas." Are they going to like that?
	We think they're going to like that?
	No. Narcissism is a really great, again, this inverted white supremacy and narcissism is a huge part of it.
	I know, it's kind of crazy.
	You're not on the record.
	The fact is, you are on the record.
	Yeah, I mean, it's...
	It is crazy.
	The... Let me see if I have another...
	So... Surely you have exhausted me.
	Yeah, good.
	No more questions.
	So... Can we already discuss this?
	Okay, what can or should we learn from the past or present, you know, to prevent another Oklahoma bomb, you know, like a terror?
	Because you spoke about W the other day.
	He said, you know, after 9-11, the most important thing is domestic terrorism, the fear.
	That's Garland.
	Yeah. No, he just did two days ago.
	Oh, that's right.
	He didn't talk about Whitespring.
	He just said the fear of domestic terrorism.
	That's right.
	So there is, and we talked about this.
	You know, so what can or should we learn from the past to prevent another Oklahoma bomb?
	Or is it too late?
	That, I don't have a good answer for you.
	Because he was motivated by what he thought was the overreach, the criminal overreach.
	Who's he?
	Timothy McVeigh.
	The overreach at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
	Will things like that never happen again?
	I sure can't guarantee it.
	We certainly were involved in, I think, criminal overreach in the Middle East.
	We've done it many times.
	So at what point do you really rein in the federal government in a way that makes everybody happy?
	I don't know if that's possible.
	A guy like Timothy McVeigh is obviously a huge outlier.
	But I don't have a good answer to that question.
	I think one argument you could make is that small countries work better than large countries.
	And if the United States really were federated in the way the founders originally thought, that the central government was this distant thing that maybe delivered the mail and not much else, then you could have different ways of doing things that attracted different people.
	People would be less hostile to government.
	But now the central government wants everybody to do it the same way.
	That's not at all the way the founders had in mind.
	So maybe that's part of the problem, but I don't have a particularly insightful answer to that question.
	Well, you did actually.
	You said you're going and saying a way to diffuse this tension that's growing is the federalization.
	Much more local autonomy.
	Much more local autonomy.
	These vaccine mandates, for heaven's sake.
	Is the federal government really going to tell every single one of the 50 states it's our way or the highway?
	Good grief!
	That's not the way it's supposed to work.
	And if people want to live where abortion is difficult or where there are no vaccine mandates.
	Or where you can carry guns openly.
	Or all of these different things.
	Then they should have that choice.
	I believe that's hugely important.
	And as we become more and more and more centralized, that makes all of those choices much more difficult.
	You're going to have a lot more angry people.
	Right. Yeah.
	And yet there's still a thing about the vaccination is so complicated because then you go, you know, the hospitals get filled and somebody who, you know, is not vaccinated.
	And that's probably because of the fragilization of health care.
	All of these questions are complicated.
	But the point is, if you want to live among like-minded people, and most people do.
	You should have that choice.
	And less and less do we have that kind of choice.
	There are people who are moving out of Virginia to West Virginia because it's now in Democrat hands.
	They see things moving in ways that are not going to make Virginia a pleasant place for them to live.
	At least that's their fear.
	And it is not an illegitimate fear.
	in your view what is the seminal event that has brought us to where we are today in your view 1619 yeah
	1619. That's very funny.
	It's not funny.
	1619 is when blacks were brought to the United States.
	Trying to build a multiracial nation.
	Now, we were stuck with a certain multiracial aspect because we took the country away from the original inhabitants who were not white.
	So that was something we were going to be tangling with from the get-go.
	But we immensely complicated the project.
	By bringing in a group that I believe is genetically and culturally even more distant from us than American Indians.
	And all of the genetic similarity studies will show you that blacks are more distant genetically from any other group of humans.
	Africans, they've been around the longest, they're just more different from other groups.
	Probably 1619 was a mistake.
	any commitment to trying to build something that was other than a European nation.
	That was the original mistake in the United States.
	So, you already answered that, the January 6th.
	answered that.
	Does our democracy work right now?
	And answer that question by a pretty good question.
	And in your view, I mean today, 2021, because it's a mess right now, right?
	Or maybe not.
	No, no, it's a huge mess.
	What is a mess?
	And it is, we are really in a very dangerous state when, what is it, at least half of Republicans think that the presidential election was stolen?
	These are shocking figures.
	We think of this as banana republic.
	Maybe it's three quarters.
	I don't know.
	That is...
	That is a horrible, horrible reality.
	And what are the Democrats doing?
	I have a daughter who's not particularly political.
	She did not vote for Donald Trump.
	But she said, wow, what the Democrats really need to do is make sure that every future election is absolutely airtight, bomb-proof, bulletproof, cast down, so there can be no doubt.
	But instead, the Democrats are going in the opposite direction.
	More voting by mail.
	More early voting.
	More late voting.
	More opportunities for chicanery, if chicanery there was.
	That is a very bad mistake.
	And if you get a large number of Americans who really believe that democracy at the electoral level is not working, then democracy is not working at all.
	And also, I think there are many, many questions on which, if you did a one-man, one-vote question on, well, what country should we invade tomorrow?
	You would get a very different result from what Congress decides, and that's a failure of democracy.
	Okay, do you have anything that you want to say, talk about?
	Oh, gosh.
	So here, Jess, I want to remind you one thing, and before then, I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you, but this idea, this thing came with the idea that after January 6th, I believe that a big majority, 80% of the country, weren't like, what just happened?
	They had no idea this was coming.
	They saw it.
	These guys are demonstrating because they're pro-Trump and it's fine, whatever.
	But it just has created this questioning of, like, where does this all come from?
	Who are these people?
	Are they real?
	Are they bad?
	Are they malicious?
	Well, you know, interestingly enough, I was in Washington for a pro-Trump rally.
	I think it was maybe a month before.
	And there were swarms of these people with the Trump banners and the Stop the Steal.
	And we all marched by the Capitol.
	And this was at a period where there had been some rallies with the Proud Boys being attacked by Antifa and a lot of police action.
	And as we were marching by the Capitol...
	I saw there were just a handful of Capitol Police with their little flimsy barriers.
	And I walked up to one and I said,"Are you expecting any trouble from these guys?" They said,"Nah.
	Nah. No extra trouble for them." Because, as a rule, white people don't lie.
	That almost never happens.
	Now, people have been critical of the way the Capitol Police handled it.
	I think they were lulled into a kind of complacency because Trump supporters had never rioted before.
	When you would have a Trump rally, who would be the provocateurs?
	Who would be throwing the eggs?
	Who would be shouting?
	Who would be screaming?
	It's the Trump opponents.
	This was a new thing.
	And I'm sure you've read the reports that hadn't been issued any kind of protective gear against tear gas.
	They weren't specially manned up.
	They were caught completely by surprise.
	So this was kind of a sui generis event, certainly in contemporary history.
	But I believe, and I believe that the evidence is overwhelming about this, this was a random group of people.
	Who, in a very disorganized and unplanned way, walked into that Capitol thinking that they were preserving democracy.
	I think they were deluded.
	I think they were utterly wrong.
	Any kind of violence of that kind is absolutely anathema to me, but that is, I believe, what happened.
	Now, it is important to get to the bottom of this, what did happen.
	But if the idea that this was some kind of white supremacy, this is if people genuinely believe that.
	And they make policy on that basis, they are going to make every problem much worse.
	Anything else you want to add?
	I don't think so.

▲