All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:24:15
Time for White Identity Politics
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everyone, welcome to Left, White, and Right.
I'm your host, Gregory Hood, and I'm here with Robert Wallace, who is a refugee from Conservatism Inc., much like myself, now works as a development officer for Countercurrents, and he's going to talk to us about what his time was like in the conservative movement, and why he decided to move to explicit white identity politics.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Greg.
It's an honor to be here.
I mean, American Renaissance has meant so much to me over the past seven or eight years, so I can't adequately express that, but I appreciate everything you've all done.
So, why now?
I mean, I guess the main question is that, obviously, with Conservatism Inc., you brush up against the kind of issues we talk about all the time.
Talk about immigration. You talk about campus politics.
Certainly if you're talking about campus politics, it always seems to brush up along
questions of race and sexuality and all the other things that get the clicks on the websites, but
aren't necessarily the types of things that the guys in charge want to talk about because
they want to stick to, you know, tax cuts for billionaires. That's right. But why, why move
to explicit white identity politics?
Because the case that could be made is that by staying within the movement and sticking with implicit white identity politics, you could potentially reach a broader audience.
Yes.
Well, I mean, it's a great question.
And of course, it's something I gave a lot of serious thought to before I made the jump into this movement.
And my response to this, Greg, is that Um, I took my time, right?
I spent a few years within this institution.
I tried to reform it.
I, I fought really hard, but as it turns out between the donors and also the executive staff, there's just too much momentum against white identity politics, uh, within my institution and my impression to going to conferences and things like that.
Uh, within all of these institutions.
Um, that is my impression.
And again, I was around a lot of, you could say heavy hitters.
And so I got a good dose of what it is like.
Um, so I, I don't see any hope there between the way the institution, a good anecdote for this is the guy that was, he was the head, uh, he was the Lieutenant of the programmatic division of my institution.
Okay.
And he was heard saying one time is that our point within this institution is to take people that are drifting away into nationalism.
Yeah, that's always been my impression.
sort of William F. Buckley type conservatism.
So that was his conscious, deliberate objective, and he was in a big gatekeeper position.
Very, very important, probably secondarily in terms of the content that the institution
was promoting to the vice president and the president himself.
Yeah, that's always been my impression.
They always ask the question, what is it that the conservative movement
has actually conserved?
And the answer, of course, is that it's conserved the tension.
It's conserved a movement that is designed to lose, and they're very explicit about that being the intended goal.
And it was definitely something that I noticed again and again.
But at the same time, you did have some people, including some people who maybe not at the top of the organization, but certainly in the higher ups.
Certainly some of the people you were working with who more or less saw the world the same way you did But they just weren't yes willing to agree with your tactics They thought that perhaps the movement could be saved or you could take it over or something like that Is there any possibility of the conservative movement or more broadly the Republican Party?
Being taken over or should we just cut it off and start our own thing?
Sure.
Sure.
So I think as far as I the institutional structure of Conservatism Inc. When I say
Conservatism Inc., what I'm referring to—I'm pretty sure you know a lot about this yourself,
Greg—but what I'm referring to when I say Conservatism Inc. are the network of influential non-profit
organizations between 501c3s, 501c4s, etc.
The difference is 501c4s can lobby.
They can intervene directly into politics.
So that's what I see as conservatism, Hank.
I don't see that as being salvageable.
I just don't see a way to get inside of that world and turn it inside out.
Again, you know, I was I struggled to get a single speaker involved in the institution that I worked with, let alone turning this entire Leviathan upside down.
And so with the GOP, I think it's similar.
It's similar, Greg, OK?
But it's a little bit different because, of course, from the top down, reforming the GOP is an extremely difficult task.
I mean, Trump, he won the support of 60 million Americans, right?
In 2016, they voted for him.
How was he able to overcome the bias that was against him throughout Washington, D.C.
and throughout the world of influential conservative movement organizations?
He did not have a lot of success doing that.
But I'll say on the other hand, the Republican electorate, the Republican electorate is where our salvation was.
And that is what the article is about.
That's what America is ready for what identity politics is about.
People thought when I wrote that article that I was some blue-eyed dreamer, some wide-eyed idealist, and that's certainly not the case for me.
I think I'm a hardened realist.
I'm attracted to sort of pessimistic philosophers.
My point there was to say, look, the Republican voter is very close to us on these positions.
The question is, how do we reach those people?
How are we Able to reach those people consistently with our message.
That is the challenge that we have and I think we're able to overcome it.
We would be very successful.
But of course I'm not at all understating the magnitude of that challenge as well.
Very difficult challenge because of the censorship that we face. That is between private
companies, services, corporate private services that will help our organizations grow, but then
the obvious. We're not on TV.
Countercurrents, for example, we know what happened to American Renaissance on Twitter.
We're blacked out from Twitter, Facebook, Google. Google does not. Our articles do not appear on
Google, particularly when they're popular. The censorship blockade is really the central
challenge that we face as a movement. Now, How do we get around that?
I think we have to be very clever.
We have to be very motivated, doing little activism things.
And we have ideas.
I'll say that we have ideas about overcoming the censorship problem.
But I think in the interest of counter-currency organization, I shouldn't reveal a whole lot about the methodology of those ideas.
If people want to talk to me about what those ideas are, they're more than welcome to email me about it.
Yeah, definitely.
We don't want to be revealing exactly what we're going to do online.
That does strike me as the fundamental challenge, but it also seems that the movement in many ways is much weaker than it was 2015, 2016.
But I think that's only on the surface because you had, you know, in theory, if you have free speech online, I'm just going to say it as an axiom.
If we have free speech, we win.
If given the choice, the Republican voter will go to our message.
They will not go to Conservatism, Inc.
I would say the greatest beneficiaries of censorship actually tend to be the center-right, which is why they're the biggest problem.
Because if they're the only game in town, they are able to get all the political opposition, and then they're able to funnel it and distort it and send it into channels that don't particularly go anywhere.
And that's the story of American right-wing politics.
That's right.
Populist energy, getting sucked up by an elite, a false elite that plays to lose, and knows it's losing.
That's right.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, this is just something that, based on my experience, the guys in charge know they're losing, and they're okay with it.
I mean, am I being too cynical here, or is that...?
No.
No, you're not.
There's a kind of...
I'm telling this to the audience, because you already know this, Greg.
But there is a pervasive stench of defeatism within these conservative institutions.
And these are institutions that make tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and they still have this.
There's a depressed atmosphere.
in these institutions. It reminds me, I think it was Chesterton that said that conservatism
was invented so that we aren't able to undo the policies of liberals or something like that.
It's a great quote because they have been made powerless by their own ideology.
They're not willing to step out of this ideological prison.
They've constructed for themselves talking about intervention into the private sector.
That's a good example, but they also want to boil everything down to local communities.
Well, we just need to hide in our local communities.
That's the only way that we're really going to save America, which is obviously complete nonsense because collectively they have the revenue.
They have the personnel resources and they have the influence to completely change the landscape of American politics, but they won't do it because it violates this morality that they have invented for themselves, which is complete nonsense.
And no, they're not willing to do it.
And yes, they've sort of given up.
Yeah, I guess the question is one of motivation.
Have they given up in the sense that they think they're engaged in a losing struggle or do they deliberately seek to make sure that it's a losing struggle because it allows them to, you know, goof off in DC and have these institutions and everything else.
And there is a distinction there.
I mean, I do, I do think that one of the things that made the biggest impression on me was when I was still working in conservatism, like at the beginning anyway, Gay marriage was still overwhelmingly unpopular in the United States.
And of course, George W. Bush won re-election on a pledge to ban it by passing a constitutional amendment.
And first thing he did was immediately destroy his political capital with social security privatization, which didn't end up going through anyway.
And that was the end of that.
Here we are.
And what really struck me was a lot of the people in That I knew because my job was not, I'm not bad mouthing any organization I worked for.
It was my job basically to work with all these other different organizations.
And so many of these people were very religious, very committed, very loud about being willing to do anything for the faith and be martyrs and fight to the end and everything else.
And then once the Supreme Court ruled, it just was settled overnight.
It was just a shrug of the shoulders and well, that's it.
And they just moved on and I don't even know what they could possibly be talking about now.
And it, it's the acceptance of defeat and almost, almost bragging about it.
Like, you know, the world will never see our like again, as opposed to the people who are just pessimistic.
I mean, I do think there's a difference between those two.
I mean, basically, are they being just cynical or are they just being defeatist?
Well, I think it's a great question.
I mean, I think the bottom line between the two is they don't have the right stuff to take on this struggle and to fight the forces that we're up against.
I mean, between the two, if they're going to just abandon issues that they're purportedly concerned about or that they're complacent, they don't have the will to take on this I mean, I think that's probably the bottom line.
But yes, of course, there's a lot of complacency that goes on as well because these people make a very comfortable living working in these institutions.
But I also think, Greg, it's You have to look at what are our positions compared to ours.
Our positions are rooted truthfully, based truthfully in terms of what has made Western civilization great, what has made America great.
And so there's a stronger traction for our politics.
Um, then to theirs, because the gravity of truth is very strong on that level.
So that makes us more committed.
That makes us more principled.
It makes us more determined because we know if we succeed, then we save, we save ourselves, right?
Whereas if conservatives succeed on the little hot button issues that, uh, that they find, uh, they find a new hot button issue every few weeks.
Uh, what, what even is that going to accomplish exactly?
And so I think that that is another difference between us and them, is that our positions inculcate a strong sense of duty and dedication that theirs are simply incapable of because they're out of touch.
Yeah, they certainly have no idea of what victory even looks like.
And their principles are essentially, we're not allowed to pursue our interests.
I mean, I often note that the conservative movement adopts this tone of telling its own followers Why they shouldn't be doing this thing that's working and why instead they should be doing this other thing that won't work, but fits with the principles that they've invented for themselves, to which the obvious retort is, well, then they're stupid principles.
And more broadly, because what this podcast mostly focuses on are the ideas.
If you look at Russell Kirk, for example, I mean, this is the man who they always look to as the great The original conservative who lined everything up, who organized the very idea of American conservatism and everything else.
If you say, OK, well, what was the one practical intervention in electoral politics that he did?
It was endorsing Pat Buchanan, which is something that none of the others were willing to do.
So even if we want to play the game of true conservative principles and everything else, I mean, that was it.
True conservative principles were, you know, if we had had the I'm Stunned to speechlessness for a second because I'm trying to think of problems we would have if Buchanan had been president and I'm really having a hard time.
I'm thinking of like any problems that the United States would have.
Sure.
We'd have to do something else.
And that occurred towards the end of Kirk's life as well, Craig.
If we could talk about Kirk.
I mean, Kirk, Kirk was sort of, I have some awareness that he was realistic about race, but he never did anything about it because he was scolded by people that told him that was evil.
So, I mean, there is the spinelessness of conservatism personified.
I know people within conservatism, and they're not actively engaged in our things.
But they're aware of a couple of our publications and they don't have any serious disagreements, but they are simply afraid to go there.
They're even afraid to engage with these organizations.
I mean, I look at some of these conservatives that I used to work with.
Conservatism is a form of escapism for them.
They see how completely screwed up liberalism and just sort of the elite ideology of either party has made this country.
And they want to escape from that.
They want to sit in a room and have a nice little life and not have to think about any of this stuff.
And they want to read Plato.
And they want to read Russell Kirk and things like this.
So there's a lot of that going on with conservatives as well.
So there's an aversion to conflict there, right?
as well, conservatives as well. So there's a sort of – there's an aversion to conflict
there, right? Most people don't find conflict pleasant.
They don't – they can't tolerate You and I are very different to them in that respect, Greg.
Fair to say, you and I are very tenacious people.
We're hard-fighting people.
You've probably been that way since you were a little kid.
I have as well.
These conservatives do not have that in their nature.
Unless they're just cynical, and a lot of them are just cynical.
Yeah, they could be that.
I mean, the question is that it's become almost something of a fandom.
Saying that you're an intellectual conservative is like saying you're into Marvel movies.
It's just sort of a brand, and you get your approved publications, and you get to escape from the real world for a little while, and then that's it.
And so, if it's just a form of consumption, then there's not much value in it.
And, honestly, I think we understand their ideas better than they do.
Because, again, I mean, if you actually look at quite The people who wrote these things actually did, in terms of the movements they supported, in terms of the particular political stances these intellectuals took.
They would not be allowed in the conservative movement today.
That said, there is a broader point here, and this is when you noted that the Republican electorate is closer to our position.
Like I said, on the surface, the movement is weaker than it was in 2015, 2016, in the sense that we can't just go out and Raise a million bucks or get on Twitter and have a huge following or start a podcast that will immediately start winning, getting more listeners than conservative zinc podcasts and everything else.
Obviously those censorship obstacles are there, but, and obviously a lot of people have made some willing or unwilling sacrifices in terms of what's happened to them over the last few years.
That said, in a broader sense, the movement is stronger.
Because, well as, basically this is where we transition to your article, people are, normal people are talking about this stuff in a way that they wouldn't have talked about six years ago.
And so, in terms, if you believe in metapolitics or education or any of that kind of stuff and you think that's what we should be doing, I almost feel like that mission has been accomplished because there are millions more now who agree with us and are willing to say so.
It's just the ability to concretely mobilize those people behind an explicit pro-white organization.
That is more difficult than it was in 2015.
Basically, in 2015, you didn't have the masses.
Now you have the masses.
It's just harder to have the actual organization because you're constantly being deplatformed from everything.
But, you know, if we can solve that problem once, I feel like The victory is a lot closer than we think.
That's exactly right.
It's we're both so near and so far at the same time.
And Greg, you not talked about this before is that American politics is cyclical and it's racially cyclical and that in 1968 the country was kind of on the verge of a kind of race war.
That's that's a common commentary on that 1968 election between Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
And of course, The racial conflict that also raised a crescendo when Reagan won his presidency as well.
Of course, George Wallace did very well in that 1968 election.
He beat Hubert Humphrey.
He got more votes than him, I'm pretty sure.
But now, it's come up again.
It came up again in 2016.
But I think the difference between those, and you see this in the studies in the America is Ready for White Identity Politics article, The difference is that the demographic situation is so radically, dramatically different than it was in 1968 or 1980, is that it's not going to be, it's not going to be muzzled.
It is not going to be suppressed by kind of civic nationalist person like Reagan or Nixon.
Nixon was really not great on this issue either.
You can't really put, you can't really screw the cap back on the bottle, Greg, because back then we were at least, we were 85% white country.
All right, now we're supposedly we're 57% white.
We're supposedly, according to Pew Research, we're going to accept 80 million additional immigrants by 2050.
And so you can't really put it back into the bottle at this point.
And that's the difference.
But yes, I mean, to speak on your point, We're close with the public polling.
The great James Edwards just sent me a YouGov poll finding that said 73%—that just came out, brand new poll—73% of Trump voters believe Democrats want to replace whites for votes.
And that's just an amazing poll.
And of course, the studies in my article are amazing, too.
There were two studies from the University of Chicago, but the new one is more impressive than the first one that was originally in my article.
It's over 50% of Republicans believe immigration policies are a deliberate scheme to replace native-born Americans.
And of course, that's similar to the YouGov poll that just came out, but that study Is coming from one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the entire country.
So that is a rigorously academic study that was produced by the University of Chicago.
And when we could talk about a couple of others, University of Virginia, first of all, 87% of Republicans.
First concern is immigration.
This is a new poll as well.
It came out in 2021.
85% says the same study from the University of Virginia.
85% of Republicans are concerned about anti-white discrimination in the future.
So we're not talking about 15, 20%.
We're talking about over 50% on these issues.
Duke Political Science Department found that 30 to 40% of white Americans say that white identity is important to them.
I mean, that's the only study, which is a very impressive number.
That's the only study that is under 50% that we're looking at here.
And that's all Americans.
And so 40% of Americans are independent.
They're registered as independent.
As far as the Republican electorate is concerned, we are in a very favorable position in terms of public opinion.
I do want to correct one thing.
Humphrey did massively outperform Wallace.
Wallace only got about $9.9 million.
Humphrey got about $31 million.
But it is worth noting that Wallace did win five states outright in 1968.
The point I make on that, Kevin, thanks for correcting me, but the point I make on that is that had Nixon not run, Wallace would have beaten Humphrey handily.
That's I was incorrect about that, but that's also an important point to make about that election.
And again, I wonder what the polling was in 1968 compared to now.
I mean, the polling is pretty damn good as far as Republican voters are concerned.
Well, Nixon, of course, crushed everybody in 72, and they were only able to get him out with Watergate.
I've always thought that Pappy Cannon's book on the subject, Nixon's White House Wars, Really brought home that, you know, as, as the man said in the song, Watergate does not bother me.
If you actually look at what Watergate was compared to what other presidents were doing, it's very clear that this was something that they, it was the original deep state plot to take out the president.
And I think it was the first time where you really saw that the president actually isn't the guy who runs the country.
But yes, and Buchanan's books on Nixon are fascinating.
It's a bit of a great greatest comeback before that, too.
Yeah, I mean, but again, there is this.
There's this potential, but we there are certain key moments, you know, there's a tide in the affairs of men, as the Bard said, and.
We're at one of those now, I think, where if you see the.
If you see how bad Biden is doing in the polls.
I think just today he hit a new record low and his base is abandoning him.
Um, African-Americans unions, young voters certainly are not getting much from the Biden administration.
And this was frankly predictable because Biden's implicit promise was normality and the democratic base does not want normality.
I remember to.
To make another reference to Wallace real quick, I remember Biden said something along the lines of when he was talking about Trump, and he said, well, Trump has more in common with George Wallace than George Washington.
Well, I'm pretty sure George Wallace had more liberal racial views than George Washington did, particularly after Wallace renounced his support for segregation and then kept getting elected governor of Alabama with a lot of black votes.
What an absurd comment.
Yeah, and because the tension here is that You can't defend the historic American identity at any level while still accepting contemporary racial orthodoxy.
Like, you're actually right to tear down the statue of George Washington.
Forget the Confederate generals.
You're actually right to tear down the statue of George Washington.
You're actually right to tear down the statue of Thomas Jefferson, who said that these people are going to be free, but in the very next sentence said that they also can't live under the same government.
You're actually right to tear down this or to move at least the statue of even relatively modern leaders like Teddy Roosevelt because of their views on race.
And so Biden is this transitional figure where he's still he's sort of appealing to
liberal elderly voters who still have this vague memory of the United States as this good thing.
And he's kind of comforting them and saying, no, listen, we're still we're still this country.
We're still a good country. Everything's OK. And then you have his base essentially rising up and
saying, no, we're not.
This this whole thing needs to be totally redone.
And this crazy flag with new stripes added every other day is our real flag and everything else.
And I think that and I think that presents a challenge to the Democrats that is actually much harder for them to solve than what the Republicans have, because the Republican base is relatively racially united.
I mean, it's The Republican Party is the White Party, more or less, whereas Peter Brimelow put it, the generic American Party.
It's the party of, the White Party would be oversimplifying it, but it's the party of those who still identify with the historic American nation, and some non-whites obviously do, I don't want to make a statement that's factually untrue, but you have to be willing to Say the creation of the United States is a good thing that Columbus was a good thing that the West British expansion was a good thing and I don't think you can say these things in the Democratic Party of today.
And so right now they're trying to create a media hysteria over January 6th.
Of course, they got some bad timing because it turned out that some liberal guy tried to kill a Supreme Court justice.
So I kind of stepped on their narrative a little bit but Even if that hadn't happened, I just don't think many people care about January 6th outside the media because, you know, they're talking about sedition and they're talking about treason.
And the question is sedition against what?
Treason against what?
I mean, to a Democratic voter, what does America mean to a Democratic voter at this point?
Right.
I mean, what is what is the media's approval rating?
What is Congress's approval rating?
Because it'll probably put Biden's approval rating to shame.
So, yes, I mean, they've exhausted their credibility.
All of this is just becoming so apparently astroturfed that it's all just kabuki theater.
People have just really tuned out.
I mean, we could talk about that all day long, but you go back to the 41% of Americans are registered independents.
And then 90% of Republican voters who support Trump throughout his presidency, they're anti-establishment Republicans.
They are not establishment Republicans.
His election was a repudiation of everything that they stand for.
So, yes, you're exactly right.
I agree.
The question becomes, because at this point they really are relying entirely on repression.
You're seeing censorship, and it's not just private at this point, you're also seeing it from the state.
There was a hearing in Congress the other day where they were talking about Directing law enforcement to go after people who just talk about the great replacement, which is of course a problem because where do we get this idea from?
It's not coming from conservatives.
It's coming from Democrats who can't keep their mouth shut about how their whole strategy is to demographically overwhelm their political opponents and create a whole new country.
I mean, this is not.
Our idea, I mean, in words of a column in the New York Times not long ago, we can replace them.
I mean, that's that's on them.
That's not on us.
You could wipe out every single one of us tomorrow and the arguments would still be there and people are going to notice it.
Yes.
But at the same time, you have this popular base and you certainly have some potential in terms of raw material for a political movement.
But the problem is you simply don't with very few exceptions, you don't have Media access.
You certainly don't have control of the party infrastructure.
And as you say, it's probably impossible to take over the party infrastructure.
Certainly, it's impossible to take over conservatism, Inc.
If anything, it's probably easier to take over the GOP than conservatism, Inc.
And yes, people don't.
I mean, they may know that their institutions are corrupt.
They may know that what the media is telling them is all lies.
And there's a lot of cynicism about that, which I think is a good thing.
But just because they feel that way doesn't mean they're going to do anything because they have to be told what they can do.
Because right now, I think the feeling is a is a certain resignation where basically everyone knows the country is going into the tubes, including a lot of Biden supporters, judging from his poll figures and judging from their own Estimates what they tell pollsters about whether America's
best days are ahead or behind it but there's this attitude of there's nothing that can be
done and We certainly know that
We have enough people and we have a program that could turn all this around and turn it around quite quickly
But we don't have access to that mass market. We don't have the ability to speak to that huge group of people
so particularly
In your capacity of directing special projects and development things like that
What can we be doing to try to get access to the average American who may agree with us at some level, but it's not really going to be prompted to action until he sees something realistic and something that he can actually do as opposed to just complain about.
That's right.
Well, it gives me an opportunity, I think, to share some good insights with the audience.
If you study the history of political reforms in America, there's a cycle.
There's really a two-step process to every political reform.
The first step popularization that you achieve a critical mass of
awareness on a problem that needs a solution within the public you create enough
awareness of that issue to form an institution or to influence individual
lawmakers if it has you know it's not running up against the establishment of
the elites of course but you build awareness first we are at we are at that
threshold for critical a critical mass of awareness we've completed that step all
right now I feel very confident about that but the second step is the harder
step for us of course is to form an institution that can channel that public
support into influence
And we're going to have to pressure lawmakers into doing something about the Great Replacement at the end of the day.
But I think, I think, Greg, that is the realistic, that's the realistic scenario.
First of all, that's the history of all political reform.
Okay, so we're going to have to achieve that we're going to have to achieve succeed in those two steps.
But I can see that it kind of populous institution like the NRA.
for white identity politics is possible.
You can't deny that it's possible.
We've been talking about this polling data.
And what you would do with that is that it would be, first of all, educational.
An educational institution, a 501c3.
The tax-deductible donation is the advantage of that designation.
But the NRA also has a legislative action group.
And so that is that's the section of the organization that pressures lawmakers and what they do effectively is say, you're going to be good on this issue or we're going to primary you or we're going to run another candidate.
We're going to humiliate you with advertisements, etc, etc.
And so I think that is the path forward now you asked me I mean it must be the path forward I'll say it must be the path forward then that must be the goal that we have specifically you're looking at a strategy that we need to adhere to Now, how do we get there?
Again, I don't want to reveal a whole lot about the methodology.
Again, people can email me at robert-kerns.com if they want to talk deeper about this.
We produce a prospectus that will be of interest to people.
Now, a common objection to this is, well, you need to do things in this way.
You need to do educational.
You need to do activism.
You need to do lawfare.
I completely disagree with that.
And you know, I'm talking, I guess I'm speaking from my experience in these institutions.
What matters as far as the orientation?
of the institution, educational, activist, political, etc.
What really matters is the decisive factor is the strength of its personnel. You need
really talented, high quality people working within this institution. Because again, what is the
goal? We have to break out of this censorship. And in the past, as far as political reform is
concerned, it's been done by different types of institutions. And so I think that that's the
deciding factor. We need an institution with excellent people working on it. And we have to have the
right strategy, of course, and we need the right methodology in terms of breaking out of that
censorship box. But I think that's probably a pretty complete answer to your comment and your question,
Greg.
One of the things that I've always thought about American politics is that in both the Maybe not so much anymore, but it used to be that in both the Democratic and Republican parties, the voters were to the right of the leaders.
So you would have your typical, and this is still true somewhat of your typical Democratic voter who voted for Biden on the promise that he would bring normality.
They're not anti-American.
They're not anti-white.
They believe perhaps naively in the old Martin Luther King boomer dream of We're going to be colorblind and they haven't quite gotten the memo that being colorblind is considered racist now.
And certainly with the Republican base, there is your average Republican primary voter is certainly well to the right of the type of person who represents them.
And I can't speak for progressives.
I've been to, you know, some anarchist conferences and stuff like that, but they're hardly representative of Democratic politicians.
But I can say that your average Republican politician and many, I'm not going to say all, but many conservative inc staffers have true contempt and hatred for your typical Republican voter.
I mean, they truly do despise the people who vote for them.
And their goal essentially is to make the jump over to getting a real job as a journalist.
As opposed to working in conservative media or something like that.
And to them, conservative media is a ghetto.
It's the junior leagues.
It's what you do until you can sell out enough people so you can go work for somewhere else.
But that said, you and I know that at the end of the day, when you're talking about any institution, particularly a political institution, the people who ultimately Determine what it is and is not going to do are the donors.
So Looking at and you know insert your standard Speech here of okay.
Look if everybody who read this site donated a dollar a day.
We would have won by now I've said that a million times, but we know that's not how it works.
But yeah, if it's if you're out there, I mean, yes everyone if everyone who read American Renaissance sent in a A dollar a month, literally a dollar a month.
That's right.
We would win in two weeks.
It would be, it would be over that quickly, but that's not how it works.
That said, looking at the conservative movement, and this is something I think you could, I don't know the answer, which is why I'm just going to kick it to you and see what you have to say.
Is your impression that the type of person who donated, who donate I think most of them are relatively elitist compared to the Republican voter.
particularly one that has to do with practical politics.
Would you say those people are to the right of your typical Republican voter?
Or do you think those people are share the contempt that the leaders have for the average
Republican voter?
I think most of them are relatively elitist compared to the Republican voter.
If you look at if you pull top donors to the Republican Party, Greg, it will be different
than to conservatism and.
nonprofits.
The Republican donors, a lot of them would be anti-establishment.
There's no question about that.
Certainly Sheldon Adelson and his wife are not anti-establishment.
And they gave $500 billion to Republican causes in the last two years of the Trump administration.
But I mean, yes, just to say it's People, I'm hoping that we can get this through people's head.
Greg, you know about this in terms of the world of influential elite institutions.
Okay.
75% of their time and at least 50% of their personnel.
And that's always the president of the organization.
It's always the top dog.
It spends 90% of his time working on philanthropy.
And so they create a facade that it's all about.
This noble, heroic political cause that they're engaged in.
But the same applies to politicians.
They spend 75% of their time fundraising.
And so you cannot possibly separate the operations of the institution we are trying to build.
We are trying to build.
It's bad.
Philanthropy is bad as it applies to them.
It's not bad as it applies to us, and if we're going to have an institution like this, the top people who are not focused on the programmatic aspects output of the institution are going to be engaged in philanthropy, development, resource gathering.
That's how all of these institutions work.
I wrote a nice article.
Greg and I collaborated on it.
It's called Be a Medici, New Patronage for a New Renaissance.
I encourage people to read that because It's a good framing of the philanthropy issue.
I understand nobody likes being asked for money.
I totally understand that but at the same time you intellectually you have to understand that this is the central thing.
This is the central thing pulling us back.
Yes, we can overcome the censorship, but we have to become wealthy as a movement.
There's no way to do it.
Otherwise, there's absolutely no way to do it.
Otherwise, but the article is about Comparing white advocate philanthropists to the Medici family.
It's a good comparison because the Medici's emerged out of the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages.
The early Middle Ages are certainly the Dark Ages.
The public sector was not willing or able to support high civilization, high cultural projects.
And so at that point in time, it was coming from private sources and so the Medici's
They made their fortune through banking But they were more focused on power and influence and a
cultural revival of Europe
Without the Medici families. We would not without the Medici family wouldn't have the Renaissance
I was just in the National Gallery in DC and it was just shocking
the development the evolution the progression of art from the 12th the 12th or 13th
century to the 14th century and And in the National Gallery, they have a room full of—several rooms full of Florentine paintings that the Medici's had personally sponsored.
So, it's a good analogy, I think, Greg, because that's what we're trying to do.
We're trying American Renaissance.
We're trying to ignite a new renaissance, and the point about the Medici's is it has to come from private sources.
In the 19th and 20th century, the buck was passed as far as cultural projects to the state.
Now it is back in private hands.
Now we are relying on private Yes, people have to understand how central philanthropy is to any influential institutions, and they have to understand that 99.5% of the people in our movement, the most important thing they can do for our cause is to financially support it.
Of course, you need to have a family.
That's just as important.
But beyond that, we need to start looking at this religiously.
You and I talked about this as well, Greg.
We need to tithe.
There needs to be a white tithe.
We have to create a culture of philanthropy.
Talk about a culture of philanthropy in these institutions.
The most successful institutions have the most florid cultures of philanthropy.
That is something all of them have in common.
And, um, we have to understand this and we have, we have to embrace it and we have to attack it.
Um, uh, this is the only way that, that we can triumph in the end.
Yeah.
It's a strange situation we're in, in that if everybody was, I mean, the great terror, of course, is people, particularly for those who have something to lose.
Is people being doxxed and yet the turnaround is that if everybody is doxxed at once we would win overnight because there'd be so many of us that it it's just not worth thinking about in some ways we may already be at that point one because there's already a lot of us but also two they've expanded the definition so broadly that it means almost nothing so You know, if you're a typical Trump supporter and somebody writes a hit piece on you, you're in the same boat with all of us.
And, you know, it just doesn't matter.
The boat just keeps getting bigger.
And at a certain point, you just stop caring.
And I think if we're not there yet, we're very close to it.
The only thing that makes it still something that gives people pause is the idea of hard repression, which In terms of being financially cut off by banks and things like that, but in terms of being cut off from media access, but also in terms of jobs are an issue.
But frankly, with the labor market this tight, I mean, it's not as big an issue as it used to be.
But I think the biggest thing is now they actually are turning to the state.
They try to repress people for their opinions, which is something we haven't seen since, I don't know, Lincoln was locking up journalists during the Civil War.
Generally, I mean, generally, I'm in favor of that kind of thing.
But that's like the true like Lincoln Project.
But the thing with what's happening now is that they are talking about Making certain opinions legal and they can't directly attack the First Amendment yet.
But as President Biden said, no amendment is absolute.
And you're seeing these kind of workarounds with the Second Amendment, with red flag laws, where they'll just say, okay, if you're dangerous, we'll confiscate your firearms.
Well, who gets to decide who's dangerous?
Because you can imagine, well, you believe in that great replacement thing.
That's dangerous.
We got to do this.
And that's already what's being done in the private sector.
In terms of repressing speech.
Now, all jokes aside, I actually am a free speech absolutist.
We had a show on this a couple weeks ago.
Free speech absolutist when it comes to political issues.
If in power, I would not feel the need to repress my opposition because I believe, and I think I have good evidence for believing, that given free speech, we win.
And that repression, hard repression by the state, Often is a sign of weakness and it shows if the regime has to show its face, it's already failing.
And I feel that if President Trump did nothing else, he forced the regime to show its face.
He forced Americans to recognize that we, in fact, do have a regime, that we are not that different from a country like China or Russia.
In many ways, ours may be even more insidious and all pervasive.
And I think it's going to get worse before it gets better, but there does come a point where they can only do so much, and I guess the biggest question would be, other than donating anonymously, which people can obviously find ways to do, but... I can tell you how to do that.
Yeah, exactly.
Right, right.
We won't talk about it here, but there are obviously plenty of ways to do it.
But for those people who are out there who married with families, people have something to lose, people have property, people who have the American dream that is not going to be available for the next generation.
What would you tell those people in terms of what they stand to gain?
Not just in a vague sense of, you know, this is for the glory of Western civilization and everything else, but what on a personal level they stand to gain by supporting white advocacy.
I would say the urgency of our.
Objectives, our mission couldn't possibly be possibly be higher.
And like you said, not in some abstract sense, like, uh, the glory of Western civilization.
Uh, I referred to before, Greg, Pew research says they're going to be 80 million new immigrants, new immigrant arrivals by 2050.
What is your local community going to look like when that's the case?
You know, what, what are your kids job prospects going to look like?
You know, what, what is, what's going to be the safety?
of the community that they raise a family in.
You're going to start having to pay a million dollars for a house where you can walk down the street in the evening.
I think that's probably a good way to hit home the urgency of our success.
And, you know, it's almost everything.
Everything is at stake with us.
Everything is at stake with us.
An important point that you just made is the censorship.
The censorship is going to get harder over time, right?
But what is the antidote to that?
The antidote is that you become powerful.
You become influential.
You start to be able to pressure muscle people in power to do the right thing.
Because when you become powerful, you become untouchable.
Yeah, it is about cultivating.
It's not just about a populist uprising.
It's also about cultivating a counter elite.
And the one thing I would add is that we are now in a situation where we are in a transitional stage where America will not survive one way or the other.
It's either going to be essentially refounded in a different form.
Or it's going to be transformed into essentially its opposite, kind of anti-America, the same way that you saw Rhodesia becomes Zimbabwe.
And there were elites, I'm sure in that country who couldn't have imagined how bad things were going to get, but they did.
And they did very quickly.
And I think people who have money and people who have the illusion of security need to understand that.
If we lose, that's not going to save you.
It's essentially, do you want to use the resources you have to try to make the world a better place and to try to have something of what you believe in live on and the sheer possibility of human progress live on?
Say what you will about Elon Musk, but I actually agree with him, even though he might have put it in kind of simplistic terms.
But when he said the woke mind virus is a danger to civilization, that's, it seems like a flippant statement, but that's true because unlimited egalitarianism negates the possibility of any human accomplishment or anything greatness.
I mean, we can't, let's not forget Apollo 11, the NAACP was protesting it.
The, there was a cart where people were demanding 40 acres and a mule that they were like protesting at the launch site.
I mean, we, and, and the head of NASA had to go out and entertain with these people because they had to apologize for what they were doing.
So what we think of as America's defining triumph almost didn't happen.
And of course, a few years later, we stopped going to the moon because we decided to build the great society instead.
And.
We haven't been back.
And if things continue to go in the same direction, we're not going to be back.
We probably are not capable of doing the sort of things that we could do in even the late 60s, early 70s, because it's a different country.
And so people who have a record of accomplishment, people who have a record of pursuing something that is greater than themselves and who want to leave that, to their descendants, whether they're literal genetic descendants or just humanity in a general sense.
If we don't win, it all goes, it all goes.
And it doesn't matter what you accomplished and it doesn't matter what you've built because it's just going to be broken up and destroyed and cast upon the earth to be devoured.
And that'll be the end of it.
Yes.
Yes.
And it is, it is, it is actually bigger than just We shouldn't have to justify working for the survival of our own people.
Obviously, this is something that every other group takes for granted, but I actually do think that it's bigger than that.
And I also think that there are members of other groups who have a stake in our success because they also don't want to see the world reduced to the lowest common denominator and they don't want to see this global race to the bottom.
That seems to be developing.
One thing that we should consider is that right now, a college education seems to be almost a liability for an employer.
I can't imagine wanting to hire a liberal arts college graduate because what exactly does this person know how to do except think of creative ways to sue you?
So even if you're just on a bare bones, bourgeois, materialistic, the kind of thing that if you're a radical traditionalist, you're supposed to be like, oh, like we're above such things.
But even on that level, you have nothing to gain.
from the system continuing to perpetuate itself.
I mean, it really is all or nothing.
And the last thing, of course, is all jokes aside, and I do take pokes at journalists as a class because I see the way they operate.
I mean, look at the Washington Post, even now, like ripping itself apart.
They don't even need us.
They just go after each other.
But that atmosphere is a product of censorship, and we actually don't need Censorship.
We don't need authoritarianism.
We don't actually need, even though we as right-wingers might like the aesthetics of strength and dignity and everything else, we actually don't need repression to win.
We just need to be left alone.
And I think that the Trump campaign, where you had a very flawed candidate running a pretty chaotic campaign, proved that because his gut instincts We're what the people wanted to hear.
And the so-called and now with the Biden administration, you have the adults back in charge, so to speak, you have the so-called experts in charge.
And I didn't think it was possible for a presidential administration to objectively fail as catastrophically as the Biden administration has failed.
I mean, if you were deliberately trying to destroy the country, I'm hard pressed to think of what you would do differently.
And Those who have something to lose are going to be blamed for this failure and it is their wealth and their property, which is going to be stolen.
So if you're talking to somebody who, who is looking at our movement and who says, okay, this movement has been demonized.
I understand by even associating with this movement, I'm taking a risk.
All that taken as read and we're not going to lie to people that, yeah, I mean, it can get a little dangerous sometimes.
But why should a person step forward at this time?
Because what's the cost of an action?
What would you say to people?
Well, fortunately, just to go back to the philanthropy, just one second, I think some of our shortcomings philanthropically have to do, Greg, when, you know, as a philanthropy officer, that in order to be successful in this work, you have to have A bold, heroic program that has a bold, heroic ambition.
And so we don't have an institution that produces a strategy document that says, look, of course.
The goal is to popularize white identity politics.
Here are 15 bullet sections on how exactly we are going to do that.
And then you have those private conversations.
And so that is a major shortcoming of our movement now is because we don't have an institution with a strategy, a convincing strategy.
To get us where we need to be.
And it's an important answer to your question as well.
Because if we want people to step up, really step up, because of course people are wary about donating as well.
I mean, even anonymously.
You can do it completely anonymously, but they're still wary of that.
And it's understandable because of the consequences for being publicly associated with our movement.
As far as people stepping up, how do you justify that?
People have called me, and I'm always cautious about them stepping forward in a public way to be involved with our organization, because again, the need is for philanthropy, so you don't have to become openly involved for that.
The issue, Greg, about working for the movement, for example, I know 10 extremely talented young people.
These people are sharp as a tack, and they have Applicable skills they have skills that we can use within our institutions.
We don't have the resources to bring them on We don't have the resources to bring them on.
Yeah, if I could do it over again I would have gotten rich first and then people not not try to do the starving artists thing first Yeah, and I hate to go back to it.
I'm not I'm not in you know Philanthropy mode right now at all.
I'm just giving people an objective assessment of our situation and And the obstacles that we have.
But yes, just coming forward, if I was in that situation, is that if we fail, we lose everything we love.
And if I'm talking to a kind of anti-establishment, you have to start with a certain level of awareness to bring people over to our side.
But if they're an anti-establishment Republican, they're really sound on the immigration issue, I would probably just hit on that issue.
And then I would also emphasize the ubiquitous anti-white propaganda.
That is coming out of the media and how that is occurring as synchronized with the immigration policies that are obviously deliberately designed to replace white people.
You have, what, 75% of Americans, a YouGov poll, that believe that now.
So I think that if you have someone that doesn't believe that, I think that you're going to struggle to gain their support, let alone their public involvement with the movement.
But those are the things that I would talk about.
The Great Replacement, anti-white discrimination, that's a good way to meet them where they're at so you don't overwhelm them.
with things that are too heavy.
And I've been successful talking to a few MAGA boomers, a few anti-establishment Republican Trump supporters, and they are not lightweights.
These are very influential and wealthy people.
So it certainly can't be done.
I don't want people to give up on trying to convert the Important people in your life, you know, if you have somebody with excellent skills or they have significant wealth You should try Do your absolute best to talk to them and put them in touch with Greg or myself about just just talk just to talk We're not gonna, you know rush in and say hey, give me a million dollars.
No, you just start a conversation It's all about forming strong meaningful relationships with people.
That is the entire objective of this work The result is the money The entire objective is forming relationships with people they trust, admire, respect you.
But don't give up on these boomers who are solid on the Great Replacement and they have a concern about anti-white discrimination.
Just meet them where they're at.
I know it's frustrating.
It's very frustrating at times.
But don't give up on those people.
You're talking about useful things people can do.
I can't think of many more useful things people can do than that is to make introductions, to make introductions to us, to people that are excellent candidates for support for our institution.
But again, Greg, we have to set up an institution with a as far as achieving this goal of popularization of white
identity politics.
Because if you don't present strategy to them in very fine detail,
you tell them exactly how it works, intelligent people are just not going to randomly support
your organization at that level, at the level that we need.
We have to get in front of them with literature, with strategy documents, and explain to them convincingly how we're going to accomplish this bold, heroic goal we've been talking about on this podcast.
We have to do that as well.
We can't be, we can't feel entitled to people's support.
We have to say, we're going to do this and here's how.
Give us a chance.
We'll make it right.
I think that one of the biggest things, we're coming up on an hour, but I'll, I think we can go a bit longer because there's some important issues that you've raised.
One of the things that divides a lot of people is they start getting caught up in the idea of the ultimate end game, right?
Some people want basically just a sane United States, right?
We just, we just turn it back a little bit and maybe everything will be okay.
Maybe we change this law, maybe we change that law.
Some people have a much broader agenda.
Some people might have something that seems utterly unrealistic from this point of view, but there's something to be said for messianic goals where you basically demand that people give everything.
There was the famous conservative slogan, don't amenitize the eschaton.
Basically, don't try to bring heaven on earth is what that means, more or less.
And To which I would say, no, you actually do want to amenitize the eschaton.
You actually do want to try to go for everything.
But these are just words.
And while it is extremely important to talk about the big ideas, I feel personally attacked because I got to admit, I was actually reading Plato earlier today.
So what can I say?
But one thing that I think is... You do a little more than we've done.
One thing that I think we can point out and I think everybody really should can can agree on before we start going crazy about what we religion and ultimate goals and everything else is anti white discrimination is now something that is obvious and real and it's something that is increasingly indefensible because the same people who keep talking about white supremacy and white privilege Keep getting caught identifying as non-white when they're white themselves.
And I can't think of a system of privilege where people actually try to be characterized as the non-privileged group in that system.
And there came a point probably about, I'd say maybe not long after President Trump was elected, Where white just kind of became an insulting term, just like, oh, well, that's white.
And you could just kind of say that.
And the problem with this is that most people in this country still are white.
A lot of the people in this country who say they're not white are majority white.
I mean, I think we may have, for example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all wrong.
I mean, she's basically.
More or less a white girl who's got just enough to be advantageously classified in the increasingly absurd and confusing caste system that the United States has created.
And we've also got, especially when you start talking about gender identity, we're now in a situation where people are saying, well, you know, it can change every day and it depends on how you feel and it depends on, you know, what, You can like self create it and everything else which is all very well except you're you're having specific policies where you really do have to make a judgment whether a person is or is not a man or a woman or certainly in terms of race at some point if you're gonna have any kind of an affirmative action system.
You actually do have to have a definition of what is a white person.
It's not just a social construct.
I mean, there actually has to be, at least in a legal sense, a definition where you say this person is not eligible for affirmative action.
I mean, if you were talking about, like, what is a workable definition of a white person without getting into genetics, that would be the definition.
And this is something eminently practical because this is something we all just have to deal with every day.
I mean, this is it doesn't get more In your face than this, because this is about jobs.
This is about admissions to college.
This is about the way you'll be treated in the media.
This is about the way you'll be treated by law enforcement.
And this is something that regardless of how much money you have, regardless of where you live, regardless of your religious beliefs, regardless even of your political ideology, you're going to be treated this way.
And so and you can't get out of it.
And we've seen people, Rachel Dolezal, for example, we've seen people try to get out of it.
And some people get away with it and go on to have careers.
I mean, the only reason we know who Elizabeth Warren is, is because she got away with it for a while.
And some people don't.
And I think this is one of the very few things where, because a lot of times when you're involved in this kind of a movement, you sort of See the way things are going to play out and you say, hey, you know, five years down the line, this is going to lead to some bad stuff.
And people say, ah, you're crazy.
And then five years later, here we are.
But with this, it's, it's right there in front of everyone.
And I think that really strengthens your core point that like now is the time for explicit white identity politics, because these are issues we have to talk about every day.
Yes, exactly.
They're talking about them for us.
And that has so much to do with where public opinion stands now, Greg.
But yes, now is the time.
I think, you know, how do we pitch this to people?
Well, what was the Trump campaign really about?
What was Trump's election victory really about?
First of all, it was a referendum on immigration.
What does that mean?
It was saying, we liked the country better when it was homogeneously white.
Okay.
That's what the opposition to immigration means.
We all know it.
The left talks about it all the time.
You know, the conservatives won't admit it, but the left is often more objective about the American electorate and American history.
Certainly, probably, on aggregate, more objective about American history than conservatives are.
Oh, yeah.
That's one of the biggest problems.
And you know as well as I do, I'd love to let, I want to give you some time just to tell some anecdotes, but I mean, if I hear one more Republican say Martin Luther King will be on our side, I'm going to jump out the window.
I can't take it anymore.
I mean, the left knows progressive figures better than conservatives do.
I promise, guys.
Yes, yes, that's right.
But my point is that the Make America, that was, it was immigrant referendum on immigration.
It was driven by this slogan, Make America Great Again.
What does that mean?
Of course, it means making America the way that it was, even when you and I were children, Greg.
I have, in 1990, we have a home video this 4th of July, parade in the little southern town I grew up in. Of course,
it's homogeneously white.
Everybody's waving an American flag. There's a bunch of children. There's a bunch of happy
women in the video. Everybody has their goofy but innocent and wholesome 1980s clothing on.
That's the America people want to return to. And there's a subconscious acceptance,
and increasingly conscious and active acceptance, that the country becoming less white is the
reason why we have to live off of the nostalgia campaign slogan like Make America Great Again.
People know this.
People know this is why America is not the way that it was in 1990, let alone 1960.
So, yes.
Now is the time.
And again, you have the inundation of the worst anti-white propaganda that's ever existed in American history, which is really saying a lot.
And you have this, it's an intractable demographic disaster in the country.
And it's only going to get worse.
80 million new immigrant arrivals by 2050.
This is not going anywhere.
And according to Ashley Giardina, and some of these other academic studies, The primary cause, you see how bad the anti-white propaganda is, but the primary cause of the rise in white identity consciousness is the immigration.
It's the brute replacement of white America.
And it's only going to intensify over time, which means white identity politics is only going to intensify and harden over time.
Eventually, people will be even more ready for White Identity Policy.
They'll be ready for American Renaissance.
They'll be ready for counter-currents.
They'll be ready to go further.
But I think we do have to get out in the open a little bit.
It's just like you talk about philanthropy.
You never ask people for their support on the first call that you have with them.
You develop, you cultivate a relationship with them.
We've got to get in front of people and start cultivating that relationship with them.
Then we will win.
What does winning look like?
Well, I just think winning looks like what winning looks like is having an influential and effective lobby so that we can try to carve out some of the space for ourselves.
I think that's what Winning looks like in realistic terms.
If you want to look in the relatively short term, I think that's what winning looks like.
Of course, we hope to have much more than that in the future.
But I think if you do get a powerful lobby, theoretically, you could get the most powerful lobby in the country.
A pro-white, anti-immigration lobby.
Again, look at the polls.
Top concern, 87% Republicans.
Top concern, immigration.
You could get the most powerful populist lobby in the entire country.
I mean, gun control is nowhere near that.
And look how effective the NRA is.
And so it's possible.
And, you know, of course, we're going to have to re-migrate some of these folks as well, because as things stand, the demographic destiny is kind of baked in the cake.
We're going to have to be a little more aggressive than, say, an immigration moratorium, which
is just a net zero immigration.
So you're still even allowing some immigrants into that situation.
But yes, I think that's probably the 360 view of your comment and probably a pretty good
summation of our conversation.
Yeah.
I mean, in terms of being more aggressive, you know, we don't I'm reminded it was Mitt
Romney, actually, who was talking about self-deportation and basically enforcing existing laws on the
books about the taking away the jobs magnet that and removing birthright citizenship,
which unfortunately, that was one of the things President Trump said he would do.
He never did it.
Those two things alone would go a very long way towards solving a lot of these problems and.
In terms of where a lot of this immigration is coming from, we should remember that Hispanics can be of any race, and we actually have seen quite a big movement in the last few years where I think a lot of white Hispanics resent being lumped in to the Democratic coalition of overthrowing the historic American nation because they don't want to be a part of Latin America.
That's why they're here.
And for a lot of them, especially the ones who have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, they've never considered themselves anything other than white.
And so a lot of these, as you put it, you know, when we get down to the way people behave and the choices they make and the way they identify, and it all comes down to power and we're not the ones who are talking about these issues.
We're not the ones forcing racial issues on people.
I mean, I work for a racial publication, and even I don't want to talk about race all the time.
The other side does.
And it's shoved in your face whether you like it or not.
So you have to do something about it.
And unfortunately, there was once a time where you could say, well, it doesn't matter.
We're just going to treat everybody equally.
But guess what?
That choice has been taken away from you.
That's right.
We have a sort of primitive reduction to this issue because it has to be that way.
Like, we have no other choice, right?
Yeah, we're not the ones with power.
We didn't make this mess.
People always say, and I'm obviously a bit older, and we've talked about boomers and zoomers and everything else, and obviously I'm somewhere in the middle there.
Well, to my own astonishment, knocking on the upper range of middle age, but the, the, I'm old enough to remember thinking that race didn't matter.
And I'm old enough to remember thinking that it was just something we would get past as a country.
And instead it becomes more important every single year.
And sometimes people will say something like, well, Nobody's race.
Somebody will be talking about a white advocate, you know, they weren't raised this way.
I don't know where they got these ideas from.
Nobody's raised this way.
Nobody is taught this stuff in school.
The only things you're taught in school are the same, you know, critical people are getting worked up about critical race theory.
Critical race theory is not that different from what you were taught in public schools over the last 10 years.
It's just parents didn't really know about it.
This is being forced on us.
And I think we need to borrow a little bit from a leftist view of power in that we're not the ones with power.
So we're not the ones forcing this discourse on white America.
It's being forced on us.
And.
Opting out may seem attractive, but as you say, with conservatives, it really has just been reduced to a fandom and an escape from the real world and the real world.
You are not allowed to opt out.
This is something you got to deal with.
So, I wanted to close with something I think about a lot with my position.
Again, Greg, just to interject.
Well, I was going to let you have the last word, but yeah, go ahead.
Well, just before, the conservative elites are that way, but people put a lot on the line to support Trump, and it demonstrated that we are a nationalist country.
Yeah, there's definitely some life left.
We're a nationalist country, not a conservative country.
John Mearsheimer has talked about that in his book, The Great Delusion, which I recommend to people.
Go ahead.
Our foreign policy would obviously be a lot better if Meir Schirmer had been listened to on a number of issues, particularly the pretty tragic situation in Ukraine.
And I also want to recommend your article on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Yes, I'm proud of that one.
It's aged really well so far.
I do recommend that.
Yeah, I would encourage everybody to read that over a countercurrence as well.
But what I wanted to And with is something that I think about because you and I, even though we didn't work at the same time, we kind of went through the same environment.
And so if you could say anything to your old conservative movement colleagues, some of whom may be listening to this right now, what would you say to them?
What would I say to young people listening to this?
No, no, no.
The people and forget the guys in charge because You know, if they don't know it now, they're never going to know it.
But you know, and I know that there are a lot of people who we used to work with.
There are a lot of people we used to deal with.
There are a lot of people our age and younger, and even quite a few who are older who know the score or who at least suspect the score.
And so if you were to say something to get them off the bench and get them into this conflict that they're going to be forced into whether they like it or not, What would you say to them?
I would say you will lose everything that you love if we do not succeed.
The demographic situation in this country is obviously not sustainable.
The country is already a political and social basket case.
From the 100 million immigrants we've accepted since 1965, we're going to receive 80 million more by 2050.
What is that going to look like?
For as bad as things are now, and things are really terrible now, how bad are they going to be in just 30 years?
Right?
And that's going to affect your personal life, and it's going to have catastrophic consequences on the life of your descendants.
That's what I'd say.
Am I wrong about that?
Is anyone who is serious on the right, whether they're a Republican voter or they're one of us, are they seriously going to dispute that claim?
I don't think that's going to hold up very well.
Um, we have to visualize what the country is going to look like in 30 years.
If we do not succeed, if you do not gain traction, because we talk about power, Greg power is exercised through institutions, not individuals.
So people were under the illusion.
They could elect Trump and he'd do all the stuff that he talked about.
That's not how it works.
That's not how it works.
Not only do we need political candidates, media personalities, great men, the great men theory of history, we need great men, no question about that.
But we need an institution that can pressure lawmakers into doing the right policies, according to the white, according to the white interests in the United States.
So I would say, visualize the future in 30 years, visualize it.
Live in it!
Live in it!
Spend a day thinking about what that is going to look like.
And also understand, we have to understand what we need to do to be successful.
And for 99.5% of people in our movement, they've got to get serious about philanthropy.
Like you said, just a smaller contribution monthly is fine.
But if you are not wealthy, what we're asking you to do is make introductions from wealthy people.
What's the point, Greg, of sort of beating around the bush on this issue?
People have to understand.
We have to have a sense of urgency about what needs to be done in this situation.
You go back to the censorship.
How long do we have exactly?
We've got a window in time to make this.
It's not It's not an implausible dream.
It's not a positive dream.
It's a highly possible.
It's a highly possible goal.
We can realize this, this, this goal.
It's, it's plausible, but we have to understand how power works, how we get there.
And each person has to understand what they can do to get us there.
And they, they need to do it to the fullest extent.
Well, I really can't.
Put it better than that.
So I want to thank you, and I want to encourage everybody.
Robert Wallace, Community Development Director at CounterCurrents, a valuable addition to the movement, somebody I am proud to call a comrade, and I look forward to working alongside you for a long, long time.
And as I always conclude every single time, have faith, boys.
We are going to win.
It is certain.
All we have to do is our duty, and all else will follow.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
No, other than to say you're like a big brother to me, Greg, and it's truly an honor to be your friend and to appear on American Renaissance.
This is literally a dream come true.
It's absolutely fantastic, so thank you.
Appreciate it, brother, and thank you to all our listeners.
This is Gregory Hood.
▲
Export Selection