Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 30, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:17:29

Is This an Election to Preserve Democracy?

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey are joined by Sam Dickson to discuss the presidential campaign. Is either candidate really going to change the American form of government? Thumbnail credit: © Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press Wire

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to Radio Renaissance.
	I'm your host, Jared Taylor, with American Renaissance.
	And with me is my indispensable co-host, Paul Kersey, but also a third person, the incomparable Sam Dixon.
	I will not introduce Mr.
	Dixon any further than to say that he has been the closing speaker of 19, all 19 American Renaissance Conferences, and he will likewise be the closing speaker at this year's American Renaissance Conference in mid-November.
	So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining me, and I believe I will first, as we usually do, begin with a few comments from listeners.
	Here's a listener who writes in and says, You mentioned last week that the cost of hotel rooms for illegal aliens in New York City was going to be $250 per night.
	In case some of your listeners would like to do the math, that's $91,250 a year.
	I wish I could live someplace that cost $91,250 per year in house payments.
	I imagine that would be a pretty fancy path.
	Another comment.
	You have used the term migrants to refer to illegal immigrants.
	Well, geese migrate, whales, salmon, even butterflies.
	Back and forth they go, season by season.
	But the last I checked, the flood of Third Worlders streaming across our Swiss cheese naan border have no intentions to return whence they came.
	In point of fact, they are illegal invaders, full stop.
	And we would be well advised to refer to them as such.
	Words matter.
	The truth matters.
	Particularly given the precarious circumstances today, we should make very sure to speak the truth.
	I've never liked migrants either for exactly those reasons.
	I know that some people refer to them as backpackers.
	I know that in Israel illegal immigrants are called infiltrators.
	Do either of you have a good term for these illegal immigrants?
	I think migrants is right.
	It sounds like a natural phenomenon about which we can do nothing.
	Any ideas, gentlemen?
	Mr.
	Dixon, go ahead.
	I think, obviously, illegal aliens.
	Yes.
	I sometimes call them third world colonists.
	They're colonizing or settlers.
	Ah, yes, colonizers.
	That's good.
	That's good.
	I think invaders is a little too strong.
	This listener suggests invaders, but that sounds like armed men.
	And I think, well, they certainly don't belong.
	Illegal immigrants, I don't know, unwanted guests, but migrants is too mild a term.
	And our listener is right.
	Mr.
	Kersey and I sometimes have used that term, and we should probably think of something better.
	Mr.
	Taylor, if I could, I think that the term infiltrators that the Israelis use, I think that's a fantastic term.
	And then the question is, though, who's allowing the infiltrators access to our country?
	And then that's the true genesis of the problem.
	Well, infiltrators is good.
	Maybe that's the one that we should start using.
	It's certainly better than migrants.
	I also would dissent from your saying that they're not an army.
	These people are conquerors.
	They are an army.
	They don't use guns and bombs like, say, the Japanese in 1941 attacking Pearl Harbor.
	But that doesn't mean that they're any less an army invading us.
	They're using psychological warfare to get by.
	And one thing I think is important to note is that the attitude of these people.
	It's no longer like it was when I was in elementary school and they'd bring around the spare Hungarian or Pole who would get up and choke up and talk how much he loved America and how grateful he was to us to letting him in.
	You see these people, they see themselves as conquistadors.
	They're conquerors.
	And white liberals, especially women, expect that they're going to get gratitude from these people, but there is no gratitude from them.
	I don't know if they're really conquerors, invaders in the usual sense.
	I think they just see the United States as a fat milk cow that can be milked or perhaps butchered.
	I don't think they have political aspirations or even cultural dominance aspirations.
	They just see fat people and they are hungry and they can feed very heavily on us.
	But in any case, migrants is too much of a namby-pamby term.
	The Chinese and Indians certainly have the attitude of conquistadors.
	I've talked to the children of Protestant missionaries who are bilingual and Chinese like you are in Japanese for the same reason, and they told me that if you could look at Chinese websites and stuff, even in America, that they view America as the next Manchuria, first Manchuria, then Tibet, now America, a big fat country with lots of forest and arable land.
	I don't know.
	I think for them, the next Manchuria is, first of all, Taiwan, and then maybe South Korea, Vietnam.
	I don't believe that they are thinking in terms of occupying North America, but those who do read Chinese websites, and the person I know best who does that is John Derbyshire.
	There is absolutely no mistaking their utter chauvinism, their unapologetic chauvinism.
	China first.
	China is what matters.
	Make China great again and keep China great forever.
	Their attitude is very different from ours.
	But, well, let's see.
	Our final comment here.
	This is one that is related to the subject of our conversation today, namely the election.
	This listener writes in to say, on your October 23rd podcast, I agreed with you that militarized camps or not, booting illegals back to their home countries expeditiously is the best way to repatriate them.
	You also expressed concern about Trump's proposed use of the Alien Enemies Act as part of the Remigration Plan, since Congress has not declared any act of war for any ongoing military activity.
	I believe this is a case of your principled thinking acting as an obstacle to what can be done under the law.
	Mr.
	Dixon, you probably sympathize with that view.
	This commenter goes on to say the authorization for use of military force of 2001 was and is a constitutional abomination.
	That, as you gentlemen remember, that was the cover for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
	I was astonished at the time that Congress voted completely to emasculate itself and let the executive declare war.
	Declaring war is the sole preserve under the Constitution of Congress.
	But no, they said, okay, you can do it.
	A guy like George W. Bush, he's going to be the Caesar, the Napoleon.
	He's going to decide when to declare war.
	But in any case, the commenter goes on to say, it is completely, this authorization for use of military force is completely open-ended with regard to when, where, and against whom anti-terror military actions can be undertaken.
	Congress promulgated it that way and presidents since 2001 have tended to use it as a license to conduct war whenever and wherever they want.
	Absolutely correct.
	And we know that within the millions of military-aged men who have illegally entered the country during the Biden regime, tens of thousands apprehended by Border Patrol and released into the country are known criminals.
	Hundreds are on terror watch lists.
	Without normal vetting of all the invaders, and he calls them invaders, Mr.
	Dixon, we have no idea how many sleeper cells are simply waiting to take enemy action domestically.
	The President's oath promises to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic.
	The Alien Enemies Act was intended to be used as a preventative, not a reactive measure.
	Use the military to round up potential troublemakers before they have a chance to do us harm.
	It's not pretty, but in the middle of a national white genocide campaign, I wouldn't go so far as to call it that, incited and funded by the federal government.
	No, I would disagree there.
	One must use whatever tools are immediately available to stop the attack.
	This is an interesting point up to the point.
	Perhaps I am a little too punctilious about these things.
	I think the idea of the use of military force is, I mean, it may be perfectly appropriate.
	I just don't think constitutionally it's legal.
	And I had made that point in last week's podcast with Paul Kersey.
	Do either of you have any opinions about this?
	I mean, well, I guess I should preface my point by saying that I'm not sure it's actually necessary to use the military to get rid of these 10 million illegal immigrants.
	We have ISIS. Its job is to get rid of illegals.
	I think that if ISIS went about its job systematically, and we made it clear to all the illegals in the country here today, your time is coming.
	You can choose to go when we Decide to send you or you can choose to go when you decide to go.
	I think if it were clear that we were serious about this, a lot of them would deport themselves and we wouldn't need the military and we wouldn't need to bend the Constitution.
	But any opinions on this count?
	I think the old Roman saying applies.
	Sallus Populi Lex Suprema.
	The health and salvation of the people is the supreme law.
	And we cannot be overly punctilious.
	I think we're living in a post-constitutional, post-American world.
	And I think by any means necessary, this problem has to be solved.
	You could be right.
	You could be right.
	I'm drifting over the years.
	I drift in your direction on so many things.
	But this is earlier.
	Yeah.
	I am with Mr.
	Dixon on this as well.
	I think that yes, it would be great if we could enforce the rules that are already in the books with employers, verify, and then we'd see self-deportations.
	But I believe that highly engaged selective enforcement.
	But we have to realize that the corporate media is going to immediately, they already have started, 60 Minutes, just did a video this past week where they interviewed some Hispanic family in Baltimore, and they're trying to discuss the Extreme costs of what this will entail.
	And it's like, who cares?
	That's the responsibility of a failed government.
	We are now picking up the pieces of that failed government.
	And as Mr.
	Dixon correctly alluded to, we are probably in the post-Constitution era.
	And so that requires post-Constitution actions.
	Well, that's an excellent introduction to the question that I was going to ask of Mr.
	Dixon.
	Today, and certainly for the past several months, but in increasing crescendo, the Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of being a Hitler, being anti-democratic, that if he becomes president, this will destroy our democracy.
	I suppose the idea is he will cling to the White House no matter what, and there'll be no more presidential elections, maybe no more congressional elections.
	He'll be a dictator who needs Congress.
	All of these crazy accusations.
	Now, Mr.
	Dixon has made the point that the people who are accusing Donald Trump of being anti-democratic have themselves been violating all the obvious principles of democracy.
	Could you elaborate on your views in that respect, Mr.
	Dixon?
	Yes, sir.
	As we've discussed, I think that one of the most obvious situations in our society Trump and the Republicans don't ever really respond to these charges.
	And these charges are based upon anticipations, predictions, speculations, whereas we have quite a record of Biden's violations of the law and his own Caesarian actions.
	These took place before he even became president.
	People forget the man who personally took charge of the pursuit of Edward Snowden was Vice President Biden under Obama, and he venomously pursued Snowden all across the globe and threatened countries where Snowden might get refuge,
	that they would be subjected to severe sanctions if they allowed the whistleblower refuge from vindictive laws Law prosecutions that the Obama-Biden administration had cooked up to go after the one person who told us the truth about the illegal unconstitutional scheme of the Obama-Biden administration to make,
	among other things, to copy all of the emails that American citizens sent or received without any warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
	Now, one of the people who implemented this clearly illegal program, which they knew was illegal because they denied it existed in testimony for Congress because they knew it was illegal, and they compounded the illegality by perjury, by lying to the elected, that was the legislative branch, that the program existed.
	When the dust settled, the only person who was ever indicted was the guy who told the American people the truth about the violation of their constitutional rights.
	And Biden was involved in this up to his eyeballs.
	But no one has ever talked about that.
	He's given a free pass.
	It's true.
	After he revealed that, as far as he could tell, Was it not the case that every telephone conversation, at least every cell phone conversation, was being recorded and going into some huge database someplace?
	Wasn't that one of the claims that he made?
	And I've never heard either confirmation or denial, or that just seems to have glimmered into the past, and no one seems to think or talk about that.
	Our government, or I say our in quotes, it's not our government, it's the enemy government, Is just fantastic about this.
	They added over 900,000 people to the security apparatuses that already existed after the 9-11 terrorist attack.
	900,000!
	That's like, you know...
	One of the 200 working people in America added to these things.
	And they're much like the Stasi secret police in East Germany.
	When the East German government fell, and people could look at the files, as you will recall, they found that Stasi was just choking on information.
	They would have notations about people that he left his home to go to work at 7.15.
	He stopped to buy food.
	Oranges.
	Five oranges.
	There were warehouses with this kind of garbage.
	And yes, they were recording all of the phones, they were intercepting the emails, all of this stuff, and lying about it under oath.
	And never has Trump called Biden to account about this in the debates.
	No Republican has done this.
	I guess it's because of the presence of people like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
	We're all on board in the campaign to put Snowden away and punish him for telling the truth about the military industrial complex.
	That was before he even became president.
	And then we look at what he said in the 2020 debates with Trump.
	He said, among other things, in the last debate with Trump, there are two things that jump off the page at you about that debate.
	The issue of Hunter Biden's laptop came out.
	And Biden, of course, knew the laptop was completely legitimate.
	But he looked into the camera very steadily and told the American people, this story of the laptop is Russian subversion.
	I have 51 FBI and CIA agents who signed a statement This is probably Russian subversion.
	There's just no truth to it.
	That's just a bald-faced lie.
	Well, let me stop you there.
	We don't know whether he was aware of the laptop.
	I doubt that Hunter Biden paraded the laptop in front of his dad and showed him some of the clips of him.
	My beloved Dr.
	Pangloss always seeing the good in people speaks, but I find it very unlikely that when this story broke, Daddy Biden didn't sit down with Sonny Biden to ask about it.
	Well, Sonny Biden would have undoubtedly lied.
	Not to Daddy Biden.
	Daddy would have to know the truth.
	They'd have to know what to do about it.
	But he certainly never apologized.
	And even though he wasn't yet president, he and his controllers were using the FBI As a means to strangle reporting in the press in violation of the First Amendment.
	They were using the threat of government power to go around and contact newspapers and social media and tell them this is a Russian ploy.
	It's illegitimate.
	Do not report this story.
	The only reason they were reporting it was the New York Post.
	That's right.
	And there was an apology from the FBI. This is what the FBI was doing against the American people in general, and specifically against anyone listening to this broadcast.
	This is what the Federal Bureau of Investigation stands for, and this is what Biden stands for.
	And Mr.
	Dixon, if I can jump in real quick, one of the things that happened right when the New York Post started to report on Biden, the legitimacy of that laptop, New York Post was suspended from Twitter, and I believe every Facebook post made regarding the legitimacy of and the article they're reporting, they were all taken down as well.
	Just extreme election interference with the New York Post Twitter account when it was owned by the former regime before Elon Musk bought in 2022.
	That was one of the main things that happened about three weeks, I believe, prior to the 2020 election.
	The story to be strangled.
	Thank you for reminding me of the further ramifications of it.
	If this kind of thing were done by Putin or by the previous head of Iran, Abedinajad, the Washington Post and the New York Times and the National Radio would be full of things about how the system is unfair in Russia and Iran.
	And regardless of the allegations of vote fraud that Trump has brought, There doesn't have to be vote fraud for a system to be illegitimate, and one in which the government, state police are going around disciplining the media and threatening them implicitly or explicitly against reporting stories that are harmful to the ruling party, the favored candidate.
	In and of itself, the election is illegitimate.
	Well, it's certainly true that the government browbeat all of the social media programs very intensively.
	And this came out in particular with respect to COVID. And that was the aspect that at least was reported in a reasonably widespread way.
	That and the laptop.
	But there were all sorts of other areas related to us.
	It came out that the monetary authorities, the federal government, were telling banks to debank dissidents.
	And that happened as well.
	All of that is just ferociously anti-democratic.
	Now, giving credit where it's due, as well as discredit, One must say that I believe Mark Zuckerberg, one of the few things for which he's actually apologized, is having submitted to this insistence that the Hunter Biden laptop story be deep-sixed.
	He regrets that now, and he says they were wrong and that they shouldn't have done that.
	That's good for him.
	I commend him to that.
	But you wonder, when is President Biden going to apologize?
	No.
	I think this is as unlikely as Biden's similar claim when he was questioned, even before the laptop, he was questioned about some of his son's dealings, and he made the statement that he didn't know where his children worked.
	Now, any parent that doesn't know where his children work, even they're adults, is a pretty bad parent.
	I've never known a parent that didn't know where Sonny worked.
	But anyway, that's what Biden said, and I can't help but think that He and his son would have had a father-son chat about the laptop because Biden would have to know about it and his staff would have to know about what to do about it.
	And so, yeah, I think the chances are almost non-existent that Biden did not know he was lying when he looked the American people in the eye through the camera in the second debate with Trump in 2020 and said that the laptop was Russian disinformation, not Soviet, but Russian disinformation.
	So anyway, I think this is really an extraordinary thing, and it's extraordinary that Trump and the Republicans and his supporters have just sort of left the issue drop.
	No one's really brought home to it.
	I think Kamala should have been asking her debate, would you do this kind of thing?
	Would you get the FBI and CIA to issue this lawyer-like Statement that you suspect it's Russian intelligence when in reality you know it's true.
	You do that kind of thing, Kamala.
	But they don't do that.
	They just let it slide.
	You're right.
	I have done a couple of videos, actually, on the whole subject of...
	Donald Trump going for the capillaries rather than the jugular.
	Do you remember that expression?
	Do you remember?
	Well, I first encountered it back under George W. Bush.
	Do you remember who popularized that view, that expression?
	No, I do not.
	I've never heard it before.
	It's a great expression.
	Oh, it is.
	It was Donald Rumsfeld.
	Donald Rumsfeld.
	He would be asked questions and he would laugh.
	At his questioners, he would say, boy, you guys really know how to go for the capillaries.
	I will do that myself.
	It's a great way of turning things.
	We can move on from laptop, which now everybody knows is legitimate.
	There's things like oddly timed calls from Daddy coming in when Hunter was trying to shake down foreigners for money.
	But you had opened the door to why he does not, why the Trump campaign does not hit back.
	And one of the aspects on which they don't hit back, and that was the subject of my video, stealing Mr.
	Rumsfeld's line, something about Donald Trump goes for the capillaries.
	And it had to do with the fact that nobody in the Trump campaign, even including J.D. Vance, who is, I think, has got more of his wits about him than his boss does, has said anything, as far as I can tell, about Kamala Harris's plan for equity.
	Equity, of course, is not equal treatment, as she has explained many times.
	Sometimes you have to treat people unequally.
	And back in 2020, she had a campaign ad, which I thought was a devastating indictment against everything she stands for.
	She thought this was great stuff, of course.
	But it was a video of a white guy.
	He reaches up and he grabs a rope that's dangling and he climbs the rope and he gets up to the top of the mountain.
	And then there's a poor, florn black guy.
	He is at a level where he cannot reach the rope.
	So, he's sitting there all sad and all oppressed.
	And then, lobo, what happens?
	The Earth itself rises.
	It rises to the point where he reaches the rope.
	He clambers up the mountain and the two of them end up at the top and stare off into the sunrise.
	And, as Kamala Harris explained in this video, Equity, unlike equal treatment, means we all end up at the same place.
	And of course, if blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, everybody were to end up in the same place, you would have to move heaven and earth.
	And in this case, it's only the earth that moves, but moving the earth is a substantial undertaking as well.
	This, to me, is something that is absolutely outrageous.
	It is a campaign against white people primarily, but it would be a campaign against Asians as well.
	And this is something that Kamala Harris has repeatedly talked about.
	I could show you half a dozen different videos in which she explains exactly this.
	Equal treatment isn't good enough.
	We have to end up in the same place, and that's what equity is all about.
	Now, why have they not done this?
	I think not only is this something that would make a lot of white people so angry that not only would they vote, they would badger all their other white friends and relatives to go vote as well.
	It would not turn off the non-whites.
	I don't think it would scare away non-whites either, because I think there are many non-whites who would be revolted at the idea that the government has got to step in and make sure everybody absolutely ends up in the same place.
	I think you're wrong.
	I think that's what democracy is all about.
	It's like my father said when he bought me a little red wagon when I was a child.
	Watch how many of your friends want to ride in the wagon compared to the ones that want to pull, and you'll understand what's wrong with democracy.
	Well, but Mr.
	Dixon...
	Do you think, why would they not attack this view?
	It's redistribution on a massive, massive scale.
	It is something that, look, I think you misjudge some of our BIPOC fellow citizens.
	When you ask people, do you approve of racial preferences in employment and college admissions?
	Not even a majority of blacks say yes.
	Not even a majority of blacks.
	Now, you have to combine the ones who are against it, as I recall, it's maybe 25%, and then the ones who aren't sure, maybe 27%, to end up with the 47% or 8% who say it is a good idea.
	That's college admissions.
	We're not talking about all the crazy things you'd have to do to make sure that, oh, say the NBA was 60% white.
	Or that the NBA was 15% Hispanic.
	Everybody ends up at the same place.
	I think most people, no matter what their race, would instinctively recoil from that kind of extraordinary intrusion into every corner of our lives.
	But they've never talked about this.
	Never talked about equity.
	Not one word out of them.
	Well, I can see why there'd be a political reason there.
	Because talking about it is going to galvanize the base to the Democratic Party.
	The Republicans are no good.
	I want to make that clear.
	I'm not a fool to your listeners that I have no faith or great admiration for the Republicans.
	But they do represent people that get up in the morning and shave and shower and put on their clothes and go to work.
	The Democrats represent the whole coalition of the aggrieved, the complainers, the whiners, the lazy, the jealous people.
	And so they wouldn't like it at all if the Republicans started threatening their set-asides.
	And once again, with all due respect to my leader, I think you're optimistic and charitable when you think that what people answer on polls really matters.
	I think people give an answer to a poll that is immediately to their advantage, and they only show what people say to a stranger on the phone.
	My feeling is that 98% of all Blacks are in favor of equity, and 95% of all Hispanics are in favor of equity.
	And 100% of all the white Marxists are in favor of equity.
	So when it comes to these unconstitutional, illegal things that Biden is doing, like what we were saying about the laptop, Those are things which Biden's position can only be defended by people who are essentially Marxist or totalitarians, that whatever the leader needs to do for the leader to get to the top is alright.
	And I think we should turn our gaze back to the history of the Democratic administration, Which goes on attacking Trump as a threat for democracy, which should take us to the second thing about the last debate that Biden had with Trump in 2020.
	Well, Mr.
	Dixon, before you go there, to the second point, and I very much want to advance to the second point, I would like to remind you that on two occasions, The state of California has held a referendum on the question of racial preferences in college admissions.
	And on both occasions, the referendum was defeated, despite an enormous amount of spending by all sorts of special interests to persuade Californians to vote in favor of racial preferences.
	And the second time around, a larger number of Blacks than the first time around, as Hispanics as well, voted against these racial preferences.
	But if you insist on disbelieving all exit polls, well then maybe those are uninteresting, underlabeled data.
	Excuse me?
	I don't dismiss the actual poll results, but my understanding is that the only group that cast the majority of its votes against that proposal were white Americans, that even Asian Americans, the majority of them voted for the program.
	Well, I think it may be that a majority of non-whites did, but the group of non-whites that did was smaller than the first time around.
	That there seems to be a certain amount of waning enthusiasm for this.
	It'd be good to get the actual numbers.
	But in any case, do please proceed to point two.
	Well, a journalist, one of the kept journalists that's chosen for these joint press conferences that we call debates, but which aren't.
	They're just joint press conferences in which the media frames the issues.
	Some journalists wandered off the reservation, and he asked Biden if a Biden administration would ever prosecute an Antifa adherent who committed a crime.
	And Biden avoided Answering by giving this very disingenuous, convoluted answer, but the answer was basically no.
	He would never prosecute the Antifa thugs who harass people like you and me and have committed crimes against us.
	At least against me, they have committed crimes.
	I don't know about you.
	They have a hard time getting at you, and they do at me.
	But anyway, he answered that he would not prosecute him with Antifa because Antifa is a philosophy.
	But obviously, Antifa is not a philosophy.
	It has a philosophy, a philosophy of radical Marxism, communism, and anarchism, and a philosophy that justifies violence.
	It would be like, and in the so-called darkest days of segregation, I have never found an instance in which any Southern governor ran for governor saying, elect me your governor, and I will not prosecute anybody with the Ku Klux Klan for lynching black people.
	We have somebody who is running for chief manager of the republic, He's promising to unleash thugs that are on his side against his opponents.
	And as I was saying, you have to give the devil his due.
	And whereas Biden was lying about the laptop, on this issue, he's a man of integrity, because he has kept his word.
	He looked into the cameras and he told the American people that he would never prosecute them, and he has kept this promise.
	He has not prosecuted them, so much so that in Atlanta, Where I live much of the year.
	There have been 65 Antifa's arrested for a scheme to shut down the police training facility that's being built.
	In the course of this, they have bombed on four separate occasions.
	They have blown up police cars with handheld bombs.
	On another occasion, they torched eight police motorcycles.
	On another occasion, they shot a cop.
	They have done over $20 million of damage to public property, and I don't know how much to private property, because they also have gone after the families of the corporate executives who have the contract to build that police facility.
	Now, every single one of the 65 indictments for this extraordinary criminal behavior has been at the state level.
	There hasn't been one single indictment That has come out of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
	There's been no move by the FBI or the ATF to bring any kind of charges.
	The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency is charged with the duty of investigating any bomb explosion.
	They even have investigated 14-year-old kids that blew up a homemade bomb device playing war with their buddies in the woods.
	Not the Antifa who have blown up the police cars.
	Even I had enough, like my friend Dr.
	Pangloss, Jared Taylor, with his kindly views of the world.
	Even I was too naive.
	I believed that if you went out and built a bomb and threw it into a police car on even one occasion, something bad might happen to you.
	But not under President Biden.
	He has a promise to keep.
	The thugs come first.
	The cops, they're not even on the list.
	Let them blow up the police cars.
	Let them torch the motorcycles.
	Let them burn down the police training facility.
	And Biden and his administration, his U.S. attorney, the Northern District of Georgia, the FBI, the ATF, will do nothing.
	And yet the Republicans don't talk about that.
	That's certainly true.
	That's certainly true.
	They do not by any means attack him in the way we would expect them to.
	Something else that I noticed, and Mr.
	Kersey, we'd like your views too, where you see a lack of aggressive fight back on the part of the Trump campaign, but during both debates, both former President Trump and J.D. Vance's debate, Against this Waltz character.
	The Democrats threw in their faces the idea that, well, we had this wonderful bipartisan bill to secure the border and you wouldn't vote for it.
	And the only reason you wouldn't vote for it is because Donald Trump said, turn what to the entire Republican Party and said, don't vote for this wonderful bill because that will remove immigration as an issue.
	I want it to remain a crisis so that I can sail into the White House on the basis of this crisis that persists Only because I have ordered you people, who follow me like SS Troopers, not to vote for it.
	It's a wonderful rhetorical trick to say that Trump was the one who stopped it from being passed when the bill on its face was terrible.
	Exactly.
	Neither of them went into why it was an absolutely terrible, miserable bill.
	They just let that accusation pass.
	And, well, Mr.
	Curz, you and I talked about this several times on our podcast.
	I think it was, what is it, you could get 10,000 illegals, or was it how many thousand illegals a day for a period of a week, and then the president could, if he wanted to, invoke certain measures to keep them out.
	In other words, you know, illegal immigration is fine.
	I think it would have worked out to about a million a year.
	That's okay.
	But if it gets over that, then this law allowed you to do sensible things that Donald Trump had been doing, for instance, practically day one in office.
	And it's like running a city and saying, well, okay, you know, murder's a problem, but, you know...
	Some people do deserve to die, after all.
	Only after the city has reached 100 murders, then we'll start enforcing the law against murder.
	A crazy, terrible, terrible bill.
	But neither of them had the wit to say that.
	I was very surprised by that.
	But anything else that has struck you, Mr.
	Kersey, as some kind of weak-knee response or inability to really get them where it might hurt?
	No, I won't.
	I mean, there's a number of places where you can.
	I think that as the left has tried to do, and that's, I think, what we're going to take this conversation, what we've seen the response to the left, by the left, to just the incredible popularity that Trump has seen in these early voting.
	It's very encouraging.
	And again, New Century Foundation does not endorse candidates.
	We're simply talking about what's happening now.
	Just the other day, the Trump campaign had a beautiful rally at the Madison Square Garden.
	Hillary Clinton, before the rally took place, I'm not sure if you guys have seen any of the clips yet, Hillary Clinton said that it evoked memories of the 1939 rally that was held there.
	By an American-German organization.
	Sam, you can probably delineate more about that group.
	But it was evoking memories of that fascist Nazi event.
	And CNN actually had an article where they talked about the Trump rally uses racist rhetoric.
	And I thought to myself, he's already got my vote.
	Come on.
	You don't need to sell me anymore, CNN. I mean, that's the thing.
	I mean, All the Trump campaign is doing is really talking about making the country better for Americans.
	And all the left can do is call that fascist and racist.
	And as I think we're going to see come next week with the Trump victory, it's going to be fascinating to see what happens up until the ratification of those votes come January, and then the peaceful transition of power.
	Because I think that's something we want to talk about here as we move forward in this podcast.
	Well, Mr.
	Kersey, I think that Cameron's going to win, so we'll see who's right.
	But what about January 6th?
	I think the handling of January 6th is another example of the trampling of constitutional rights by the Democrats.
	What do you think about that?
	I think that there's a gentleman by the name of – wasn't Steve Bannon in jail because he refused – he just got out of jail this morning, I believe.
	I saw a photo of him.
	Was he in jail for contempt of court or was he in jail because he refused a subpoena over the J6? He refused the subpoena.
	But the thing I'm referring to is, first of all, the concocted claim that this rather minor incident was somehow an insurrection.
	As people point out, an insurrection in which nobody carried a gun except the police and the authority figures, and one of whom used it to shoot one of the protesters.
	Ashley Byrd.
	Yeah, but the treatment of these people, the whole Soviet style of the thing has been noteworthy.
	Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House, broke with two centuries of congressional tradition and did not accord the Republicans, the opposition party, She announced that this was a special committee, and they would only get two, and the Democrats would get seven.
	So she cut them down to about half of what they ought to have had if you had a genuinely democratic government.
	And She also broke the fact that normally the practice where normally the opposition party names, they choose who serves on committees.
	And said, no, she wasn't going to let the Republicans choose their own.
	She would do the choosing.
	And she chose the pinup role for the military industrial complex, Liz Cheney.
	And this other Republican, out of all the 200 or so Republicans, she chose them who would be simply an echo for their own reasons, you know, of the effort to attack Trump and the Republicans and glorify and exaggerate this incident.
	Talk about violation of democracy.
	This is the kind of thing I would think you'd read about in something like the French Revolution, where the monarchists were excluded from the committees and the legislature, or under Cromwell, when first the agricans and then the Presbyterians were excluded from actively participating in Parliament.
	And then you had the mistreatment Of the people that they wanted to prosecute, and the overcharging of people.
	They didn't want to just charge the 140-something people that got in the premises of the Capitol, or the people who actually fought the police.
	They wanted to prosecute anybody who was there with a demonstration.
	Yeah, and that's extraordinary.
	When I was in college, the SDS would go and have rallies against the draft, and some of them would get rowdy and attack the draft board and throw bricks through the windows.
	Nobody ever dreamed the idea that somebody who was just present at the demonstration and didn't take part in the illegal activity, that he should be indicted too.
	And then they enlisted something like a quarter million people associated with the Huffington Post to help the FBI with photo recognition to try to catch people.
	They resorted to having a teenage boy testify against his father, sort of like Stalin had, I forget his name, Pavel Milosevic or something, testify against, turn his parents in and the collectivization.
	He became a national hero because he supported the Communist Party against his own parents.
	And then the conditions under which these people were held, they were denied bond.
	Bond is a constitutional right.
	It's supposed to be granted upon two criteria, one of which is the chance that the defendant will commit the same crime or another crime, and two, the prospects of flight.
	These people are all Norman Rockwell-type Americans.
	They were from small towns.
	They had no criminal record.
	They had homes and jobs to go back to.
	Some of these people are still in jail awaiting trial.
	They've lost three years of earnings.
	They've lost their jobs.
	This is an outrageous violation of the rights of the accused.
	It's a politicization of the laws.
	And then capping it all off, the effort to call it an insurrection for the purpose of trying to, as you were alluding to, to undo the election.
	Schumer was on talking about this, that the great 14th Amendment gives a means to keep Trump out of office.
	By growing this incident into an insurrection, they can now argue that Trump is an insurrectionist because he told them to go fight for their rights, and they can undo the results of the election and seek Kamala Harris.
	This is a threat to democracy.
	This is really amazing.
	Well, can we not add the manner in which Kamala Harris was chosen to be the candidate?
	Correct.
	There was, after all, a primary And Joe Biden won the primary.
	People gave a lot of money to Joe Biden for his campaign.
	Who came in second to the primary?
	Who would be the rightful winner if we went back to the primary and said, well, okay, we're going to choose the person who came in second?
	Do either of you even recall?
	No.
	Was it Robert Kennedy?
	I don't know.
	I don't think so.
	No, no, I don't think they let him even run.
	But there were some people running against Joe Biden.
	And the other thing that astonishes me is that people who had given money to Joe Biden, all of their money was automatically transferred to Kamala Harris.
	I really don't think, I don't know how you could do that.
	That would be like giving money to say, I don't know, it's the same political party, presumably.
	But if you gave money to Bernie Sanders, and then Bernie Sanders dropped out, and then all of that money went to Joe Biden.
	And you hate Joe Biden.
	You can't stand Joe Biden.
	I don't see how the Democratic Party can say, okay, well, this money was for this guy, but we don't care.
	We're going to give the money to this other guy.
	I mean, Mr.
	Dixon probably knows more about the legalities than I do, but that sounds like it's against all the regulations.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	Well, apparently not.
	These rules don't matter.
	We're in a post-constitutional system.
	We're not in...
	A boxing match among 10th grade kids who are going to be eating lunch with each other in the cafeteria after physical exercise class is over.
	We're in an alley fight where the rules of the markers of Queensbury about boxing, they just don't apply.
	They also, as you know better than almost anybody in America, as our audience knows very well, They can get away with it because they have a compliant news media that will always lie for them by omission and by emphasis or just outright lying.
	When they were forced to have a federal prosecutor, you recall, look at the idea of indicting Biden for the same crime they indicted Trump, having classified documents in his residence, And they had a report long before Biden's poor performance in the debate that became the reason to substitute Kamala Harris.
	They had a report of the prosecutor saying, we couldn't endorse Biden because he's so incompetent.
	The jury would probably let him off as being unable to have the requisite intent to break the law.
	And what did the media do about that?
	Nothing.
	And that's really quite an amazing thing, to have all that come out.
	And Mary Louise Kelly, Anderson Cooper, New York Times, the editorial board, none of them had anything to say about that.
	Yes?
	By the way, if I could come in real quick, I did look this up because I was very curious, incredibly curious actually, who was the runner-up in the Democrat primary of 2024?
	Dean Phillips, Congressman from Minnesota.
	I just looked that up myself.
	Dean Phillips, whoever remembers him.
	No, and Marianne Williamson came in third.
	She's an author, speaker, and political activist.
	So, yeah, it's absolutely fascinating to think that Kamala Harris didn't get one vote, but By process of elimination, she was ceded the opportunity to run on behalf of the department.
	It wasn't the process of elimination.
	It was a process of just dictatorial decision-making.
	That's true.
	No, I was going to say with Biden stepping down, then it was just, oh, hey, Ms.
	Harris, you're here.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Go ahead.
	But they're the great champions of democracy.
	If you all don't mind, I would like to read a few passages from an article that appeared in The Federalist by a fellow named John Daniel Davidson, who is apparently a senior editor there.
	And he was talking about a hit piece that was published in The Atlantic by someone named Jeffrey Goldberg.
	Jeffrey Goldberg is a regular contributor to The Atlantic.
	But he calls it Part of a larger psy-op to justify mass post-election violence if Trump wins in November.
	To signal activists to reject the results of the election, to divide the military, and to coax an insurgency out of the radical right-wing base.
	She said, I'm sorry, out of the radical left-wing base.
	I beg your pardon.
	He says Harris explicitly compared Trump to Hitler.
	And claim that if elected, he will rule as a dictator and unleash the military on his domestic political opponents.
	He doesn't want a military loyal to the United States Constitution, she said.
	He wants a military loyal to him personally, one that will obey his orders, even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the Constitution of the United States.
	This article goes on, Trump the fascist, Trump the wicked man, Trump the Hitler.
	This author goes on to say, not only is this an incitement to insurrection, because after all, if we were prepared to kill millions of Germans to destroy the first Hitler, if we were prepared to bomb Hamburg and bomb Dresden,
	if we were prepared to boost the Soviet Union, which ended up occupying 10 Eastern European capitals, If all of that was worth doing in order to stop the first Hitler, my gosh, what shouldn't we do to stop Hitler number two?
	I thought this was an interesting argument.
	He goes on to say that this would justify assassination, for heaven's sake.
	How do either of you feel about this argument, about what the consequences are of accusing Trump of being Hitler?
	I'll defer to Mr.
	Dixon again to take the lead here, because I've already made some points with Mr.
	Hood in our podcast.
	Well, I think it's just obvious bunk and extremism.
	When Kennedy was assassinated, the media very adroitly was able to shift the blame from the accused, who may have been one of the assassins, Oswald, who was a communist.
	They announced that the right-wingers and the segregationists and the birchers had created an atmosphere of hate That caused Oswald to shoot Kennedy.
	And so when they can do things like that, but never concentrate on Mr.
	Goldberg, I've been unfamiliar with that article, to say that even assassination is not off the table, because you're worried that somebody else is an extremist.
	I guess that's the kind of thinking that you would get from somebody who also, as you quoted there, said that Trump, as part of his Hitlerian program, would actually prosecute his political opponents.
	This coming from people who have cooked up all of these prosecutions of Trump.
	You know, changing these tax limitations to enable this silly woman to sue him claiming that she was raped in a department store by Trump on a date she can't remember.
	And trying him in front of a jury that's calculated to be overwhelmingly biased against him because they're drawn from a jury pool where people voted 7 to 1 for Joe Biden.
	You know, it's what we usually call the pot calling the kettle black.
	These people have been prosecuting all kinds of people.
	Trump himself, other Republicans in Georgia with his Fannie Willis prosecution because they disputed the vote results.
	No, this is a glimpse into the extremist mentality of the people we face, and they are not liberals.
	They're not your grandfather's liberals.
	These are not kumbaya types.
	These are hardcore Well, what it makes me wonder is if the assumption is Trump is going to become a dictator, and does that mean that he will be in the White House for the rest of his life?
	Does that mean that he's going to establish a monarchy or maybe even better be like Napoleon and establish an empire and crown himself emperor?
	What do they even mean by this?
	This is the end.
	This is a threat to democracy, we're told.
	Well, if it were really a threat to democracy, Aren't they really talking about something like that?
	Trump declaring himself emperor, and then I guess that means Baron Trump becomes Trump the second?
	I mean, do they really believe their own baloney about this?
	The idea that somehow this is a threat to American democracy.
	Democracy will be over if we vote the guy in.
	I don't think they do believe it, but that's not a point of discussion between you and me because you You believe that our enemies do sincerely believe things and they're sincere people and people with good impulses.
	I believe most of them are very bad people.
	Well, in this case, the idea that somehow it's going to be the end of democracy.
	I mean, how would that work?
	Would he say, well, okay, I'm going to call out the military and make sure that there's no presidential election held in 2028?
	I mean, that's just inconceivable, absolutely inconceivable.
	The military wouldn't do that, and he wouldn't ask it to do that.
	It's just incredible to me that they could even talk in these terms because it requires such preposterously improbable, just downright impossible things for him to do.
	But people seem to believe this.
	I don't know.
	At least they say this often enough.
	I guess they must have focus groups that tell them that this is an effective way to try to campaign against Donald Trump.
	Well, the polls, if you believe the polls, I will retreat to the polls.
	I heard a poll about the media the other day that something like 38% of the people don't believe it at all.
	I'm sorry, don't believe what?
	Don't believe in the media at all.
	Oh, that's right.
	About 36% are doubtful, and I think about 30% said they believe the media.
	It was interesting, the different political parties.
	Among Republicans, only about, I think they said 12% of Republicans believe the media, but 72% of all Democrats believe the media.
	So if they hear people like Goldberg or Mary Louise Kelly or Anderson Cooper say something, they believe it.
	The polls show that they believe, overwhelmingly, they believe this preposterous media.
	They believe any story that reinforces their racial and political views.
	Well, I guess that would fit in with your view that.
	oh, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic May very well not believe that this would be the last presidential election in American history if Donald Trump were elected.
	But I guess he's counting on that, what was it, the 78% of the readers who will believe it if he says so.
	I mean, that would be the cynical view of things.
	Well, he also knows how stupid people are because what he's talking about himself is a dictatorial coup in which the opposing person is assassinated as a way of preventing him.
	It sounds like something from becoming dictator.
	It sounds like Lenin, you know, justifying, shooting people because they were monarchists and might interfere and might cause them to be counter-revolutionaries and that kind of thing.
	You know, they're doing themselves.
	Goldberg's advocating himself exactly what he's accusing Trump of.
	But I suspect if you could give sodium pentothal to Goldberg, he has this bigger contempt for democracy, maybe bigger than I do.
	He would quite happily have a progressive dictatorship.
	Well, could very well be.
	Could very well be.
	Well, to move on to a different kind of poll, These are the ones we're increasingly seeing in which it's alleged that Donald Trump's white support, the percentage of white voters who are going to vote for him, is slipping, while the percentage of non-white voters is increasing.
	And the question will be, which can balance out the other?
	Do either of you have any views on that or what would explain why that would be happening?
	I'll let Mr.
	Kersey answer that.
	Yeah, I think in a lot of ways we might see an increase in the Hispanic vote.
	We might see an increase a little bit in the black vote because I think that the brothers, to coin a term that I've heard used recently on a radio show that I was listening to, it's kind of funny, that they don't like Kamala.
	They don't want to be told what to do by a light-skinned black woman.
	So I wouldn't be surprised if the black male vote is a little bit higher for her.
	I wouldn't be surprised if the Hispanic vote is a little higher.
	I actually believe the white vote is going to be at the level that it was in 2016, if not better.
	We saw the white male vote in 2020, specifically the non-college educated white vote, drop significantly for Trump in 2020.
	A lot of people, Ann Coulter herself said it best.
	It was not appealing to the white vote that cost Trump the election in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and in Sam Dixon and his home state of Georgia.
	Of course, I have a lot of questions about what actually happened in Georgia in 2020 based on how well Brian Kemp did in trouncing Stacey Abrams in 2022, and I believe probably 54 to 46.
	I know Sam's probably thinking to himself, oh, now you're a Panglossian.
	But I really do believe that Trump is going to win Georgia in a pretty shocking fashion because he's going to get 80 to 82 percent of the white vote.
	And why I think the white vote is going to be so significant is the left right now is freaking out.
	The Democrats are freaking out about what's happening in North Carolina and the early voting that's coming in Virginia.
	Now, Virginia is a much whiter state electorate wise than the state of Georgia.
	Now, if you're just able to increase the white vote by five to six percent in a state like Virginia, All of a sudden, because of what the percentage of the whites represent as part of the electorate, you got a chance to win Virginia.
	And it's not going to be because of the Hispanic vote.
	It's not going to be because of an increase in the black vote.
	It's if you increase the white vote.
	And that's how you win also the whiter states that have that consistent white-black population and don't have as many Hispanics, like Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania.
	You just increase the white vote in those states, You got your shot at an electoral blowout on par of 2016.
	So I know that's going to sound maybe overly positive, but I really think that whites are returning to the fold like they weren't in 2020.
	You said 78% to 80% of the white voters are going to vote Trump, do you think?
	In places like Georgia and Alabama, the only reason they're Republicans...
	Because again, Sam, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state of Georgia is almost a plurality now.
	I think whites are, what, 51%, 52% of the state?
	But as a part of the electorate, I believe they're still about 63% to 65% just because the non-white population is younger.
	No, no, no.
	They're about 55% of the registered voters.
	Okay.
	Well, but Mr.
	Kersey, I thought you were making a – maybe I misunderstood you.
	You were talking only about Georgia.
	I thought you were talking about the entire United States.
	I was talking about the Pacific States.
	Yeah, and places like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, because you get such an unbelievable percent of the white vote.
	If you remember back in 2016, I don't remember the exact number, but the left was really upset about white women putting Trump over the edge.
	I don't remember what it was.
	Yeah, there were a lot of articles, you know, attacking white women for helping elect Donald Trump.
	And I think we're going to see the same thing this year, by the way.
	Well, I don't know.
	According to chat GPT, whether or not it can be believed, but this conforms with my recollections from the exit polls at the time.
	In 2020, about 61% of white men supported Trump.
	38% voted for Joe Biden.
	For white women, it was 55% for Trump, 48% for Biden.
	That sounds about right to me.
	But yes, I remember very well in Alabama and Georgia, Mississippi, I think it must have been about 80% of whites voted for Trump.
	I'm just wondering what kind of overall white vote he's going to manage to get.
	People have been predicting that of all people, working class whites, Are less likely to vote for Donald Trump this time than the last time around.
	That seems very odd to me.
	I disagree with that.
	I disagree with that completely.
	I think that's the vote that you try and get.
	Yeah, that's in places that didn't show up.
	Again, to her everlasting credit, Ann Coulter is not allowed on CNN. She's not allowed on Fox News anymore, but that's what she was hammering over and over again, you stupid Republicans.
	The white college uneducated, non-college educated vote, that's all you've got to pick up.
	It's the crown in the gutter, so to speak.
	Just pick it up.
	And I think that's actually, you know, that's the reason why I'm so optimistic about this election, is because I think they are going to, I think that isn't going to happen, whether or not he deserves it.
	We know what Harris represents, as we've seen, just a vicious anti-white bigot.
	They want to weaponize immigration to amnesty and tens of millions of illegals, basically making it so that Republicans can't win again.
	And that's why when Sam Dixon says America is in a post-constitutional era, yes, we are.
	And that does require post-constitutional actions to ensure that our posterity lives in a country that they deserve to.
	Well, that sounded suspiciously like an endorsement to me, Mr.
	Kersey, and we are supposed to be eschewing endorsements.
	It's not an endorsement.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	We urge all of our listeners to make up their minds for themselves, unpersuaded by any observation we might make.
	We're simply talking about what we think of the campaign and what tactics have been used and what tactics seem legitimate, what tactics seem illegitimate.
	But, gentlemen, I believe we are approaching the end of our allotted time.
	Is there anything, Mr.
	Dixon, that you would like to add to the conversation so far?
	Very briefly, I don't think Trump will get many Hispanic or African-American votes.
	Oh, yes, yes, that's right.
	We didn't go into that really as far as Hispanics go.
	This is a delusion that Republicans of all stripes like to pursue.
	The figure they usually use, they're going to get a third of the black vote.
	I deal with lots of black people.
	I have lots of black people that I count as actually friends, astonishingly enough, but I do know a lot of them.
	And I've never met a black that was voting Republican.
	According to Atlanta universities, this is school, 75% of all African Americans who have jobs work for state, federal, or local government.
	They're just not going to vote Republican.
	Race is the issue.
	It finally is openly out there.
	It's the issue.
	Our country is divided.
	We have two countries populated by people that cannot live with each other.
	That's why the present system won't work.
	As Mr.
	Kersey was saying, the Republicans' situation gets weaker and weaker with every election.
	And they're doomed to be a minority status party.
	This is the last hurrah for the Republicans.
	Well, I suspect you're right about that.
	The demographics of the voting population are shifting very much against Republicans.
	But these are the statistics from 2020.
	Blacks went for Joe Biden 87 to 12.
	So apparently there are 12% of blacks who in fact did vote for Trump.
	And there are people who are suspected that the figure this time around could be as high as 18, 19%.
	We shall see.
	Now, Hispanics were 65 for Biden and 32 for Trump.
	There's always been more support for Trump among Hispanics.
	I think Hispanics kind of like his macho swagger.
	Well, hold your thought for a minute.
	Yes.
	People need to understand.
	The term Hispanic, that paint covers a lot of walls.
	It does.
	And they include Cubans in South Florida who overwhelmingly vote Republican because they're white people and they hate communists.
	And they recognize the Democratic Party as containing many communists and being sympathetic to communism, which it is.
	So they're part of that 38%.
	32%.
	But they're a small number of Hispanics.
	Probably still 10, 11 of those percentage points.
	And then you've got other people, like my neighbors in Florida, who were Hispanics and came from San Francisco, and whose ancestors lived there in 1848, and who were whiter than I am.
	They were blonde and blue-eyed, but they were pure Hispanic, and they were counted.
	The real thing that needs to be known, and I never see it in the stats, is how do first-generation and recent immigrant Hispanics vote.
	That's what matters in evaluating where we're going, not how Hispanics who've lived here in Texas and in New Mexico and in California since before 1848, you know, centuries, or what white Cubans.
	It's how are the wetbacks voting.
	That's what matters.
	Well, that's a good point.
	Pew Research has done a little bit, a little research on the whole question of the political change among Hispanics as the generations move on.
	And my recollection is that they change surprisingly little.
	That the number that consider themselves Hispanic first, if you ask them, what is your primary identity?
	Is it American?
	Is it Hispanic?
	And we're talking about U.S. citizens.
	That I believe it's two-thirds would say their primary identity is Hispanic.
	And this number does not decrease the longer they stay in the United States.
	They're so admirable.
	They're so much better than WASPs and related people from Europe because we allow ourselves just to be erased.
	Our answer, like I said before, the great rabbi Stephen Wise was so right Back in the 1900s when he told Jews, we have been Jews for 3,500 years.
	We've been Americans for only 200 years.
	Being a Jew is much more important than being an American, and that's where we ought to be.
	We've been Europeans for thousands of years, and we've been Americans for a few hundred years.
	And you have to admire the Hispanics and the Blacks and others.
	They're healthy people, but our people are profoundly unhealthy.
	Yes, Hispanics, they do not release that Hispanic identity.
	I mean, to only a slight degree, the longer they've been in the United States as citizens.
	Now, the only remaining number that I want to talk about here in terms of the racial support four years ago, Asians.
	Asians have always been intriguing to me.
	They supported Biden by 63%, Trump 31%.
	It is surprising to me that Asians should be almost as supportive of Joe Biden, of the Democrats in general, as Hispanics.
	Now, some people have interpreted that in terms of luxury beliefs.
	That they have discovered what the fashionable beliefs are.
	The fashionable beliefs are to do all the crazy things Democrats tell them, think all the crazy things Democrats tell them to.
	But I would have thought that there would be a natural, a greater tendency toward conservatism.
	Certainly in terms of taxation, certainly in terms of affirmative action, and even in terms of government intervention.
	Asians tend to be entrepreneurial, and I don't think Asians have any desire whatsoever to see the country roaring off and killing Muslims all over the Middle East.
	The Asian support for the Democrat Party is a mysterious thing to me.
	I suppose, Mr...
	Mr.
	Dixon, you would probably say, well, this is just part of this multicolored coalition against whites.
	That is the explanation.
	I would say that.
	It's like in the jungle, when the lion kills the antelope, the vultures come down, and they want to peck at the antelope, too.
	And the lions drive them off, and there's friction between the vultures and the lions.
	But they're all in agreement.
	It's a good thing the antelope's been killed.
	And all these people, including the Asians, know they're plundering whitey.
	And that's got to go on.
	Another thing is that immigrants are automatically outsiders.
	They feel resentment against native-born people.
	We don't have a word, the comparable xenophobia, to deal with the resentment that newcomers feel for old-timers.
	But that's all there.
	It is a racial issue, and it will remain a racial issue.
	Well, perhaps so.
	Certainly for this podcast, the fact that things be racial issues is not an alien concept, either for any of us or probably for any of our listeners.
	Well, gentlemen, before we sign off, I would like to remind our listeners how they can reach us.
	This has been a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary American Radio Renaissance podcast in that we were a three-way conversation.
	We covered mostly the campaign.
	But if you have any comments or if you have any suggestions, if you have comments on previous podcasts, this one, you can send them to—you have two ways to get to us.
	One is to get to me by going to amren.com, A-M-R-E-N.com, and going to the Contact Us page.
	It has been acting up a little bit recently.
	People have complained to me that they couldn't get through.
	But now I understand that the Contact Us tab has been tamed.
	It will be docile.
	It will do your bidding.
	And so that is how you can get a comment to me.
	The other way is...
	Yeah, shoot me over an email.
	BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com once again.
	BecauseWeLiveHere at Proton.me.
	Mr.
	Taylor, I'd like to ask one question of both of you, though, to end and give you guys a minute just to answer this question.
	And I'm going to ask of Mr.
	Dixon first.
	What would you tell our listeners if on Wednesday of next week, Mr.
	Trump Does lose.
	What are your thoughts, your initial thoughts of what you tell listeners to do?
	Because this election, in a lot of ways, as you said, it's becoming more and more obvious.
	It's about race.
	That's the central question.
	We've all known that.
	And now that reality is being thrust on people, whether they want to admit it or not.
	But what would you tell people if Mr.
	Trump is not victorious?
	And again, we're not endorsing candidates.
	I'm just asking for a hypothetical of if people wake up and Harris is now going to be president for four years.
	I would give the same advice if it would take hours to give it.
	That you've got to prepare.
	You have to have your own financial assets.
	You cannot rely on pensions.
	You cannot work for major corporations.
	We have to try to be free.
	And we have to train the children to be free.
	And we have to think post-America.
	That this simply is no way forward through the present system.
	There's no way forward, and it cannot survive.
	We will not overthrow it.
	It's overthrowing itself, but it cannot survive either.
	And they need to accept that.
	My remarks essentially echo those of Mr. Dinkins.
	Dixon.
	I don't think the United States can ever again become a home for white people.
	And it makes no difference who is voted in a week or so from now, or four years from now, or 40 years from now.
	The institutional changes, the psychological changes, the philosophical changes, ideological changes, and primarily the demographic changes are so profound that this process cannot be reversed.
	And so we should be thinking, as Mr.
	Dixon says, of a post-American or at least post-United States of America world in which we are able to carve out something, someplace, somewhere where we can really hold our own destiny in our own hands.
	And so I might have a personal opinion as to which outcome I prefer.
	I don't think that this election is really going to change the long-term course of the United States.
	Just a question to end with.
	Yeah, just curious.
	Yes, yes.
	I appreciate the answer.
	Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for bearing with us.
	This has been a somewhat longer than usual podcast, but we were delighted to have Mr.
	Dixon available to talk to us.
	And Mr.
	Kersey and I look forward to spending this time again with you next week.
	It is always an honor, always a pleasure.
	Thank you so very much.
	Thank you.

▲