All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:07:12
Introducing the Homeland Institute

Jared Taylor interviews Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents, about his new organization, The Homeland Institute. They also discuss the Trump/Harris campaign and the rewards of working full-time for our people.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this special edition of Radio Renaissance.
I'm your host, Jared Taylor, and it's my pleasure and honor to have with me today Greg Johnson.
Greg Johnson is probably known to many of you as the founder and editor of Countercurrents, which he established no fewer than 14 years ago.
Greg Johnson has a doctorate of philosophy in philosophy, of all things.
So I suppose, as Dr. Johnson, someday he may well have his Boswell.
We'd be all the better for it if that were to happen.
Dr. Johnson is also the founder of the Homeland Institute, which has been operating since 2022.
And we'll start off, if we may, by just some questions about the Homeland Institute.
What does it do, and what have been some of its latest exploits?
Well, thank you, Jared, for having me back.
It's a pleasure always to speak to you.
The Homeland Institute was born from the idea that we need a public policy institute.
Racially aware whites need a public policy institute.
We used to have the National Policy Institute, but that unfortunately has come to naught.
And for years, I've always been critical of people in the movement.
Who go around full of bright ideas of big projects for other people to accomplish.
And I found myself over the last few years thinking I would read a poll, for instance, and I think that's very interesting.
That's promising.
But I wish the question were different.
And I'd say, boy, I wish we had somebody who could do polling like that.
Or there would be issues debated in Congress or in the public about immigration and economics, for instance, and I would think, boy, I wish we had.
Policy Institute, a national policy institute, as it were, that could weigh in on these questions with very accurate, fact-based position papers.
And then I realized I'd fallen into the vice that I criticize others for, namely wanting other people to do things for me.
And I thought, this was at the end of 2021, I thought, I've built a fairly good network of writers and donors and friends.
Maybe I could create such an institution.
And lo and behold, you could.
Yes, from the initial Conception of it in October of 2021 until it was approved as a 501c3 tax-exempt corporation by the IRS in October of 2022.
A year went by where we worked out very carefully, went through all the steps, filed all the papers.
created a corporation, got a board of directors, bylaws.
We wrote the bylaws with 501c3 status in mind, submitted it all to the IRS, and we got it approved.
Did you all do that on your own, or did you hire anyone to do this?
Well, I hired a couple of people.
I went to a consulting group that specializes in 501c3s, and they helped me do that.
I also got the advice of some lawyers, and I had Cyan Quinn, my office manager, working the problem.
And she really, she was the project manager for the whole process of approval, which was great because I'm so pulled in different directions.
And the muse will suddenly strike me and I'll want to write something and I'll just say, don't bother me, don't bother me.
And she would always keep the process moving forward.
It's very important to have someone like that in your life, someone like that working for you.
So, Cyan was a huge help in this process and we created the Institute.
Now, we created it on the assumption that a certain large donation would come through that would immediately then help us staff it.
That didn't happen.
I learned some lessons about that or from that, but we managed to get a number of smaller donations over a period of a few months.
So by the spring of 2023, I felt that I had enough to launch.
So I paid our webmaster to create a website which went online in May and I found a executive director who not only had a lot of sterling qualifications in terms of education and movement experience and leadership skills, but he would also, and this is the key thing, do all his work for free because we had no money to pay him.
And that's David Zuddy.
Well, that, I must say, was a remarkable find, especially the last element of the description there.
Yeah, yeah.
David has an undergraduate degree in political science from the University of California, San Diego, which is a very good school.
Then he went into the Air Force, where he was in Air Force Intelligence.
He was a linguist, a Spanish linguist.
And then after six years of that, he dropped, he left the airport, Air Force, I should say, and went to law school.
While in law school, he got involved with Identity Europa.
And as Identity Europa fractured, he ended up running a local chapter of former IE people.
in doing activism in Southern California.
He was doxed while still in law school.
He got out of law school, got a job practicing law.
Now, did the doxing prevent him from finishing his degree?
No, no.
He pursued the degree to the end.
There was a little bit of awkwardness, honestly, but nothing that he couldn't handle.
And he finished his degree, got a job, and then I He was working as a lawyer.
As a lawyer, yeah.
He was practicing law in Southern California.
And I lured him away based on his idealism, an appeal to idealism.
He wanted to do something like this, and he had all the skills.
He's very good with numbers.
He's very good with research.
He was very good as a lawyer.
So he was analyzing large documents.
He has good reasoning skills.
So anyway, I put him to work and we had funding basically to do polls.
And polls are something that were going to be central to the Homeland Institute anyway.
And it turns out that's what we had the money to do.
And if a poll is interesting or alarming, it can get headlines.
And we were hoping that some of these polls would get headlines and maybe actually influence political discussion.
That hasn't happened yet.
Maybe subterraneanly, some of these polls have actually influenced politics.
We just don't know.
But we did 10 polls, and he got better and better with each poll.
And they're all Up to the highest industry standards, he was mentored by a professional pollster, and he has done a tremendous job of formulating interesting questions and writing up very good reports on them.
He's also written a number of articles and reviews over the year.
He's done a number of videos, many appearances on podcasts and radio shows like the Political Cesspool.
And I'm very, very pleased with his work.
And the last poll, though, That we did was especially interesting because I wanted to deal with immigration and specifically the immigration issues that were being raised by Donald Trump's blunders in his campaign, where he was suddenly saying, we want lots of people as long as they're legal.
We don't want crooks.
We want to bring in lots of people because employers need them.
We were alarmed by that.
That sounds like standard Republicanism.
It doesn't sound like populism and nationalism to me.
And we started polling people on these Republican or these immigration related issues.
We started polling registered voters, independents, Democrats, Republicans, all of them white.
We were focused on the white electorate primarily because the polling The polling firm that we use doesn't really have a good representation of non-white voters yet.
And so it wouldn't be really valid.
You can actually... Oh, I see.
You didn't deliberately... Well, I suppose you deliberately excluded them because you want to know what white people think.
We want to know what white people think.
But if we wanted to compare white people's opinions to other racial groups, which is a valuable thing to do in itself, we just found that the other groups were not as well represented.
And so we couldn't get an accurate cross-section of, say, the black or the Asian population.
Hispanics are better represented.
And in the future, we hope that they'll be even better represented.
And so we can start doing polls that compare racial attitudes among the different races
about things like immigration, national identity, and so forth, because that's very important.
And we very much want to do that.
But we did white registered voters.
And when the initial poll results came back, I realized that we needed to ask more questions,
specifically about single issue voters.
Because I think of myself as a single issue immigration voter.
My vote is cast in a deep blue state.
It doesn't really matter all that much.
It takes something special to motivate me to fill out the ballot.
And if immigration is in play, that will get me to fill out the ballot.
Trump's recent remarks made me think, what's the point?
What's the point?
I'm not going to fill out the ballot.
I don't want Trump to create a workable, multiracial, globalized society.
Well, no one can.
No one can.
We needn't worry about that.
We needn't worry about that, but he can at least make it more bearable.
We don't want him even trying.
We don't want him even trying.
Exactly.
And he won't be allowed to do that, even if that's what he wants to do.
But still, it made me think, I don't want to vote.
And I wonder how many other people feel that way.
How many others feel like if they're not getting what they want on immigration from Trump, they're not going to vote for him.
And I was also curious how many would actually vote for the colored lady to punish the Republicans for this kind of betrayal, just out of spite, maybe this accelerationist idea, whatever.
So we went back and we polled The people who took the original poll on whether they were single-issue voters or not.
And there are two single-issue voter groups that are very potent for both the left and the right.
One group centers on guns, the pro-gun rights people, the gun control people.
The other on abortion, pro-life and pro-choice.
Those are very powerful Single issue voter groups and both parties have to cater to them actively, even though a lot of times their interests, their policies hurt these parties.
More broadly speaking, with the broader electorate.
This is certainly true, I think, with how the pro-life movement has now moved from overturning Roe to demanding abolition of abortion on a national scale.
The pro-choice movement is demanding national legislation and so forth.
So it was interesting to see how big the single-issue immigration bloc was in both parties compared
to the single-issue abortion voters and gun voters. And this had never been studied before, so far
as you know. Yeah, I look at a lot of existing polls. Some polls would talk about very important
issues, but none of them really focused on the single-issue voter, the person for whom this is a
make-or-break thing. Right. And it turns out that given American education...
We found that some people claim to be single-issue voters on multiple issues.
We have margins of error to deal with things like that, but the numbers are fascinating.
So let me run through these and get your thoughts on them.
Single-issue pro-choice voters There are 15.4% of Republicans who are single-issue pro-choice voters.
Pro-choice?
Yeah.
I see.
So they are, well, they're Republican voters, but they want widespread access to abortion.
And if they don't get it, they're not going to vote Republican.
And they call themselves Republican.
Isn't that interesting?
Yeah.
And 55.9% of Democrats describe themselves as single-issue pro-choice voters.
I would have thought it might be slightly larger, but in any case, 55%.
Yeah, that's pretty substantial.
Yes, it is substantial.
And it indicates a huge amount of intensity on this issue.
Now, to compare the pro-life single issue voters, it's quite fascinating.
39.5% of Republicans describe themselves as single-issue pro-life voters.
So that is 40%.
Yeah, it's about 40%.
It's more than 15% fewer than the single-issue pro-choice voters.
Interestingly, there's 6.1% of Democrats said they were single-issue pro-life voters.
Well, well.
That's fascinating.
Yes, that's very interesting.
Well, I just got to show you the parties are just not nearly as monolithic as we tend to think they might be.
Absolutely, yeah.
So, but just thinking in terms of the people that Donald Trump has to cater to, about 40% of Republicans describe themselves as single-issue pro-life voters.
In terms of guns, Uh, 48% of Republicans describe themselves as single issue pro-gun voters.
That's very high.
I'm surprised it's that high.
Wow.
On the other side, nearly 50% of Democrats will describe themselves as single issue gun control voters.
So they're very evenly matched in terms of intensity of belief.
As percentages of the parties.
On the other hand, it seems to me compared to abortion, there is nothing that is on the political horizon that is quite as clear-cut in terms of pro-gun or anti-gun control.
But it's very interesting to know that many voters in the United States consider themselves single issue one way or the other on the Second Amendment.
Yeah.
Now, we then looked at the single issue voters on immigration.
It turns out that 60.2% of Republicans describe themselves as single issue voters on immigration.
Boy, as you say, we're getting a whole lot more than 100%.
Oh yeah, it's adding up to a whole lot more.
But it does indicate, if not a strict and precise understanding of single-issue voters, at least a sense of what's emotionally very important.
And these are emotionally intense, they call them hot-button issues, that'll get people to the polls or get them to just withdraw in disgust or even punish.
Their party out of spite.
60 how many of the Republican voters consider themselves single issue immigration control?
Yeah 60.2 percent.
60.2 all right.
Yeah now it's very interesting 1.9 percent of Republicans say they're a single issue pro.
immigration voters chamber of commerce chamber of commerce yeah that's a good chunk of them definitely well one no one point well oh a good chunk of the 1.9 percent yeah yes yes is is yeah chamber of commerce types uh libertarians who call themselves republicans stuff like that now it's very interesting though if we look at the democrats Only 24% of Democrats describe themselves as single-issue pro-immigration voters.
So that is nowhere near matching the 60% of Republicans who are anti-immigration.
And another thing that we found fascinating is that 12.7% of Democrats describe themselves as single-issue Anti-immigration voters.
Wow, yes.
And those would be people, you know, those would be Reagan Democrats as people started calling them 40 years ago.
Or they might be people who live where immigration is most intense.
Yeah, yeah.
Might be living in Springfield, Ohio.
Exactly.
Some of these places that have really dramatically changed thanks to Kamala and Joe Biden.
Yeah.
Alright, please continue.
Oh, this is very interesting.
Yeah, the fact that Republicans are 60.2% single-issue anti-immigration voters versus Democrats at 24% being opposed to them and being pro-immigration voters, single-issue pro-immigration voters.
Is very important because there's a differential of intensity of belief there.
What that means is that if Republicans go hard on immigration control, they're not going to get the same kind of crazed intensity of opposition that they get with it with abortion and guns, right?
Right.
That makes it easier for them.
That lowers the cost.
Not only raises their, you know, the number of people who want to vote for them, but it lowers the cost of doing so because it doesn't excite the opposition as much to counterbalance that.
The other thing is that we thought was really fascinating is that the 1.9% of Republicans
who might stay home if, say, Donald Trump goes hard on anti-immigration rhetoric,
That 1.9% is minuscule compared to the 12.7% of Democrats who might come over.
Also, 32.9% of independents describe themselves as single-issue anti-immigration voters, whereas 7.2% of independents are Single-issue pro-immigration voters.
So there's a huge amount of votes that are being left on the table if Trump hues the chamber... So there's a huge amount of pro-immigration control votes that are being left on the table if Trump continues to hue to the Chamber of Commerce style rhetoric that we saw coming out of him recently.
Well, well, well.
Very interesting.
Well, I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised by the support among independents and even Democrats because some time ago, a couple of months ago, there was a poll according to which a very substantial majority of Republicans were in favor of massive deportation.
Yeah.
And then I believe it was some surprising 20-25% of Democrats.
Yeah.
This is something that has just become intolerable to Americans in both parties, at least a certain number of them.
The obvious transformation of this country.
Millions of people pouring across the border.
And, well, is there any way for you to subtly make this data available to people in Donald Trump's circle?
Well, we're trying.
We're putting the words out.
We're putting the word out.
We're doing interviews like this.
David said he's going on the political cesspool to talk about this.
I'm emailing it to people and saying, hey, do you know somebody who knows somebody who knows J.D.
Vance or Donald Trump?
You know, you got to do the...
Ideas in the abstract don't affect people unless they actually go through discernible networks of influence to get in front of the right pair of eyes.
The fact is...
Probably.
I mean, I'm guessing the amount of actual hard dollars and cents required to do the kind of poll that you did is just a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars that are going to be spent on a presidential campaign.
Exactly.
So much is at stake in this campaign.
But my point being that if they did not want to Credit you, Homeland Institute, with this information.
They can replicate it.
Absolutely.
I don't care about credit.
I just want to be influential in some small way.
Just a little pebble dropped in the pond and it ripples outwards.
I'm just a little butterfly flapping my wings on the other side of the planet hoping it's going to cause a storm somewhere in the United States.
Maybe a storm in Donald Trump's brain.
Well, boy, if we could provoke storms in that brain, that would be a fertile place for a few hurricanes.
Any other data that you have there on this poll?
Well, this is the really interesting data that I wanted to share.
One of the things that's disturbing about the pattern of liberal democracy that we've been noticing over the years is that there is a substantial percentage of voters who want what you could call a populist platform.
They want borders.
They want a sensible amount of social conservatism.
But they also want an interventionist state that will take the side of the working and middle classes against the big wigs and foreign interests.
And they're never allowed to vote on that as a package.
What happens is the Democrats take the interventionist state and the Republicans take border issues and They wouldn't even take border issues until Trump came along, or they paid lip service to it.
The Republicans will take border issues and social conservatism.
But then what they do is they spike them with poison, basically, so that if you vote for the social conservatives, you get the open borders.
anti-interventionist state people. If you go for the interventionist state people, what you get is
a great deal of social degeneracy. And these are the preferences of the elites. The elite preferences
are basically open borders, hyper capitalism, and extreme liberalism. And yet they always get their way.
No matter who's in power.
Yeah, even though the vast majority of people would vote for the precise opposite platform if they were just allowed to vote on that straight up as a package.
Well, it's fascinating to see what's going on in Europe, for example.
Yeah.
Marine Le Pen, the National Rally, as it's now called.
I have been disappointed that despite the huge surge of popularity they had in the European elections and also in the first round of the French elections, this combination of the very two things, this kind of interventionism, but at the same time nationalism, I mean, I suppose it's a bit of an unfair shorthand to call it a combination of nationalism and socialism, but let's call it what it is.
And this has been increasingly popular, and yet it is the nationalist aspect of it that makes the Nationale infrequentable, as the French say.
You cannot be in the same room with these people.
Now we're seeing the same thing play out in other parts of Europe.
And I believe there's going to be a breakthrough.
There's definitely going to be a breakthrough in Europe.
And I think Donald Trump, in his own bumbling way, stumbled onto this.
Absolutely.
And he's never thought, I don't think he's ever thought about anything systematically in his life, other than perhaps New York City real estate and how to persuade women to go to bed with him.
In terms of the demographic future of the United States, or what really appeals to people, I don't think.
I think he just sort of, everything is off the cuff for him.
Sort of instinctive.
But when I heard these occasional observations from him about, well, when he was going to build a wall.
Yeah.
Build a wall, build a wall, build a wall.
And then at one point he said, and there's going to be a big, beautiful door in the wall, and we're going to let in more people than ever.
What?
And where did that come from?
I think that guy never has an incoherent view of many of the things that he appears to have even a modicum of coherence for.
So when he said this most recent remark, I kind of said to this, okay, there's Donald Trump just sounding off.
But we'll just have to see.
He lapses into this sort of Chamber of Commerce talk.
He is a businessman after all.
That's his basic operating system.
He used to have people like Steve Bannon there.
Bannon said to him once when he started talking in this Purely economic, conservative manner about immigration.
No, we're not an economy.
We are a community, like a civic community or something like that.
I thought that was very valuable.
Of course, Bannon's in jail now and is not advising Trump, but I'm hoping that Other people around Trump who are more sensible can get him back on the right path.
And there is some indication of that.
I was very encouraged when J.D.
Vance was picked as the running mate.
I think that his speech, it had its weak points, but generally in terms of content, it was very strong.
And I particularly thought it was important that he acknowledged that Americans have a history of welcoming people into the polity, of course.
It goes back to the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act.
But he says, America is not an idea.
It's a nation.
I thought that was a very important thing to argue.
Because what that really implies is that there's more to becoming an American than just professing an idea.
You've got to be a fit with the people who were there before.
Now, if we were to spell that out to our liking, he might flee the room, but It's implicit.
He might not flee the room.
I'd like to think he wouldn't flee the room, but he certainly is not going to say that explicitly.
The last time around, well, first of all, I guess, no, I share your pleasure at hearing that sort of thing.
That was at the National Convention when he accepted the nomination.
He made those observations.
He talked about his, I can't remember, six or seven generations of ancestors buried in that cemetery on a hillside in Tennessee.
That is a kind of Excuse me, a blood and soil expression of attachment to the soil.
Yeah.
That today is anathema, especially on the left.
And the left certainly picked up on that.
They criticized him for this.
And the idea of America being a nation, hmm, that's very suspicious.
Very dangerous.
Very dangerous.
Even the fact that he ended up marrying an apparently very agreeable woman from South Asia hasn't saved him from being... Oh, no, no.
Nothing can save you.
Nothing can save you.
And he talked about the idea of his children coming and visiting the grave of himself and this Asian wife of his.
She is apparently going to be part of the nation, at least in his view, but be that as it may.
This reminds me of some of the fantasies I had back in 2016 when we were all forming our images of what sort of president Donald Trump might be.
And I remember thinking that it was not inconceivable that, in an offhand sort of way, he might say to a group of reporters on Air Force One or at some other opportunity, well, what's wrong with white people wanting to remain a majority in the country that their ancestors built?
I can imagine him saying such a thing.
Well, he certainly didn't.
And I think at this point, he won't.
Right.
But, and it's a real pity because I would love to see a serious debate on something like this.
And we never get, we never get a debate on that.
Yeah.
Or, I could also imagine, again, these are fantasies back in 2006 when I had, I certainly had higher hopes from him, at least as a possibility.
My hopes these days are considerably lower.
But I also fantasized that he might, in the same casual sort of way, say, well, you know, the reason there are so few blacks in the AP Physics class is, you know, there's this 15 point IQ difference on the average.
Now, I don't know if he even knows that, but he seemed to be the kind of bull in a china shop operator who, if he knows that and he thinks it's important, might be willing to say it.
Yeah.
My guess is that J.D.
Vance probably knows all about the 15-point IQ difference.
Maybe not, because it is surprising that people who actually do not.
But what I think in an official capacity or even in a public capacity, his saying that is Out of the question.
These are these important aspects of trying to build a multiracial society that are absolutely taboo.
Yeah.
But, of course, Kamala Harris.
Good grief.
And I'm conscious of so many approaches against Kamala Harris that I think would be effective that the Trump campaign has utterly muffed her early and persistent endorsement of equity.
Absolutely.
Why on earth?
And as it turns out, there are many polls of Americans, including blacks.
I think it's consistently, oh, close to 50% of blacks are against racial preferences.
A very substantial number.
And I think when it comes to Hispanics, you get over 50 percent.
60, 65, something like that.
And 75, 80 percent of whites.
And for her to have staked her campaign four years ago on this idea of equity seems to be something that you could successfully throw in her face at every opportunity.
Absolutely.
Why would the Republicans not do this?
Do you have any idea?
I mean, I'm asking you to read minds, and I always hate it when people try to read my mind, but...
Well, I actually cooked up a proposed campaign ad having to do with one of the very first executive orders that Joe Biden signed.
It was on his first day in office.
And it was an executive order that withdrew an executive order by Donald Trump at the end of his presidency.
Against DEI.
Against DEI.
And it was expressed in pretty concrete terms.
It was against the idea of teaching that one race is inherently oppressive of another race, or that one sex is oppressively inherent, inherently oppressive, or that a sex or a race, and we always know he's talking about men and white people, are responsible for the misdeeds of their ancestors, or that one race invented the idea of qualifications and standards as an excuse to oppress another race.
Now, I think if you asked most Americans, is it good to teach that?
They'd say, gosh, that sounds awful.
And for Joe Biden on his first day in office to, I can't remember what you, you abrogate them or you withdraw an executive order.
In any case, he nullified a previous executive order by his predecessor and saying, yes, we can teach this stuff.
Oh, not just that we can.
They want to teach that.
Exactly.
They want to teach that.
If you take that to its logical conclusion, you're going to destroy You're going to destroy society.
You're going to destroy any form of any semblance of civilization.
I've said this before and it sounds unkind, but I'm willing to take that rap.
If you want to destroy society, all you need to do is make it illegal to arrest black people for crimes.
And they'll suddenly spring into action and do all the rest of the work.
And we saw that in the aftermath of Black Lives Matter, defund the police, the martyrdom of Derek Chauvin.
and so forth, we see that suddenly, if you remove the knee of order from the neck of chaos,
there will be chaos.
And I'm not even a particularly pro-police guy until I saw, well, what happens when we don't have policing?
Well, part of the problem is that they don't do it in explicit terms.
Right.
What they will say is, okay, loitering.
Loitering is a crime of poverty.
And at the same time, the people who are more likely to be arrested for loitering are our black and brown people.
Yeah.
And so we're going to decide that we just will not arrest people for loitering, or for fare beating, or for public defecation, or for sleeping in parks, all of these things.
Or for shoplifting.
Exactly.
Up to $900 in some places now.
Well, yes, yes, for heaven's sake.
And to think that you're not suddenly going to get an increase of all of this antisocial behavior And there is actually one example of a city that realized its error and moved back to sanity, and that's Asheville, North Carolina.
Have you ever been to Asheville, by the way?
It's a gorgeous city.
Yes, a wonderful little city tucked up in the North Carolina hills.
And just obsessively livable, as almost all of these cutesy, desirable places are.
Well, in the height of the Black Lives Matter mania, they pretty much fired, well, at least half of their police force, because police are the problem, you see.
And they got all the consequences that you or I or any sane person would have predicted.
And it took them about a year or two of increasing degeneracy to realize, we made a mistake.
Please come back.
Right.
But that's one of the rare cases.
I mean, Seattle, or Portland, Oregon, or Austin, Texas.
Some of these places, they may have slightly curbed some of the worst excesses, but there's not been this clear realization that we made a terrible error.
My feeling is that It's not necessarily a mistake on these people's parts that puts these laws in place.
Because it seems to me implausible that politicians and journalists who are college-educated people, middling to high IQs, fairly worldly people, have a weaker grasp of basic incentives than Black criminals with IQs in the 70s and 80s.
Because the black criminals with the IQs in the 70s and the 80s immediately see the changed incentive structure in their city and respond to it appropriately.
Can we really believe that all of these people who defunded the police and blamed them for crime Well, innocent.
It depends on how you define innocent.
In other words, you're suggesting that they have nefarious motives.
I don't buy that, especially in some of these cities.
Portland, Seattle, a lot of people that run the town, they live there.
They don't want to be stepping over unconscious druggies on their way to work.
They have all of this degeneracy and they're terrible eyesores and they're dangerous.
Their children get hooted at.
They don't want that.
I feel sure they don't want that.
But I think that one of their, and I think so probably out of naivete and an utter unwillingness to accept some of the basics of human nature, they pass these laws.
But then they live with the consequences.
And now I'm, this is again pure speculation, but they live with the consequences, they don't reverse course with nearly the alacrity you would expect from anyone with the IQ better than a fried egg.
Because in a way that's admitting that their opponents are right and they're wrong.
That's a very hard thing for grown-up people to do, and children for that matter.
But ultimately it is a mystery.
It is a mystery.
In fact it boils down to I don't know if you ever knew a guy named David Brock.
He was a black separatist years ago, a rather genial guy, and I had debated him on a black radio show.
And we ended up being quite friendly.
We'd talk on the phone a lot.
And he said, he said, Jared, there's something that really baffles me.
He says, I'm all for it, of course.
Why are white people committing suicide?
Right.
He could see it.
He could see clearly that white people are doing things that run so counter to their obvious interests.
And that's the same with these liberals who pass these laws that make their own, the place where they live, unlivable.
And that's why, to me, the case of Asheville, North Carolina, there's this little spot of hope in this sea of darkness.
They could see it, and they correct it, of course.
It's very hard to do that, though.
It's very hard because anytime you take a stand that goes against the zeitgeist, you have to worry that even other people who agree with you We'll still think that this is their opportunity to stick a knife in you and advance over your corpse by by flaying you in public for your bad taste for your thought crime.
And I think that that lack of solidarity in our society is a very very dangerous thing because it Courage is very rare.
And courage is contagious.
If you have people that you can trust to back you up, you're more likely to take a courageous stand.
And it's just a shame.
And this is true of Republicans, too.
Republicans allow terrible things to happen because they don't want to be the one who stands up and is the party pooper.
And so there's a dynamic In a society where there's very little solidarity and where especially white people are trying to climb the greasy pole by pushing their rivals down.
It's very unfortunate that it takes a great deal of suffering.
to finally get enough people to screw up their courage to the sticking point,
to solve problems that could be solved if there was just more spontaneous social solidarity?
Well, I think that's one aspect of our easy victim status.
We are a predator's delight because we are individualists.
Kevin Macdonald has written about this in very considerable and persuasive detail.
That's just been our nature over Hundreds of years.
Millenia, really.
We don't stick together in the instinctive way that so many other groups do.
I guess I wouldn't still be in this business after 34 years if I were not an optimist.
Yes, absolutely.
There's a book that you reviewed, Ashley Jardine's White Identity Politics.
of white people, more and more white people realizing that they are white,
that they have collective interests, and that if we don't do something quickly,
things are going to go very badly for our children and our grandchildren.
Oh yes, absolutely. There's a book that you reviewed, Ashley Jardine's White Identity Politics.
I thought that that was an interesting book.
I think it's eight years old now, and the data that she was citing was even older than that.
But I was surprised at the percentage of white people, even then, who believed that whites were a group, that they had legitimate interests, that the system was against their legitimate interests, they rejected the white guilt narrative, and they believed it was okay for whites to Organized politically to serve their interests and that number has only risen.
One of the things that we're going to do in the new year with the Homeland Institute is we're going to try and replicate some of Jardina's studies.
Just use her studies as a baseline to see what change there's been in the public conscious.
I would be astonished if there hasn't been an increase.
On the other hand, I was always suspicious of her data, frankly.
If as many as 15% of white people genuinely do think that whites have an identity worth defending and that it is perfectly okay and moral to organize around our interests, why isn't it happening?
15% of what, 180 million people?
That's a lot of people.
That's a lot of people.
Maybe that 15% of 180 million is reflected in the 60.2% of Republicans who are single-issue anti-immigration voters.
There are signs that this block exists.
And the thing that is most frustrating is that the Republican Party, as it's constituted today, will not Court those votes.
They will pander to every identity group except the one that really matters to them, namely the group that votes for the most and their political careers depend upon.
That's extraordinary.
If we can break down that conditioning, basically it's the dogma that white identity politics and only white identity politics are per se immoral.
That dogma, I think, is declining in its power.
Once it is gone, there's going to be a great wave of white identity politics.
And we were going to see politicians in America, like we see politicians in Europe, catering explicitly to that group.
But liberal democracy, as I like to say, is the art of not giving the people what they want.
The liberal qualifier means basically it's minority rule.
It's rule in the interests and according to the preferences of a small elite.
And these people tend again to want hyper capitalism and social degeneracy.
They found a way of ignoring And they have been so successful manipulating the media that when, time after time after time, they betray the voters, this can be somehow spun as a reflection of democracy.
And it took me a while to realize.
I always thought liberal democracy meant something about the form of it.
Right.
Really rather naive.
Liberal democracy is democracy that throws up leaders of whom we approve, that the liberals will approve, the liberals in the contemporary American sense.
It's ruled by liberals.
Yes, exactly.
Just like liberal education is education by liberals.
Yes, yes.
To reproduce liberals.
Yes.
And, oh, just the utter transparent hypocrisy with which they will turn against any popular expression of will that goes against their own preferences.
Right.
Well, that's what they call populism.
Populism is when the people vote for the wrong things, according to the liberal elites.
Or they'll come up with all kinds of other things.
Fascism.
Oh, and we see this in the Middle East all the time.
You'll have some ferocious Islamic party that wins overwhelmingly.
Oh my gosh, that's not democracy.
We can't have that either.
It's just...
It's just so hypocritical and contemptible, and they get away with it because the media have so much power.
I think one of the bon mots of Gregory Hood, who writes for the American Renaissance website, is we don't have state-run media.
We have a media-run state.
There's a lot of truth to that.
Some people say that national public radio is state media to some degree, but certainly not the way that it would have been under an East German government, for example.
But be that as it may, The idea that the people, there's all of this talk about democracy and we can't ever slip into anything other than democracy, but democracy not only has to be guided, it actually has to be beaten down if it's going in the wrong direction.
Yeah, yeah.
The situation in America is far bleaker than a lot of people on the right believe.
There are a lot of people I know who have the charming idea that there's actually a responsible adult somewhere in the White House that's basically holding Joe Biden's hand and telling him to sign bills and things like that.
And that there would be some responsible adult in a Kamala Harris White House holding her hand and making her do sensible things.
I think that's very naive.
I do not believe we have a deep state in that sense.
There's some council of wise elders who have at least one eye cocked on reality at all times.
No, what we've got is a system, a kind of hive mind, a liberal hive mind that lives in academia, it lives in the media, it It buzzes away frantically on social media platforms like X. It's in the churches.
It's in the corporations.
It's really everywhere.
It's in the grade schools.
It is what we are marinated in.
Yeah, and it's a kind of mob mind.
And one of the traits of the mob is that it doesn't have higher cognitive functions, especially the ability to reflect on itself and control itself.
In other words, there's no breaks on this progress that we're seeing.
There are no breaks.
There's no self-reflection.
And a lot of people who believe that there's some kind of rational control, there's some kind of sovereign, some kind of hidden sovereign or deep state, I think they're fooling themselves.
It's a far worse situation where we literally have nobody responsible I don't know who believes that.
I suppose that's like believing in Santa Claus, it seems to me, or the Tooth Fairy.
Yeah.
I can't think of anyone in my circle who would say, well, you know, there's really somebody in charge who's really making sense of this.
I mean, you just look at the results and you know that's not true.
Yeah.
But, well, that gets to one of, I believe, the great obstacles to bringing people our way.
And that is that when someone recognizes that what you say about race, about the destiny of the United States, about cultural degeneracy, about the choices we've made for the last 60-70 years, and when someone arrives at the conclusion, my god, Greg Johnson is right, Then, what an indictment that is of our entire ruling class.
I think people like to think that somewhere up there, somewhere in Washington, D.C., there are wise people.
Mandarins.
Learned people.
Wise elders.
At least people who care about the future of the country in some disinterested way.
And when you then open their eyes to the fact that If they are even acting consciously, if they are acting consciously, it's in ways that are horribly detrimental, not just to us as white people, but to the whole future of the United States.
That is a terrible, disillusioning experience.
I used to joke in the early days when people would say, oh, Jared Taylor, you know, you opened my eyes to the whole race problem.
I said, I feel so sorry for you.
You'll never be happy again.
There's a certain truth to that, I suppose, but I don't say that anymore because I'm more cheerful all the time.
There was a time, I would say, maybe 20 years after I got started, when I just felt like I was making a record.
So that if some future Chinese compiler of the great Chinese encyclopedia on the chapter of how the white race disappeared might stumble onto some little remnant and he might say, oh gosh, well, they weren't all fools and cowards after all.
But I don't feel like that.
I don't feel that way at all.
We're not going to just disappear.
Something is going to happen.
I'm deeply, deeply optimistic about that.
And I think the kind of work you're doing, the kind of work so many other groups are doing, and I think this idea of the Homeland Institute, if we're going to approach people, what better way to do so than to know what they think and who they are, where they are?
Exactly.
In 2016, there is no question that the alt-right, which of course was being fed by countercurrents and American Renaissance, as well as places like 4chan and 8chan, there's no question that that movement, which I found extremely fun and interesting at its best, was influencing the election.
It was influencing the conversation in America.
It was Yes, it was.
Oh, yes.
It was a great effect.
because they'd never been challenged.
It was causing the National Review conservatives to gulp hard because they'd never been challenged.
It was a glorious moment.
And we know, we know that there was some effect, but we don't know how big an effect.
And there was a lot of frankly, irresponsible and delusional talk about,
we memed Donald Trump into the White House.
Pure foolishness.
And then four years later, there was the same kind of irresponsible, goofy talk about we memed Trump out of the White House because we were the mythical 5% of white voters who wouldn't vote for him.
Again, it was foolish talk.
And the truth is that political consultants look upon that and roll their eyes and feel contemptuous because they need numbers.
We're not a force to be reckoned with until we can provide them numbers with which they can reckon.
That's one of the things that the Homeland Institute is trying to do.
Well, I certainly hope that you will come up with Eye-opening, significant data that will be so eye-opening and significant that it will make people write about it.
And if it doesn't make them write about it, it will at least influence their decisions.
As you recall, I believe, years ago when American Renaissance was just a print publication, we commissioned a professional poll on such questions as, what do you think about the possibility of the white, well, do you like the idea that whites have become a minority?
Yeah.
Or would you live in a non-white neighborhood?
A whole host of questions like that.
And I remember being disappointed at the rather small number
of whites, and I wish I had the numbers at my fingertips here,
but it was a minority of whites who opposed the idea of whites becoming a minority.
I'd love to know what those figures are.
I would love to get a copy of that poll and maybe we can replicate the questions with a new audience and just see if there are significant changes.
One of the things that we will do with a number of our polls that we've already done We've accomplished a great deal.
time to time. So the first version will be a baseline and we'll see if the
public consciousness is swinging it one way or another. We need to know these
things. Otherwise, well put it this way, we have accomplished, you've accomplished a
great deal. I've accomplished something.
Many people, you know, our movement, broadly speaking, has accomplished a great deal based on intuition and anecdotal evidence and reading studies commissioned by the establishment and full of its biases.
So imagine how well we could do if we had accurate data about where the public mind is.
And I think that we're getting more and more of that data.
And that's going to allow us to do better outreach and better messaging.
And it might allow us to influence the political process.
Because even though racially conscious white people are a minority in America, It's a growing minority.
There's no question about it.
And from the point of view of electoral politics, tiny groups of people, especially in close contests, hold the faith of the nation and a political party and the careers of politicians.
And therefore, if we become a cohesive, self-conscious voting bloc, And we can convince political establishment that their fate depends upon us.
That's right.
We can and we'll punish them.
Then I think we can start throwing our weight around.
We have some weight.
It is a calculable weight and it has to figure into political calculations.
We do have a multi-party democracy.
There's a lot that they try not to put into play, right?
They try to make a lot of it kayfabe.
They try to... A lot of what, did you say?
Well, you know, fake fighting like in wrestling, right?
Oh, I see.
Yeah.
They try and make it a, how to put it, Just a choreographed thing where the guy on stage throws a fake punch and the other guy, you know, puts his head back in pain, but nothing is ever happening.
But you know, in wrestling, sometimes the fake stuff gets real.
You know, some guy gets mad, right?
And suddenly the fight becomes real.
A lot of politics It's sort of theater, but there's a lot that's real still.
There are careers, there are multi-billion dollar industries that depend on the outcome of these elections.
And therefore, it's not all fake.
Oh, I don't think it's all fake.
I think, clearly, the animosity that Donald Trump has for Kamala Harris, the contempt that Kamala Harris has for Donald Trump, that is 100% genuine.
Oh, it's definitely real.
And again, there is an establishment, definitely, they want to take certain things off the table.
You're not going to be able to compete on these, politically speaking.
Immigration used to be one of those things.
I agree.
I agree.
greatest achievement in my view was the day he put his hat in the ring by putting immigration
and globalization back into play as things to compete on politically.
I agree. I agree. And the wonderful thing about Donald Trump was that he drew the true
venomous nature of his opponents out.
Yes.
Out into the public.
And so there's someone like Michelle Goldberg writes for, is it the Post or the New York Times?
The Times.
The Times.
Yes, we can replace them.
We can replace them.
That's the headline of one of her editorials on election.
We can replace them.
That would never have happened without Donald Trump.
That's true.
The incredible venom with which they have attacked him and for the reasons they've chosen to do so.
have laid clear just how opposed they are to a particular vision of the United States.
I remember there was another, oh it was before the 2016 election, I think it was a timesman who wrote, okay heretofore the job of the journalist has been to be neutral reporters, Well, we have to shut that down.
Do you remember that?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Well, what was his name?
Do you remember?
I don't remember the name, but I remember that.
What a remarkable thing.
What a remarkable thing to be drawn out to that point.
Yeah.
And only Donald Trump.
Well, perhaps we could imagine other candidates, too.
But Donald Trump Drew these people out of the whatever shadows they might have been in all of their fanged horned hooved glory.
Yes, it was.
That was a wonderful thing.
Yeah.
And I think a lot of people a lot of people saw that.
Yeah, I think that we're not going to go back to the old Politics as usual in America, as many people, try as many might to claw things back to the situation that they were in, where the Republicans were losing gracefully, and everyone was pretending to be collegial, and things were slipping, slipping further into decadence, basically.
What was it, the 1952 election?
Both parties wanted Eisenhower to be their candidate.
Oh, that's fascinating.
I did not know that.
Yes, both parties were wooing to Ike.
And that was at a time when 80% of the American electorate thought that they could trust the federal government to do the right thing all or most of the time.
Right.
Can you imagine living in such a country?
I can't imagine it now.
Now it's down to 15%, something like that.
That statistic alone, to me, is really the chronicle of a death spiral.
Yeah.
But this is an utterly personal question.
Sometimes I wonder what sort of life I would have led had I lived under a regime that I could fully trust Yes.
that I thought really did have my best interests in hand, and that I did not want to change anything in particular.
What might I have done?
I don't really have a good answer to that question because I'm doing this for 34 years,
and I was a banker at one time.
I was an ardent amateur musician, but never good enough to make a living as a musician.
I enjoyed being a banker, but I wonder, you probably would have been a college professor, is my guess.
Absolutely, yeah.
I would have been a college professor writing articles for journals, articles that would be read by eight or ten people, including the editor of the journal and the The referees for the journal.
And I would have been perfectly happy with that.
Because that seemed like a very good life to me.
And I'm just so glad that didn't happen.
Because I think it would have been a tragic waste, in a way.
Because I feel like my life is much better than that now.
I write for a much larger audience.
I can write anything that I want.
Years ago, I met William Pierce in 2001.
And he said something that was kind of touching to me.
He said that he really loved science.
He really loved being a physicist.
He found it very, very difficult for him to give that up.
But he said that nothing could compare to the freedom to speak his mind on the most important things.
For the rest of his life.
To say the truth as he saw it for the rest of his life.
And I think that that's a wonderful thing.
And academia is a very restrictive environment.
Yes.
We would like to think that under a healthy regime it would not be such an environment at all.
Right.
Well, you see, you sacrificed a real calling.
I didn't.
As I say, I enjoyed being a banker.
Would I have been a banker for the rest of my life?
But now I do something that is really... I have the satisfaction of doing what I take to be my duty.
And that's a wonderful thing.
That's a wonderful thing.
And my circle of acquaintances, the people that I now know because of this, they're all such marvelous people, including yourself.
I agree with you.
You're a marvelous person too.
The best people I've ever met And a few of the worst have been in this cause and there's no question about it.
I've led a much more interesting life and will continue to do so than if I had stayed in academia.
So I'm very glad that my life has taken this turn.
There's no question about it.
And Well, I suppose in order to avoid just making ourselves sound so self-congratulatory here, I suppose we can justify what we're saying by urging some of our listeners not to go out and do something foolish in the name of our race, but to realize that
Although there is a price to pay.
You'll lose old friends.
Some of you may lose a job.
There's no reason to go into the numerous ways in which people like us are persecuted.
But there's a great joy in working for our people, in what is, I believe, the most important cause for white people today.
I absolutely agree with that.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, who is a 20th century philosopher, student of Heidegger, a very important thinker and writer, Once told a joke, it was reported to me.
He said that on the eighth day, God got up from his rest and realized that no, the creation was not yet perfect.
And so to make it perfect, he created the German professor.
But then the devil went and ruined it by creating the colleague.
Oh no.
Oh no.
How charming.
I felt that way about academia.
It was the best life possible except for all the colleagues.
So what I've done in effect is I've created a life for myself where I can be an academic Of sorts, without any unchosen colleagues.
That's right, you can choose them.
I can choose my colleagues, and you're one of them, and many other fine people are my chosen colleagues, and therefore it's a far better life than being stuck in a philosophy department somewhere.
Well, very good, very good.
And for the perhaps no more than half a dozen of my listeners who don't know about CounterCurrents or the Homeland Institute, well, few know about that.
What is the best way to get in touch?
Counter-currents.com.
If you don't put the hyphen in, you'll end up at a Marxist website published in India, I think.
And the Homeland Institute is homelandinstitute.org.
There are many articles by David Zuddy at CounterCurrents, which are reports on the Homeland Institute polls.
If you find those, they'll link you back to the Homeland Institute as well.
The Homeland Institute is a 501c3 tax exempt educational corporation.
And if you're looking for the tax deduction out there, you're certainly It would be certainly appreciated if you want more of this polling to take place.
And we do have other projects that we will unroll in the future, funding permitted.
So the Homeland Institute, I think, is a big step forward for our movement.
I think it's going to be an important thing henceforth in sort of the ecosystem of our movement.
Well, I certainly agree.
And I thank you very much, Greg Johnson, for taking the time to be with us on this occasion.
And I thank our audience for listening to us.
And I look forward to further podcasts of this special nature in the future.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection