All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2023 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:09:10
Supreme Court Stops Affirmative Action . . . Or Does It?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another edition of Radio Renaissance.
I'll be your host today, and we've got a special co-host.
This, of course, is Paul Kersey.
It is June 29th in the year of our Lord, 2023, as Mr. Taylor would say.
But today we have a special guest host, and that is the inimitable Gregory Hood.
Good afternoon, Mr. Hood.
How are you today?
Doing well.
We got a lot to talk about.
Obviously, today is a pretty historic day for white advocates, considering what just happened at the Supreme Court.
Why don't we just go ahead and run with it today?
It was a monumental 6-3 decision.
I think we all know the three individuals who probably did the dissent, but Mr. Hood, tell us about what happened.
Yeah, it was Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor who did the dissent.
I'll just read from Jackson's dissent.
She, of course, subjected on the grounds that getting rid of race is a legitimate and I quote with let them eat cake obliviousness today.
The majority pulls the rip cord and announces color blindness for all by legal Fiat, but deeming race irrelevant and law does not make it so in life.
Well, as the majority pointed out in their own pretty scathing majority opinion.
They're trying.
She's trying to have it both ways.
I mean, you're you're grounding this decision based in or this dissent rather in other laws, such as like Loving versus Virginia 14th Amendment, equal protection and saying that it's good when we got rid of recognition of race and law in those cases.
But it's bad and it's evil now.
And the problem, of course, is, as they pointed out in the majority opinion, the law is what it is.
I mean, unless you are going to put in law that Blacks are to be favored above whites because we think this is good.
You can't really justify affirmative action and equal protection and colorblindness and all these other laws.
It has to be one or the other.
The problem, of course, is that even though they got rid of affirmative action by a 6-3 vote today, it's very questionable about the long-term impact of this.
And the reason for that is because they actually left something in there where they said we can Continue to use race as part of a holistic process to let some people into college and the problem with that Of course is you know affirmative action has been gone in California for what 30 years now?
Yeah, give or take and it's had very little impact and the reason for that is because you can set up Qualifications such that you can consider race without making it so obvious as it was in at Harvard and the other cases that were looked at in this particular decision and It's all about procedure.
It's all about, like, the way who's in control of these sorts of outcomes, and the left remains in control of these outcomes.
And the problem, of course, is you've also seen schools over the last few years gradually ditching the SAT and other things which can be used to prove racial discrimination against whites and Asians, and instead making it this nebulous, holistic thing where everything is subjective, and they continue to practice affirmative action while being able to deny that they're still doing it.
And just for our listeners who might not be familiar with what we're talking about today, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that the affirmative action and mission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which gave weight to a would-be student's race, are unconstitutional.
I'm just reading real quick from CNBC.
Mr. Hood, the ruling is a massive blow to decades old effort
to boost enrollment of racial minorities at, well, let's call them what they used to be,
what they're called, predominantly white institutions, PWIs.
In fact, I saw that trending on Twitter today, PWI.
That's a term I haven't seen used in a while.
But of course, real quick, I'll read two more things.
The court's majority opinion said that the school's affirmative programs,
affirmative action programs, quote, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner,
involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful endpoints, end quote.
And just as you said, you quoted from Justice Jackson.
I even, I forgot her name, by the way.
Is that one of the- Taji Brown Jackson.
That was one of Biden's, that was Biden's- Yeah, I mean, the three, as I said,
it was Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, who were trying to uphold affirmative action.
Of course.
Two out of those three are only there because of affirmative action.
They just wouldn't be there.
It wouldn't be lawyers without affirmative action.
The wise Latina and then the black woman, yes.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a dissent, quote, today this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress, end quote.
Well, Mr. Hood, I would ask you this, what momentous... Progress towards what?
I mean, this is kind of a problem.
Yeah, progress, exactly.
That's exactly.
Please run with that.
Go.
The argument here is that these institutions are better off just by virtue of the fact that.
These people are being admitted, but of course, the whole point is to reduce standards and the whole point.
Is the reason why they say this is a thing is because, oh, diversity provides some sort of educational benefit.
This is the argument that it's a compelling interest for the state, which is what was used in the past to justify these very sweeping interventions of government power and also throwing out equal protection of the law and everything like that, because apparently the benefits of diversity are so great.
But what are those benefits?
Nobody ever really seems to have an answer for those things.
And occasionally you'll say, well, you get to hear other perspectives, but as we all know, and this is just conservative politics 101.
You can have all sorts of different races, but once you have a multicultural program in place, all the different races are just going to have the exact same opinion.
And it's not that you get a tolerance for greater opinions, you get a greater intolerance for opinions, because all the different races do is think of reasons why it's offensive for them to hear anything that questions their group interests, and nobody is allowed to talk about anything.
I mean, the biggest story of the last 30 years has been the hollowing out of American institutions.
And how I would say that in many ways a college degree at this point is actually a liability.
If there was a way for people to hire and screen applicants for jobs without a college degree, I think people would do that because you have people coming out of colleges who don't know how to do anything except sue for discrimination.
Which of course we know you can't have because of Duke versus, what was it, Duke versus Griggs?
Yeah.
That court decision.
Right.
I mean basically you can't have, it all goes back to disparate impact.
Disparate impact is the standard and it's a Remarkably totalitarian standard if you actually take a step back and think about it the standard is that if you have any kind of a screening process that leads to disparate impacts among races meaning that You have a disproportionate number of blacks say failing the test and the disproportionate number of Asians say passing the test Then that's racist test and illegitimate and here's the key part.
It doesn't matter if you're not doing it To be discriminatory.
It doesn't matter if you're doing it to try to be equal to everyone If you have any kind of a screening process that doesn't lead to equal results, it's wrong.
Well, to take what Justice Jackson said, yeah, you can say that race doesn't matter, but race actually does matter, and it matters in the way that she's not comfortable with.
The races do not perform equally on these types of things.
You can say whatever you want, but it's not true, and it's never going to be true.
Correct.
And so any kind of test, any kind of standard is going to have a disparate impact.
So the actual result of this is that you can't have Any kind of screening process.
You can't have any kind of qualification process.
So what you basically have to do because this is a necessity for life and for any kind of a business is you basically get these complicated tests where you have to work around having any kind of a Coherent group outcome.
Microsoft used to famously have these kinds of tests for applicants where they would have all sorts of like weird tests and everything like that because you couldn't just give them a straight up IQ test.
I don't even know if they're allowed to do that anymore.
The other big problem, of course, is that the only thing that you really can look at is what school they went to.
This is why going to college is so important when you're applying for a job, and that's why The quality of your institution, at least the ranking of it is so important, but you're not actually looking at what people learned in the school.
You're basically taking it to say that.
Okay.
Well, this person was smart enough to get into Princeton was smart enough to get into Harvard.
It doesn't really matter what they did there, but.
This is the only kind of screening process that we have, which is that you were able to ace your SATs and get it to an elite school.
But of course, with affirmative action, you can't even look at that anymore.
And now they're getting rid of the SATs and standardized tests.
So we can't even say that these people coming into these elite institutions are particularly smart.
They could have just gotten this because of the color of their skin or because of their political beliefs or whatever else.
I want to quote from the majority opinion here.
And this is why this problem isn't going to go away.
And I quote, because Harvard and UNC, that was the other school question here, because Harvard and UNC's admissions programs lacks sufficiently focused and measurable objectives, warranting the use of race, unavoidably employed race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, notably against Asians, that's from me, but that was what they're referring to, and lack meaningful endpoints.
Those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.
At the same time, Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.
So, has anything actually changed today?
No.
No.
Affirmative action will continue to be indispensable going forward because all you're going to get now is little essays about You know, when I was in third grade, somebody tried to touch my hair, and that's a microaggression that shaped who I am today.
And therefore, I get to go to Harvard.
You know, it's interesting.
Real quick, we did mention one thing I do want to bring on the case.
Our worldwide audience doesn't know what we mentioned in Griggs versus Duke Power Company.
That was a very, very big landmark case back in the 70s, which it was filed on behalf of several
African American employees against Willie Griggs' employer, Duke Power Company.
Griggs challenged Duke's inside transfer policy, requiring employees who want to work in all,
but the company's lowest paying labor department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests,
in addition to having a high school education.
So basically you had to take an intelligence test and they claimed this policy discriminated
against African American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Hood, of course, the 1964 Civil Rights Act basically usurped the Constitution
and we've been living under the tyranny of that act since.
Yeah, and I want to quote from something else This is Corsack by any measure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as a landmark on this journey and one of the nation's great triumphs So this is another reason why I think what probably happened today is Probably going to strengthen the existing system and maybe even make things worse because you get these flowery rhetorical tributes to the Civil Rights Act and
And then you have something where you basically get rid of affirmative action, but you don't really get rid of affirmative action.
You leave a giant opt out because now all you have to do is just complain about discrimination and they'll just let you in.
All you have to say is as a black person, as a gay person, as whatever.
This really cuts to the core of the issue of like what a college education is at this point, because really all it's teaching people to do, particularly in the liberal arts, is it's rent seeking via verbal manipulation.
I mean, you're not, you're generating graduates who, If they go to work as an NGO, if they work in the diversity department, if they work as a federal bureaucrat, I mean, the smartest people in the country, at least those with the highest verbal IQ, are embarking on careers that are entirely parasitic.
That at no point will they ever contribute anything to the country.
And in fact, their entire lives will be spent devouring what others are able to build and making sure that what few things this country can still do will be disassembled and given to those who can't do anything.
And the logical conclusion of this, and I'm going to quote here from the great State Senator LaTanya Johnson of Wisconsin, who in a debate... Mr. Hood, real quick, I didn't catch... Is it a family podcast?
It is actually.
We actually got excoriated for Mr. Taylor using profanity.
Okay, then I will not use the profanity, but she used the F word, the suburbs.
on the Senate floor during a debate on crime spilling from the cities to the suburbs because they don't know what it's like living in the city.
Well, I mean, actually, we do.
That's why the suburbs exist, because we did know what it was like living in those cities.
And precisely.
But that's these are your taxes at work.
And there's these issues are not distinct.
I mean, what you have is people graduate from liberal arts colleges and embark on these restrictive careers, parasitic careers.
and they take resources from the few places that are still able to produce things in this country,
and they redistribute it to those places who cannot produce things.
And then those dependents curse us for our largesse, and that anger and hatred is then used
by these aforementioned graduates to justify their position, because they're fighting racism and fighting inequality
and all the rest of it.
And nothing fundamental has changed with that.
Nothing fundamental can change until ultimately you get rid of the Civil Rights Act.
I mean, this is the problem with this whole debate today.
I mean, obviously the left is going nuts and there's a temptation on the right to celebrate when the left goes nuts, especially when they're all caterwalling and acting like it's the end of the world, but they do this all the time.
The fact is, affirmative action has been gone in California for a very, very long time.
What difference has it made?
Very little.
Because unless you can actually control the bureaucracies, and unless you could put much more stringent things in there about what you are supposed to do, not just what you are not allowed to do, people can always work around it.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
Real quick, I was thinking about James Fulford's speech at the VDARE conference, where I think someone told me that James Kirkpatrick spoke there.
Anyways, he wrote, he talked about how there is a great 1992 book called Invisible Victims, which is about the white victims of affirmative action.
And he says that, you know, affirmative action is a zero-sum game.
They have to throw people out to replace them with diversity hires.
And I think this has been, you've been involved in conservative politics for a very long time.
I think you and I were one time in a room, actually, at a event where students were being trained to go out there and take back universities and instill conservative principles, and some kid stood up and legitimately started crying because he talked about how the most imperative thing was to bring BIPOCs, bring blacks to the conservative cause.
And I think you and I literally just started laughing.
And you just think about how in the early 90s, Mr. Hood, The right was in such a different place.
It almost felt like there was an opportunity for all this to end then.
You know, Buchanan gives that amazing speech at the at the RNC convention.
You've got Jared Taylor's book, Paid With Good Intentions, I think came out in 91.
Brimlow's book, Peter Brimlow's book, Alien Nation.
You had so many amazing things happening.
There was so much energy.
And I mean, I don't know.
I mean, affirmative action, ending affirmative action is, I think, one of the Central focus points for conservatives.
And now here we are.
But like you said, you don't have institutional power in any of these colleges, universities.
So what exactly is going to happen if all these colleges have already put out, or I believe a number of them actually put out amicus briefs, didn't they?
To side with the schools in this case.
A number of big corporations filed on behalf of Harvard and UNC.
Because like you said, they believe that diversity, inclusion, equity, And divert and, you know, maintaining affirmative action is the most important thing to continue to prop up this system.
But as you so eloquently put, this system is simply going to keep moving forward because the Constitution has been replaced with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Yeah, and ultimately, the big problem with this is it removes the any impetus for the Republican Party to do anything.
I mean, this is not something that's going to be settled in the courts.
The courts would have had to take this on directly.
Obviously they didn't.
They left a giant loophole, which I think makes today's decision completely meaningless.
You need some sort of legislative action.
You need to actually target or at least reform the Civil Rights Act or add so many classes to it that the wrong people, i.e.
us, actually get some sort of protection from it and therefore it would become unusable in terms of the way it's used today.
I mean, this is this is the key problem with the American situation is that and this is one of the big things the founders got wrong is that they always assume that the legislature would be very.
Jealous about its power that it would never want to grant power to the courts to decide the major.
Issues of the day, but that's not true.
And that's not how politics works.
Politicians don't want to be on one side of the issue or the other.
They don't want to be taking responsibility for anything.
So it's always better for them if the court does something and they do nothing.
And that way, when their voters complain, they can say, well, the court decided I had nothing to do with it.
And the voters can grumble and reelect them.
We've seen how that's happened with a lot of the social transformations that's taken place in American society over the last six decades.
Very few had anything to do with popular support or anything that people were elected to do.
Mostly, it's just courts making things up.
Now, for the first time, you actually have a court that, on paper, is conservative.
But, as we can see, they don't have that desire to transform society the way that the Warren court did.
And this moment will not come again because, I mean, you have President Biden now, you polls are that he'll either get reelected or they'll sub in
Gavin Newsom or somebody like that.
So I don't think this conservative court is going to last very long.
And then a lot of this is going to get turned back. I mean, just to read real quick, it's just,
I'm not trying to be cruel.
I just started laughing.
This is Justice Jackson's dissent here.
I mean, this is a justice of the Supreme Court.
Like, this is how she thinks.
I quote, No one benefits from ignorance.
Although formal-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways.
And today's ruling makes things worse, not better.
The best that can be said of the majority's perspective is that it proceeds ostrich-like from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism.
Well, why is it that the most important mission for so-called educational institutions in this country is to end racism?
ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away.
It will take longer for racism to leave us.
And ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.
Well, why is it that the most important mission for so-called educational institutions in this country
is to end racism?
This thing that people who wrote the Constitution wouldn't have even recognized.
People in the Civil War wouldn't have even recognized.
And more than that, what is the standard for when it, quote, goes away and leaves us?
Is there a point where we get to say this is all done?
I mean, let's not forget the reason we're in this mess is because Sandra Day O'Connor, another Republican nominee, not that Jackson was, but Sandra Day O'Connor was a Republican nominee of the Supreme Court, famously said that, oh, you know, in 25 years, we're not going to have to deal with affirmative action anymore.
And that was in 2003, right?
The Michigan case.
Yeah, I mean, they could have gotten rid of it then, but they didn't.
And that's basically what happened here.
I think today's ruling was really less about getting rid of affirmative action and more about the Chief Justice showing that the Supreme Court still has some sort of authority, because I think if they had just said, we're going to get rid of affirmative action, Uh, colleges would have just ignored him and that would have been it.
And the, the idea that the law is still a thing and that the Supreme Court still matters would have been gone.
Uh, what they did today, I think was probably politically in the Supreme Court as a political institution, probably the best move because it gives right wingers a sop.
Fox News will be bragging tonight about how they own the libs.
Liberals get to have performative outrage and nothing actually changes.
Yeah, isn't that the ultimate lesson of conservatism post, uh, as we live in this World War II, post World War II era that's been remade and, and, you know, everything, uh, there are moments where you get to see real opposition has formed and conservatives blink.
I think that's the horrible lesson of president Trump, where he had moments to do things and, uh, he did do some good things, but unfortunately he didn't take the necessary steps.
And, uh, I, I believe.
The speech that Kirkpatrick gave at the VDARE conference was about the fact that conservatives, Republicans will always keep something in place because it can fund their endeavors in perpetuity.
So would you like to comment on that and kind of bring in the things you talked about at the conference?
There's a lot of big problems with The way the system is structured right now, and I think the the framers got a lot wrong with the Constitution that they couldn't have predicted.
I mean, keep in mind, even political parties was seen as wildly inappropriate.
George Washington fought really hard to get rid of them.
And of course, unfortunately, he failed.
But I think the bigger than that, because everybody talks about that is the biggest villain.
But I think the biggest thing that really the thing that made the Constitution fail almost right off the bat was more reverse Madison.
I mean, why are we even talking about this?
Why?
Why is it that the Supreme Court Gets to decide whether these programs that actually impact the lives of every single American are constitutional or not.
Why is it that whatever loophole that these guys come up with, which has nothing to do with law clearly.
That's actually the standard going forward and really where power lies.
In American society is in the ability to manipulate procedural outcomes and it's in the bureaucracies and unfortunately because of the Civil Rights Act and because of other rulings by the Supreme Court, notably about disparate impact.
You have these huge bureaucracies that are in place, which can manipulate these kinds of outcomes, whichever way they want.
And obviously, the only kinds of people who are going to be hired at these sorts of institutions are leftists who are there specifically to manipulate outcomes so that the ethnic groups that they like get preferential admissions.
You actually have to.
Address this face on, like if you if you're going to do something about it, if you're mad about whites or Asians being discriminated against, you actually have the whites and Asians organizing collectively as whites and Asians saying this is unfair to us as a people.
We want this scrapped.
But you can't do that if the whole premise is, well, actually, we're the real champions of colorblindness.
And that's where the position of conservatives are today.
I mean, they're praising the Civil Rights Act.
They're talking about how they're just looking on Twitter that the true heirs of Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King would be happy about today's decision, which of course is completely wrong.
Martin Luther King explicitly favored affirmative action.
You have a movement that essentially dares not speak its name.
It has no real representation for its constituents.
It's all just performative signaling to a dwindling constituency of aging white people.
And unless you can actually take action against the specific problems in the name of collective racial identity, you're just kind of wasting your time.
You're, you're basically just serving as entertainment.
Now, could there be something about this today that that is good?
Maybe, I mean, maybe there'll be some more legal battles.
Uh, maybe you'll see some people try extending this to employment, which would obviously be a positive step, but I think that the, What's going to happen now is colleges, and they've already been doing this, colleges are going to make their racial admissions policies less explicit.
It's going to be heavier based on an ideological test from writing and essays.
So for example, the reason I paused for a second, I was looking at this case out of Stanford where a student was admitted after writing Black Lives Matter a hundred times.
Was that back in 20, that was 2021 or 2020?
Yeah.
I can't remember, but that was, that was the admissions essay and that worked.
Today's decision leaves that completely open.
So, I mean, what we may actually get is something closer to an ideological test as opposed to a racial test as a result of today.
I want to correct myself, actually, because that story predates George Floyd dying of fentanyl, Mr. Hood.
That's from 2017 that that happened.
Think about that for a second.
That was that was such a different time period.
But that still allowed the student to gain access to The self-congratulation among conservatives today really is inappropriate and this is just getting started.
And I think the biggest problem, of course, is that This is another fruit of Bush nominating Roberts as Chief Justice.
Roberts' priority his entire career, as clearly shown even from the Obamacare ruling, has been to protect the court as an institution and protect its reputation.
That means among liberal journalists.
The law itself, whenever it comes to a decision that the logic of what he's talking about obviously means he takes a certain position, he always shies away.
Today, he shied away.
And so we have this decision and tomorrow, nothing fundamental will change.
It's not even just that nothing fundamental changes that.
I don't think anything at all will change because colleges have already moved away from the admission standards that the court was examining in this case because it made it too obvious.
And I think if anything, now it's easier to discriminate against conservatives as such, as opposed to just discriminating against whites and Asians.
And for people who think like, no, actually, this will change everything.
It's like, well, look at California.
Did it change anything there?
Uh, I, I believe that the Asian enrollment is much higher than, than.
Oh, certainly it changed, changed things from the perspective of non-whites, but didn't really do much for white people.
It didn't do much for conservatives.
It didn't do much for the political orientation of these schools.
It didn't change anything at all when it comes to the political direction of the state.
I mean, maybe you'll get slightly fewer black applicants or something, because if you look at the weight of the discrimination in their favor, it was remarkable.
And maybe we'll get more Asians now.
But I do think that in terms of white people, especially in terms of white people who come from conservative backgrounds or from backgrounds that liberals don't particularly like, notably conservative states, farming, things like that, these sorts of things, we're not really going to get a leg up from any of this.
We're still dancing around the main issue.
I mean, you actually have to have some sort of organization that is willing to fight for white students at these schools.
Collectively.
Not just as individuals, collectively.
You see it with affirmative action now.
I mean, the only time conservatives can muster any kind of attention to this is fighting on behalf of Asian Americans who, let's not forget, vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
And that trend is actually accelerating because they assimilate to where The highest social status is, and those groups tend to vote for Democrats.
Yeah, yeah.
Of course, conversely, they were the group that was responsible for the recall of District Attorney Boudin in San Francisco.
I hope I pronounced that correct.
Yeah, there's a certain amount of.
Tension in that community because you have some people who will say, and you see this in California and also New York.
A lot of these groups will say, like, well, we're the ones being victimized by crime.
And also affirmative action is again, they'll be very blunt about it.
Affirmative action discriminates against us as Asians.
You see these elite educational institutions, like high schools, abandoning standards, and obviously that's very bad for their career prospects.
So they'll campaign against that.
But you also see, and American Renaissance has covered this in some detail, A growing movement of Asian Americans deciding that if you can't beat them, join them and crafting this whole narrative about, I mean, Asian and Pacific Islanders, you know, an entirely fake identity, how they're actually a marginalized population, how they should be part of the affirmative action racket too, how they deserve their own departments at schools, which of course then will campaign for more of this stuff forever.
I mean, Asian American study or Asian American and Pacific Islander studies is obviously a real thing in plenty of schools.
You're going to see a lot of these groups move into The liberal intelligentsia and essentially make the same arguments as everybody else.
And whether they're Asian, whether they're black, whether they're Hispanic, whether they're white or white pretending to be something else or making up some new sexual identity, it's all the same story.
And if you cut through all the nonsense, I mean, all it basically means, all it means in real terms is you have a moral obligation to give us your money so we can redistribute it as we see fit.
That's all it is.
Yeah, or as Steve Saylor says quite succinctly, you know, equity is basically white people giving the equity of their home.
That's what diversity equity means.
That's what they're after.
So what a fascinating world we live in.
To try and paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, because we are in the, you know, Everything that we see, Mr. Hood, has to be looked at through the prism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And one of the great things, one of the clarifying things, is more and more conservatives, more and more right-leaning people get that.
Have you read Chris Caldwell's latest book, where he actually, at the very end of the book, he says, yeah, maybe there's a problem?
I haven't seen it yet.
Did he write another one after the one about Age of Entitlement?
It's an age of entitlement.
Oh, yeah, right.
Yeah, he specifically brings it up.
And the more and more people on the right you talk to, they do understand that there is a problem.
Obviously, that's a hill that I don't think many conservatives are ready to die on yet.
Most people probably, like you said, on Twitter, they're still praising this decision today of colorblindness as a continuation of Martin Luther King's dream, which I believe in a Playboy interview in 1966, he came out as a massive proponent of affirmative action.
I mean, if you want to know the true MLK, just find that Playboy interview or know that at the end of his life, they were trying to shake down, I believe they were in Memphis to shake down Coca-Cola to try and get more indulgences from them and more jobs for blacks at the expense of whites.
So anyways, it's a history that most people don't want to open, but With what's happening now, Mr. Hood, my question to you is what's now going to animate conservatives?
What's the next big cause that is going to create that perpetual madness among individual whites that will allow some sort of nonprofit to proliferate?
I mean, the best thing we could do now is go after anti-white discrimination in employment.
I mean, the big thing, the question that I've always wondered if you could get any kind of a victory in a legal sense is whether At a particular school or better at a particular workplace.
If you saw these sorts of diversity trainings, if you could argue that they constitute a hostile environment.
For European Americans, but.
I mean, that's kind of the problem that we're in is.
Pretending that courts are not political institutions, courts are political institutions, and you have to ask yourself what judge is going to rule in favor of white people.
And possibly hurt their career.
Now, obviously, if somebody did do that, they would become a hero to a great number of people.
Certainly in a conservative district, it's very possible that that could be the judge's ticket upward to greater things.
But it would certainly be tough for something like Supreme Court.
I mean, we see this every time there's a new nominee for the Supreme Court, where we get these tiresome hearings in Congress, where the senators question the nominee and basically say, how would you rule on these things?
And the justice says, Well, obviously, I don't know because I can't rule on something unless I've seen it.
But the only reason they're being nominated is because the president hopes that they're going to be a reliable vote one way or the other.
Frankly, the Democrats tend to be better at this than the Republicans do.
And I think, you know, one of the big problems is that today this this muddies the waters.
I mean, it makes it tougher for people to point to anti-white discrimination because now it it punts the football over to the bureaucracies.
And it's going to be less spelled out in the actual laws and the actual regulations, which means that even though nothing will change, you're going to see conservatives still do what they do best, which is convince themselves that they're winning when actually they're doing nothing of the sort.
You know, it's interesting.
You talked about going after employment discrimination.
One of the great things that we've seen post the Trump presidency is the incredible effort by America First Legal Foundation.
That, of course, is former senior Trump White House advisor Stephen Miller's nonprofit that is doing a phenomenal job in going after, Mr. Hood, employment discrimination.
And more importantly, a lot of the diversity initiatives at these at these corporations that have been leaked to Right-of-center journalist, and then that creates this incredible groundswell of, hey, why are these corporations teaching us that, you know, in the words of Coca-Cola, act less white?
Or I believe some of the biggest Fortune 100 companies, Mr. Hood, have these classes where basically you're told by, oh, what's that guy's name, who wrote Is it Kendi?
What's his name?
Why am I blanking on one of the names?
What, Ibram Kendi?
Yeah, Ibram Kendi.
Yeah.
He basically comes in, gets paid $15,000 a day for a quick little tutorial on why white people are the worst people on the planet.
And Stephen Miller and his organization are having legal victories on this.
And I think that that is a sign that you've got to be, unfortunately, litigious and take this to the courts.
That's the only way that you can.
So there is some positive stuff happening on that front, Mr. Hood.
Yeah, I think.
And if there is going to be progress, it's going to come from something like that.
It's just a question of whether this will get moved back up to the Supreme Court.
Maybe.
But you know how slow these decisions are.
Clearly, today's decision gives us some room for maneuvering, but it's not a victory.
It's just it just changes the battlefield a little bit and opens the ground for new lawsuits.
But I mean, any admissions Board out there is going to just change the policy slightly and make it less obvious about what they're doing.
That's already being done.
So, I would suggest to white conservatives, maybe lighten up a bit on the self congratulation and be a bit more realistic about what's to come.
Well, I mean, all you have to do is think about the demographic change that we're seeing and understand that the Democrats, uh, we're at a point now where I believe Texas, the majority is Hispanic.
I believe they actually, it's no longer a plurality, but they are the majority of the citizens of Texas.
I believe that I want to say 35% of the children in Texas are white, it might be even lower than that.
So, you know, you're talking about a situation where we're not too far away from where it's gonna be
impossible for a Republican to even be elected as president and I don't think that Clarence Thomas
is getting any younger.
I don't think that a lot of these right-leaning justices in the Supreme Court are getting any younger
and knowing the way that Kagan, knowing the way that Jackson,
knowing the way that Sotomayor just ruled in their dissent, in the minority dissent,
we know what type of judges are gonna be put up by the Democrats and they are gonna be those
who are the most vociferously anti-white.
The problem, I mean you see it with Jackson's dissent, is just, I'm trying to Be as respectful as possible here and I'm struggling.
She's just you get the impression.
She's never actually thought about the possibility.
That the law is something other than just what her feelings are at any given moment.
The issue is not that.
Oh, well, they're saying that.
This is the best way to end racism.
Like that's not what the case is about.
The case is whether equal protection as defined in the constitution and the 14th amendment and the way it's been interpreted via precedent allows for racial discrimination, very explicit racial discrimination against whites and Asians.
And she goes off on this tangent and starts talking about like the need to end racism.
And it's like, yes, that's all very well, but that's not really your job.
And that's not what you're looking at in this case.
Even if one were to concede, say, if I was a liberal justice and I said, okay, ending racism is a very important thing for American society and American government, that's not really what is at stake in this case.
Like you have to actually interpret the law and whether this particular policy is justified.
That issue just never even comes up to her.
It's just kind of assumed that Well, ending racism is just sort of the skeleton key that justifies any policy you want.
But that's how most liberal judges and justices think.
And you're just going to see more of that, particularly as you have more people who, bluntly, only are in their position because of lowered standards.
I mean, she's not smart.
I mean, there's no way to get around this.
Like, I don't even think like, oh, well, you know, she's not, uh, she's smart, but she's not like at the top levels.
Like, no, I think an average person on the street, like would understand this better than she would, but that's why she is where she is.
And you're just going to see more of that going forward.
So when you have these kinds of crap, careful standards and carefully crafted legislation and, oh, well, there's a test, but you got to make sure you don't violate this law and that law.
It just doesn't matter because a moral commandment, especially a moral imperative is something.
As strong as we need to end racism just tramples all bureaucracy and all regulations and all legislation in its wake.
And conservatives just don't get that.
They're still, I mean, you can see with this decision, I mean, they're still talking about the Constitution and like, well, what does this word mean or that word mean when these things just clearly don't matter?
And the only thing that is holding back South Africa levels of racial discrimination against whites is just sort of this rump White plurality, which really doesn't know what it's dealing with, and will probably never know what it's dealing with until it's too late.
You know, speaking of too late, I do want to go back and just bring up Stephen Miller again, because I do think that we are entering a blue ocean.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with that book, but I believe that for so long, those who have engaged, and I hate this term because to me, White is synonymous with American.
And of course, they've had to deconstruct the identity of Americans.
So I even hate using words like white advocate.
I hate that.
It's like, no, I'm an American and I want my country back.
You know, you're just visiting.
You know, the United States was a was a there was a lot to like about our history.
And that's why I love what Stephen Miller is doing, Mr. Hood, because his tweet that he just put out It says this America first legal alert the Supreme Court has spoken now the real work begins leftist colleges and corporations will do everything in their power to maintain a nationwide regime of racial preferences and I think this is such a winning message And it oh, yeah.
Well, you know as a terrible says I mean, he should be the first Jewish president, right?
I mean, this is like actually what you should be doing.
I mean, this is that's the the What is the correct view on today's events?
What Stephen Miller just said, full stop.
Whatever he just said, I totally agree with.
And the reason is because he understands this is not an end, it's a beginning.
Exactly, exactly.
And I think that's one of the most important things is that the job of AR, the job of VDare, the job of those who have seen the horror of what Modernity of what the, you know, again, we live in the shadow of the Civil Rights Act.
So all problems that exist, obviously it has to be white supremacy.
It has to be structural inequalities, you know, individual outcomes.
It has to be blamed on the existence of white privilege or else, Mr. Hood, it has to be based on, well, intelligence differences between the races and you know the
outcomes we have to continue to oppress white people because of these
natural outcomes that again Asians white you know let's be blunt it's it's
usually even I believe in our society now mr. hood you see on Twitter a lot of
people always had that chart that shows that I believe Indians have the highest
per capita income In the country now?
Am I wrong on that?
I believe so.
Yeah, it's so fascinating.
We look at the so-called oppression, and I think one of the ultimate tasks that we have is just to convince individual white people that they have collective interests.
And guess what?
Historically speaking, that was called the United States of America.
Yeah, that would have been taken for granted by basically every American up until very recently.
Yes, and you're right, the average Indian, well, not the average, but if you were sorting by ethnicity, Indian Americans have the highest income of any Asian Americans and Asian Americans have the highest income of any racial group in the United States.
Interestingly enough, Indians in America.
Asians in America.
Africans in America.
Again, it's like that great line from, what is that, what is that movie with Matt Damon?
Oh yeah, yeah, we have the United States of America, the rest of you are just sitting here, right?
Although I think he was talking about specifically wasps, but real quick with Indian Americans, yeah, you'll have to deport me too, but you know, there's a lot of things to take care of before we can do that.
One of the things that I should note about Indian Americans is this whole question of affirmative action and discrimination against Asians.
Now, discrimination against Asians, particularly in this case, was pretty extraordinary.
There was actually some, you know, it's bad when I'm reading something, I'm like, geez, like, I'm not sure you should put that in writing.
They were talking about like Asian Americans personalities not being what they were looking for because they weren't like outgoing enough or something really crude.
Like stereotyping not even based on like data or anything, just obviously somebody's subjective feelings somewhere.
And that was what they were using to excuse like, well, actually, this is why we don't want Asian Americans.
But when you take a step back, the reason they have to do that is because if they have anything definite.
If they have anything that the court can point to, that any court can point to and say, hey, this is rule that discriminates against Asians, obviously it's going to get thrown out.
So they tried to dress it up in some sort of subjective stuff, and it led to some kind of cringy generalizations about the way Asian Americans are.
So obviously there will be more, if this has any kind of an impact, there may be more Asian Americans in these institutions, which is of course what we did see in California.
That said, The real question is what the intellectual leadership of Asian Americans is going to do going forward, because right now, as I said, the type of people who are going to be going to these institutions basically just want an in as far as the ruling class.
They want to have a job redistributing others income on grounds of racial theories so they can ameliorate inequality.
And there's this kind of angry, Slogan you get among Asian American activists at this point, like, we are not your model minority, as if—and you actually hear this among Blacks, too, that the idea that whites just made up Asians as a model minority somehow skewed the tests so that Asians would outperform whites, just so we would have an excuse to keep discriminating against everyone for some reason, which never made much sense to me, but there you go.
In reality, I mean, for all the claims of white supremacy and everything else, leaving aside the fact that you can't really say one race is superior or inferior based on one characteristic, but it's simply a fact that IQ matters.
IQ varies among different racial groups.
IQ correlates very highly with racial outcomes, and Low and behold, what race realists would expect Asians at the top of these tests and blacks at the bottom is exactly how it plays out.
And whites are not at the top of this test, which seems to be pretty ridiculous that you get charged being a white supremacist for pointing this out.
But Asians don't want to be at the top of that hierarchy.
They don't want people to notice that.
The racist capitalist system does not reward whites so much as it rewards Asians.
And so they're trying to kind of opt out of this.
And I don't know if they're going to be able to do that forever, especially as the population continues to change, especially as the Asian American population becomes an ever greater percentage.
It would seem to me that if the GOP took even half of the money that they waste on Trying to win black votes, which of course they never do with things like the Platinum Plan and all sorts of other things, which ultimately antagonizes whites.
It would make more sense to me if they went after crime and went after discrimination, racial discrimination, and instead champion meritocracy and tried to win some Asian votes that way.
You're not going to win all of them.
You may not even win most of them, but I think you'd have greater success trying to win some of their votes than you will winning black votes because Asian Americans do not depend On a parasitic system justified on the grounds of fighting racism, whereas the black intelligentsia does.
I mean, without affirmative action, you do not have a black middle class.
Full stop.
You just don't.
And especially in hiring and, you know, in municipalities such as Atlanta.
Yeah, no, it's just, I think I found, I did a FOIA request years ago and I found that almost, I believe 100% of the water of the, um, Of the people who worked for the, for the, for the, for the seat of Atlanta water board were black.
And you're looking at, or, or, you know, Marta, uh, it was just disproportionately, it was incredible.
In fact, an eight Atlanta journal constitutional reporter, uh, did an in-depth study of this, uh, because they were shocked to see the numbers, uh, for what, what was published for Fulton County, Atlanta.
And there would be no, you're exactly right.
And I think that's the most important thing is, Just to point out the favoritism, as the Democrat Party has tipped in its majority Black, and as Peter Brimlow will hilariously point out, it's this group of largely, you know, homosexuals, Blacks, and other groups that really have no legitimate thing tying them together, except for Mr. Hood, their antipathy toward the historical American nation.
And that's why I want to switch gears real quick.
I know we're talking, we've spent most of this episode of Radio Renaissance, ladies and gentlemen, talking about this very important decision, because as Mr. Hood said, yeah, we're not going to see changes because the universities and colleges are going to find ways out.
But as Stephen Miller put it, the fight starts now.
And I want to bring up something, Mr. Hood, and I don't know if you've had a lot of time to think about it.
Have you looked at Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' plan for the border and for immigration.
Oh, it's fantastic.
I mean, I think DeSantis, well, it's the best plan I've seen since Trump's plan in 2016, and we all know how that ended.
But yeah, I think DeSantis, especially interesting among in DeSantis' plan was he identified NGOs, which is something that I don't think that even Trump did.
I think DeSantis has probably the best plan going forward as far as like how to realistically confront this problem.
I mean, not to I mean, just to put my cards on the table, like I am not one of these people who is going to worry myself about the GOP.
I've kind of moved past that for better or worse.
And but I understand most people in this country are going to see if there's a way out of this.
It's going to come from America's center right party, which is the Republican Party, and therefore it matters who gets nominated.
So I'm not going to say it's irrelevant.
I'm just saying that I don't particularly have a dog in the fight.
On, I think the Santas probably has a better plan and greater follow through and would probably do a better job.
But at the end of the day, right now, Trump is demolishing him in the polls and he is, but we are almost at the point where it's pointless to even talk about the point where it's pointless.
We're almost at the point where it's ridiculous to talk about the Republican primary because there's not going to be a Republican primary unless Trump gets sent to jail.
I mean, that would only that would only that would only strengthen.
Yeah, he probably would still win Trump's.
I mean, I think what's interesting in more ways is what's going to happen with the Democrats, where I think this increasing media turn against Biden from outlets that have basically been doing nothing but praising him until recently.
I think they're going to come up with some reason to pull and they have.
And it'll be it'll be exactly.
I think Newsom is a really good example of the type of white guy who benefits from the existing system, who will defend something like affirmative action, because at the end of the day, I mean, they are going to still have white, just like in South Africa today.
I mean, you still have white guys defending the system.
The idea is that, to go back to what you said about Peter Bromwell's idea of the coalition of the oppressed, or Steve Saylor's, you know, the danger of the circular firing squad of the progressive coalition, you do have to turn up this sort of anti-white hatred.
But what we're really talking about is not just the propaganda that gets kind of the proles and the masses fired up.
Uh, the type of things that motivates like random black criminals to assault Asian people, you know, on the grounds that they're aggrieved or something.
The thing that we, we have to be more sophisticated about is the way the actual system works.
And what we're dealing with is essentially a vast bureaucracy that the civil rights act that the various diversity rulings allows to be in place at every single school, every single major, and certainly in the government.
And what you want is a place in that system.
And you're going to say whatever you have to say to get a place in that system, and you're going to defend whatever arguments allow that system to continue.
And Asian, smart Asians, a lot of smart white people, maybe they're homosexual, maybe they're not, maybe they're just saying they are, or coming up with these new categories.
There have been a few cases of that, just like whites have faked Being different races, a lot of people just kind of want an in because it's a living.
It's a very easy living.
You're talking about a pretty good income and great job security for not really doing anything.
And that system for just for just participating in the anti-white system.
Yeah.
No, you say this stuff.
You could be like, oh, you know, white people are bad, but it's not like the kind of like revolutionary fervor.
I mean, you still live in a white suburb.
You still have white kids.
It's the kind of thing you believe, but there's enough double think that it doesn't really carry over into the way you treat your family so long as they, you know, spout the same progressive talking points.
I mean, no, it's terribly original.
We've said this here at American Renaissance all time that, you know, progressive whites and a so-called white supremacist basically live the same lifestyle in terms of who they surround themselves with and everything else.
And but the problem is with unless you get rid of that system and unless you figure out a way to To destroy the funding sources to that system, to the legal basis for it.
It's just going to continue and it's just going to grow and it's going to get to the point where it sort of chokes off the possibility of any kind of a prosperous life and any kind of a safe life for millions of Americans.
We may be at that tipping point now.
Oh, I mean, like a lot of big cities and even in corporate America, one of the interesting things that somebody on Twitter put out today, and I apologize because I can't remember the account name right now.
But that a lot of the things that we are talking about and a lot of things that really still
animate us, and I guess got this whole movement started, things like affirmative action, for
example, and white guilt.
You could put up with it if the country was still like 90 percent white.
I mean, it's just kind of annoying, right?
And you might even say something like, well, like the American Indians and the blacks who were brought over slaves, they got kind of a raw deal, so we'll be nice to them and give them some stuff.
And it's not that like, OK, yeah, they commit more crime and that's annoying, but I'll just move out to the suburbs and it's not a big deal.
And I think that's how a lot of white conservatives who tend to be older think about these issues and think about America, frankly.
But the problem is we're not, and you could say, okay, well, that's not logically consistent,
we could be doing so much more, but most people just kind of want to get along
and it wouldn't be the end of the world if that's what you're dealing with.
And the problem is we're not dealing with that now.
We're dealing with a white minority and we're dealing with essentially a headlong rush
into South Africa territory and not South Africa territory in the way that the propaganda came
when you had the original handover where it's, oh, we're gonna be a rainbow nation
and we're not gonna recognize race.
It's fanatical hatred against a white minority hatred that can only intensify because the smartest and the most ambitious people in the country do not have a career unless that hatred is maintained at a fever pitch.
And so it's only going to get worse.
Like there's no point where it can be ratcheted back because too many people would suffer if it's ratcheted back even a little bit.
Yeah, I mean, see that area today.
Like you just said, if I could real quick, you just put it correctly.
Why would people participate in the upending of a system that created a fake middle class for blacks?
Why would why would anyone benefit from This you, I believe you use the word parasitical.
Uh, it, it, they're parasites.
I want to, it was a Blair Nathan.
Yeah.
And that's a fantastic, I'm actually going to quote real quick.
Harvard University, Mr. Hood, they just put out an email that says,
dear members of the Harvard community, today SCOTUS delivered its decision
in students for fair admissions versus president and fellows of Harvard College.
The court held that Harvard College's admission system does not comply with the principles
of equal protection clause embedded in title six of the Civil Rights Act.
The court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider admissions decisions,
quote, an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life,
be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise, end quote.
We will certainly comply with the court's decision.
Somebody hilariously responded to that saying, Harvard to turn to essays, it says in the email.
And then Jesse Kelly, who's one of my favorite people to actually read on Twitter.
He goes about as far as you can go, dipping your toe into our territory and then immediately drying it off.
But he said this, Mr. Hood, it's not that universities have used the oppressor-oppress
system to make decisions. It's that the entire United States of America is now based on this
explicitly communist way of thinking. That's why one ruling won't change anything. It cannot.
It was like, the thing I've always said, and I guess this is where I break with a lot of the people are like, oh, well, this is communist.
Well, I mean, communism, I don't think, was quite as bad as what we're dealing with here.
It was like the thing I've always said, and I guess this is where I break with a lot of
the people who are like, oh, well, this is communist.
It's like, yeah, but communism at least, so you will about the tenets of communism, at
least it was an ethos, to paraphrase what they said in the Big Lebowski.
I mean, communism at least promised that there was going to be greater economic growth.
Communism at least promised that there was going to be a greater future.
If you read Marx, he talks about this idealistic vision where somebody could criticize literature, rear cattle, and You know, listen to music and do all these kinds of things basically all in the same day that the average person basically could be a Shakespeare or the average person could just be a Mozart if they were freed from the tyranny of capital.
Today, we don't even have the promise of anything higher.
I think at this point, John Derbyshire said years ago, That absolutely everybody, absolutely everybody believed when the Civil Rights Act was passed that the reason blacks are in the position they're in is because of discrimination.
If you just kind of take the discrimination away, they'll be just like us and everything will work out fine.
Nobody believes that now.
And progressives don't believe that.
Nor do I think people bring in migrants because they think it's actually going to improve the country.
I think you and I both know that if you're debating someone on immigration, it Usually only takes about two or three steps to go from immigrants are going to benefit the country to, well, at least they give us good food to actually, we deserve this.
And this is racial punishment for colonialism or whatever else.
I don't think there's any pretense that these things are going to improve these institutions.
I don't think that there's any shining future, even being promised.
I think this is being brought in specifically because it will make things worse.
And because it's a form of revenge.
And I think what Joe Sober said, which is that Western man towers over the world in so many ways that are inexpressible.
And even if he's not aware of it, he carries a certain idea of superiority to others who are going to resent him for it.
Even if he doesn't believe that himself, even if he doesn't want to believe that, even if he hates that idea, just simply because.
If you look at the history of the last few centuries, it was essentially the victory of the West.
And now that victory is being reversed and it's not going to be replaced by anything better.
And I don't think they want to replace it with anything better.
I seriously believe other than, you know, kind of hotel street preachers or something that Wakanda is right around the corner.
I think it's just, we need to tear down what exists and that's just the nature of justice and let justice be done to the heavens fall.
That equality is better than accomplishment.
Yeah, I mean, again, the rationale of the left, of the Democrats, whatever you want to call them, this coalition.
And it's it's it's revenge on whites for having that.
And I think this is we cannot grant an inch.
I mean, I think what needs to be said is that it's not revenge for things that were done wrong.
It's the fact that even when Westerners were being, quote unquote, exploitative or colonialist or whatever else, they did a better job than self-government.
Uh, let's look at example, what's happening in France right now, which I think is the other big issue that we should discuss today.
Now, I don't want to overstate this.
Uh, there's usually the, I was actually about to bring this up.
Let's close with that because I think this is really important.
I don't want to get over animated here because a lot of times on Twitter, he goes, Oh, civil war.
It's like, no, this happens all the time now.
And.
Obviously, we remember in 2005, which were the biggest ones, and a quote-unquote hardliner was elected.
I think that was Sarkozy, who of course talked tough, I think referred to the ghetto dwellers as scum, but didn't actually do anything.
Mass immigration continued, and that was the end of it.
Now you've got maybe a, if not a George Floyd moment, something similar, because they've actually charged this French cop with doing something.
I haven't seen the tape, if there is a tape, so who knows about the justice of this particular incident.
But the larger premise is that it doesn't matter whether the cop did something right or wrong.
You're going to have these kinds of tensions between the French cops and these foreign populations who think of themselves as a foreign population.
And what I and you essentially have this kind of never ending low level civil war in France forever.
Yep.
You have.
And again, you know, we would probably rip our teeth out to have a nationalist movement of the type that they have in France, where you have A nationalist candidate who is second only to the president in terms of ability to get votes and get through the runoff and actually have a shot at this.
But what we've seen over and over again is that when it comes to it, the majority always shies away.
And somebody like Macron will mutter some stuff about law and order the day before the election, then he won't do anything once he's actually in.
Now, we'll see how this plays out.
I'm sure they're going to react the wrong way.
And, you know, if we just give them more benefits and affirmative action, I mean, remember, France actually was the conservative ideal.
Not that conservatives recognized it, but France actually did.
What conservatives tell us will solve all our race problems, which is not even recognize race and law, no affirmative action, strict policies of cultural assimilation and public schools and everything else.
What did it lead to?
It led to a divisive society, a divided society.
Why?
Because the issue is not how to manage the problem.
The issue is that race is real, and you can't make two peoples into the same people.
It's just not going to happen.
The French people are real.
Yeah, exactly.
And I think the one last thing I just want to say, and then I'll let you close it out, is that if you look at what's happened with France, particularly how the initial wave of these migrants were mostly Algerians, Yep.
The reason De Gaulle, and I did a review of De Gaulle's life in the American Renaissance way back when, maybe I can put it in the description.
The reason De Gaulle ultimately abandoned Algeria, even though one of the main reasons he was put in power is because the military thought that he would save Algeria, is that he said the right-wing position at the time was that everybody in Algeria should be given French citizenship and treated as part of the French Union.
And De Gaulle said, well, this is ridiculous because then we're going to have this huge Muslim population, which is eventually going to overwhelm us.
And then some people said, well, what if the French settlers basically get the coast?
And a lot of French officials said, like, what, are we going to have like a French Israel in North Africa that we're going to have to fight for forever?
Like, no, we're not going to do that.
So de Gaulle made this choice for reasons that I think you and I would probably agree with.
Like, yeah, it's better to maintain France than have this colonial adventure in Algeria and babysit Muslims forever.
But of course, we're still going to have to babysit Muslims forever.
They just imported the Muslims and now they're running around in France, destroying everything.
And it's not just Algerians, it's a lot of Sub-Saharan Africans.
So the situation in France, Mr. Hood, just because we want to wrap it up, I believe this is going to be something to watch.
If what we read on Twitter is true, this mass deployment of police officers, the storming of prisons so that co-ethnics can try and get their co-ethnics out of jail.
I mean, Guillaume Fay, before he died, Mr. Hood, wrote a book called Ethnic Apocalypse, The Coming European Civil War, which has a Forward by Jared Taylor.
And if you can find this book, guys, ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to get Ethnic Apocalypse, which has a forward by Jared Taylor.
It's one of his more straightforward things he's ever written.
And I can't stress enough that you're right.
We have no idea what's going to happen, but we know that for something big to happen in our world and the things that we want to start to see happening, This crazy malaise has to be ripped out from our eyes and there's definitely a sense of just torpor and sluggishness that you see among European populations worldwide.
This is why, just a quick aside to the article I wrote about the idea of a white imperium, but I think that was kind of a glorified way of talking about it.
What I'm really talking about is white identity above any other identity.
And I think when you see the issues that we're talking about here in America and then the issues that are also being just taking place in France, not to mention in Germany and in Britain, that the dividing line is not nationality.
The dividing line is race.
If you are a French white guy and you're an American white guy and you're dealing with rioters in France or you're dealing with rioters in Chicago or Black Lives Matter in the United States, like, It doesn't matter what color your passport is.
It matters what the color of your skin is.
And you can say, well, that's not how I want to think of myself.
Well, that's not important because I'm not the one who makes these decisions.
The people in power make these decisions.
And that's the way they think of you.
And that's how they think of the groups.
And ultimately, they're the ones who set the battlefield, not people who are writing essays online.
So it's just a question of whether you wake up to it or not.
Kings or pawns, and we're all pawns in the game right now, where the rules are being made by those who advocate nothing but anti-whites.
For pawns, you make it to the end, you get to upgrade.
So that's what we gotta do.
There you go.
Exactly.
Well, hey, ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate you listening to this June 29th, 2023 edition of Radio Renaissance.
Mr. Taylor will be joining again, I believe, next week, but we were honored with the presence of Just the tremendous intellect that is Mr. Hood, Mr. Kirkpatrick, whatever you want to call him.
I understand you're going to be potentially doing a show at some point pretty soon, a video.
Is that true?
Excellent.
Wait, how can people get in touch with you?
Actually, the best place is just via American Renaissance.
All my contact information is on there.
And then I'm also VDareJamesK on Twitter.
And then I'm also Gregory Hood on Gab.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been Paul Kersey.
The best way to get in touch with me is simply go to your email, and the two fields say, send it to becausewelivehere at protonmail.com.
Once again, that email is becausewelivehere.
I do believe this is an interesting day, because we are seeing on Twitter, we are seeing on social media, we are seeing on the corporate news just how impassioned the left is with discriminating against whites.
And I think it is important that we keep having these crumbs for white people to understand that they do have collective interests that need to be advocated for, and I believe You've had the opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, to hear from one of the most important white men on the planet, and that would be Mr. Hood.
So, until next time, this has been Paul Kersey.
Tune in next week.
▲
Export Selection