All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 3, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
42:48
Jared Taylor — “How We Must Choose.” (2024)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
What is it that we want?
I think you can all join me in agreeing that what we want is a nation that protects our interests as white people forever.
And here in the United States, what are our prospects?
I explain the reasons why I do not believe this country as currently constituted can again be a home for white people.
At least not all of it.
And there are various accommodations that I think are possible.
It was, of course, a tragic injustice to set in motion the dispossession of the people who built this country.
And to begin this process of taking control out of our hands.
Dispossession, of course, is not yet complete.
We're still a majority.
But I do not see how dispossession, as the country is currently constituted, can be reversed.
Even with Donald Trump in office, the chances of persuading our rulers of the great injustice that has been done to us is very small.
And the chances of persuading them to reverse that injustice or correct it are smaller still.
Now, don't misunderstand me.
I was delighted that Donald Trump won.
Kamala Harris would have been an absolute abomination.
And perhaps the greatest triumph of this entire election...
Was that so many millions of Americans blew such a resounding raspberry to every institution in this country.
joyful noise that works.
And I don't doubt that for many whites, this election renewed their faith in America.
And perhaps it did for some of you in this room.
Donald Trump will certainly slow the rot, but he will not reverse it.
High tariffs are not going to make black people stop shooting each other.
All the deportations in the world are not going to narrow the almost four-year academic gap, academic year gap between white and Hispanic high school seniors.
That cannot be narrowed.
And not even Elon Musk.
Can carve away so much government spending to once again make reckless procreation so risky that illegitimacy rates come down.
Put differently, under Donald Trump, the following things will not happen.
The colossal societal implications of race differences in IQ will not become widely known and accepted.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 will not be repealed.
The right of whites to go their own way will not be formally recognized.
Let's remember, Donald Trump already had four years in office, and he made no hint of wanting any of those things.
Of course, taking together those three things that I mentioned would amount to a revolution.
Can't be saved.
And think about one of the things that this new election has brought us.
I note in passing that we have a new Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, elected by secret ballot.
In 2020, this man said, too many black Americans live in fear that what happened to George Floyd could happen to their own fathers, sons, and brothers.
I wonder if he's learned anything in the last four years.
And if there even is such a thing as Trumpism, and it is something that will live on after Donald Trump, what are its limits?
How far can it go?
Of course, he was a terrible shock to the establishment, but not a revolution.
I believe that Trumpism can go no further Then an end to some of the worst forms of anti-white indoctrination and an end to some of the worst forms of racial preferences for non-whites.
These things are very good, and I will celebrate them, but they're not enough.
And when Donald Trump talks about making America great again, he probably thinks about the America of the 1950s and the 1960s in which he grew up.
That America is not coming back.
That was the United States that honored us as pioneers, founders, builders.
Now, of course, we are despised for being pioneers, founders, and builders.
It's hard to imagine a more radical inversion of the way people think about their country.
And as our numbers dwindle, I believe we'll be even more despised.
Now, of course, those of us in this room are impervious to this nonsense.
We can laugh at some of its absurd excesses.
But most humans can't go against the current.
They're conformist.
And in America today, the current is against us.
We deserve to live in a society That does not insult us.
Many of our people end up believing they deserve to be insulted.
Children especially cannot analyze what they're told, especially if it's repeated over and over and over.
And our children deserve to grow up in a country that does not teach them their ancestors were criminals.
And this is my hope, that my grandchildren will be reared in a society, and on this continent, and not somewhere in Eastern Europe.
That honors them and their people.
Every child, I believe, of every race deserves that.
So Trump or no Trump, that old America is not coming back.
And for that reason, if we are to have the society that we want, we have to, at some level, and in certain respects, give up on America.
And this is terribly hard for white people.
We still have the same flag.
We have the same Constitution.
The same government institutions as the time when this was our home.
And to give up on a homeland is a grievous and terrible, sorrowful thing.
Now, I'm about as American as it's possible to be.
The first tailor came to the colonies in 1635.
They fought in every war, including the Revolution and the War of Southern Independence.
This country is drenched in their blood.
It's stuffed with our bones.
And it was our country for so long, it took me a long time.
I fought against the idea that this is no longer our home.
And for white Americans, even of quite recent origin, the ties are strong.
White people are the most patriotic group in this country by far.
They stand and they put their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance, for the Star Spangled Banner.
In the armed forces, it's the whites who volunteer for the combat arms.
They're not so likely to go into the army to learn how to be truck mechanics.
They're the ones who volunteer for the special forces.
And it's whites who are most willing to sacrifice their lives and go on dangerous missions, even as their government...
Pours anti-white propaganda into the military and replaces them through immigration with people unlike themselves.
And traditionally, it's southerners who are most likely to risk their lives for the Yankee flag.
It is heartbreaking for whites to believe that our rulers have made so many terrible mistakes that there's no going back.
And this is a great obstacle.
They don't want to believe that so many people in positions of authority and power, their own government, got things so badly wrong.
They don't want to believe that, whether deliberately or not, their rulers have betrayed them as a people.
Now, it's true.
There is tremendous disaffection in this country.
And Donald Trump...
It attracted a fanatical following because so many people, especially white people, know that in their bones that something is very badly wrong.
And Donald Trump's supporters believed him when he said he would make America great again.
But to do that, he'd have to make America white again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Donald Trump, I believe, has no intention of making America white again, nor could he do so.
So, what will his white supporters think when, as I believe, he inevitably fails to bring any kind of radical transformation?
Will they begin to think in terms of race?
I think many of them will.
Now, the disaffection that Donald Trump Harnessed so effectively.
He's been building for a long, long time.
And our divisions become increasingly sharp, increasingly obvious.
If you compare the United States to the country of just the last few decades, even in my lifetime.
In the 1950s, the Democrats and the Republicans were so similar, it was hard to tell them apart.
In the election of 1952, both parties wanted the same presidential candidate.
Dwight Eisenhower ended up running as a Republican, but the Democrats were very sorry to lose him.
Can you imagine today a United States so united that both parties wanted the same candidate?
It almost sounds like life on a different planet.
Equally, Otherworldly is the fact that in the 1950s, close to 80% of Americans were willing to tell a pollster that they trusted the federal government to do the right thing just about always or most of the time.
80% thought that.
Now that figure is perhaps around 20%.
Just those two numbers alone, the fall from 80% to 20%, can be read almost as a death knell of the United States.
I would be astonished if there's a single person in this room who thinks that the feds get it right just about always or most of the time.
Try to imagine a government that inspired in you that kind of confidence.
It would be so different from the one we have.
You might think we were on a different planet.
And can Donald Trump give you a government, a federal government, that gets it right just about always or most of the time?
We can't go back.
To the 1950s.
However, I think more and more individual Americans get it right.
And if a majority of voters defied elite opinion on Donald Trump, it says they are moving towards a point where they can defy elite opinion on the question of race.
Once you decide that the head table is absolutely Completely wrong on one thing, it becomes much easier to believe it's wrong on a lot of things.
Now, Donald Trump is sitting at the head table.
And what will happen when his supporters begin to think that he too has failed?
Once distrust and disaffection reach a certain point, people begin to take seriously.
Ideas and proposals that they would otherwise have thought were unthinkable.
Now, on the subject of distrust and disaffection, I'm old enough to despise a government that keeps going into debt.
A lot of people think this whole question is boring, but indulge.
The federal government debt now is $36 trillion.
Now, that is a meaningless fee.
But it works out to...
About $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Only 46% of the population even pays federal taxes.
So the debt's about $217,000 per taxpayer.
That's $50,000 more than the median household income.
It's 130% of GDP, so it means everything the country produces in a year and about three months.
And just paying the interest on the debt is a trillion dollars every year.
That's a trillion dollars that doesn't do anything but pay interest.
And it's not just the feds.
If you are a taxpayer in Chicago, you are carrying $42,000 in city debt as well.
In addition to that, you are carrying $43,000 in Illinois state debt.
That's all on top of the $217,000 of federal debt.
Obviously, we should pay the debt down, if only to avoid having to come up with a trillion dollars in interest and to be safe from foreign pressure.
What if the Chinese stopped buying our 90-day T-bills?
Government checks would bounce, and things would very quickly fall apart.
Thomas Jefferson, he said, I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest danger to be feared.
He also hoped for a wise and frugal government.
Wise and frugal.
What quaint words to associate with our federal government.
Wise and frugal.
And did the campaign, during the campaign, did anyone talk about the debt?
No. Politicians seem to think nothing.
Of sticking our children and grandchildren with a bill for what we spend today.
Normal people think it would be unforgivable for them to buy fancy things for themselves with the expectation that their grandchildren were going to pay for them.
I guess I'm too stupid to understand why what would be considered abominable for us is perfectly fine when our rulers do it.
And maybe that's the way democracy works.
You stay in office by borrowing money and bribing voters.
But, ultimately, this kind of contempt for citizens alone, I think, would be a sufficient reason for you to turn your back on this government.
Many of you in this room will recognize this quotation.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.
The discussion of future grave...
But with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.
Recognize those lines?
They are the first two sentences of Enoch Powell's so-called Rivers of Blood speech.
He could have been talking about colossal national debt, but the avoidable evil he had in mind was filling Britain up with non-whites.
In 1968, when he gave that talk, the evil was avoidable.
But Britain's rulers utterly failed.
And look at Britain now.
Look at the United States.
In the 1950s, the country was overwhelmingly white.
Everyone assumed it would stay that way.
And the idea that a stiff dose of Guatemalans...
Haitians and Somalis and Bhutanese and Mauritanians, that that was going to be good for us.
That would have been a preposterous idea.
I don't understand how today anyone can say diversity is our strength without giggling.
But they say it all the time.
So, if the United States cannot again be our home, what should be our attitude towards it?
There are some among us who want it to just collapse.
And the people rooting for the collapse think it will concentrate the minds of whites so that from the records will arise a renewed consciousness of the importance of race.
I think that's completely wrong.
The kind of collapse acceleration is welcome would just be a catastrophe.
Food delivers at grocery stores.
Stop. No electricity.
Terrible. And there's no guarantee that some sort of ethnic state would rise out of the wreckage.
It's true that if people are worried about where their next meal is coming from, they're not concerned about DEI or trans rights.
But would they suddenly realize that they're white people and they need to be shoulder to shoulder with other white people?
I don't see this necessarily follows.
And there is a difference between giving up on America as it is.
And wanting it to die.
And this brings us to a milder form of accelerationism.
Some in this room, I know, wanted Mrs. Emhoff to win.
Because they thought with more anti-white animus, more primitive neighbors, more unlivable cities, this would wake up white people, short of total collapse.
I don't buy it.
Under Harris, we have gotten millions and millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, millions and millions of illegal immigrants already here, not deported, more censorship, more debanking, more lawfare, and eight years of Harris,
I suspect, would have given us a Supreme Court that made a remarkable discovery.
The First Amendment does not protect hate speech.
Chief Justice Gloria Allred.
Would write the opinion.
And we'd all become criminals.
No, President Harris would have been a horror.
And I'm delighted that she is not our president.
With Trump in office, of course, I believe we're much less likely to be muscled.
For what, therefore, should we work?
And for what should we hope?
To what ends should we work?
And I believe the ends that we choose should reflect the realities we face.
And to me, the obvious goal is racial separation.
Even if two of the things I mentioned earlier came to pass, a widespread understanding of the importance of race differences and a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this still can't be our home.
We must not become a minority.
And to avoid becoming a minority, there must be separation.
That may sound radical, but separation is an American solution that's older than the country itself.
What were the pilgrims looking for when they escaped to Massachusetts in 1620?
Separation. The Maryland Palatinate was founded in 1632 so that Catholics could live apart from Protestants.
The Revolution was separation from the mother country.
The Confederacy.
Was separation.
And for centuries, going west was an individual, personal form of separation.
And we have had countless separationist religions, religious and other utopias, Shakers, Mormons, the Oneda communities, the Fourier communities.
And look at the endless doctrinal splits among American Protestants.
It's a fundamental American Principle.
Some differences are simply irreconcilable, even for people who are supposed to love their enemies as themselves.
Marriages end because of irreconcilable differences.
And therefore, logically, historically, emotionally, morally, separation, to me, is the clear, the almost obvious answer to the American race problem.
And yet...
Mixing the races is one of the major goals of the United States government.
Will a Trump administration change that?
Would it countenance people going their own way?
Today, only a few people talk openly about racial disengagement, even though almost all whites practice it privately.
Even liberals, they arrange their lives to avoid blacks as much as possible.
And to spend as much time around whites as possible.
And there is even a fair amount of talk of secession at the state level.
In a poll earlier this year, 23% of Americans said they favored secession for their own state.
23%. 27% weren't sure.
And only half.
We're actively opposed.
For Republicans, at least at that time, only a minority were opposed to secession for their state.
Only 46% were opposed.
29% wanted out, and 25% weren't sure.
Democrats, at least then, were less secessionist.
60% opposed, but still, 21% wanted out, and 19% weren't sure.
Now guess which state Has the most people calling for secession.
And it's not Texas.
Anybody know?
Not California.
The first is Alaska.
Alaska. 36%.
Followed by 31%.
And California, you almost got it right, 29%.
Now, these figures approach the estimated figures for those during the revolution who wanted out.
That was maybe 33% to 40%.
Activist minorities always lead the way.
Now, the least secessionist states are Connecticut, 9%, Minnesota, 13%, Rhode Island, 14%, all Democrat.
It would be interesting to see if blue states now want to leave because of our new president.
And there are measures short of outright secession.
There may come a time...
When states simply decide to ignore the federal government.
And it's possible that this kind of defiance could come from the left.
I'm sure you know there are Democrat governors who are saying they will not let their precious illegals be deported.
And it would be glorious to let the left for a change, be pioneers in states'rights.
Now. Now,
I like secession.
My ancestors fought for it twice.
But there are hard questions.
How do you divvy up that colossal debt?
Who gets a navy?
And what happens if a landlocked state wants to secede and its neighbors are opposed to it?
But I support all secession movements.
It's the ultimate expression of people going their own way, and successful separation for any reason would pave the way for separation.
Because of race.
At the same time, it's perhaps a mistake to use the word secession.
We need to rethink that concept because the word to Americans evokes the Civil War.
Huge armies battling in the field, endless butchery, horror of all kinds.
That won't happen.
And I believe that today, if a state voted democratically to secede, I do not think that the federal government...
Would by force of arms prevent it from leaving.
And there can be degrees of secession.
It needn't lead to sovereignty and a seat at the UN.
It could just be a form of local autonomy.
A state might revive the theory of interposition and refuse to enforce certain federal laws.
We now have a patchwork of laws on abortion.
And many people...
Find this disconcerting and strange.
I think it's precisely what the founders had in mind.
There was a time when same-sex marriage was legal in some places, illegal in others.
Why does it have to be the same everywhere?
Why does every state have to have the same voting age?
Now, is it truly inconceivable that a state could remain within a union but And
I've always thought that if the left were the least bit consistent, it would be delighted.
To let us awful people go.
Why on earth not?
If we are such a torment to minorities, send us into the wilderness.
We'll make it bloom.
And I would like to think that Trump-appointed judges would be more likely to see the justice and morality of separation, but maybe not.
Maybe not.
The key is this.
If enough people agree with us, there are ways out of this mess.
We have to be creative.
We must be reasonable, and we must be fair.
If we can't save the whole country, if we can't get it all back, and I don't see how we can, we have to be willing to share.
What we must do is convince more people that separation is moral and feasible.
Many of you know about the all-white South African community of Orania.
Yes, it's smack in the middle of a terrible wreck of an African country.
But it has enough autonomy to make the surrounding horrors almost irrelevant.
And some of the people who live in Orania are descended from people who came to South Africa even before my ancestors came to North America.
They, in effect, turned their back.
On the country that their ancestors built.
But they have done so and they have walled off the worst part of South Africa.
They're still part of it.
They can visit whenever they like, but they are safe among their own people.
Orani has a population of 3,000.
It's got a long waiting list of people who want to get in.
In the meantime, what MIMAs do and what a number of groups already are doing is build In most big cities, there are now enough wide-away white people for them to get in contact, make organizations,
help each other out, celebrate marriages, celebrate festivals, celebrate childbearing, help in the responsibilities of homeschooling.
These are wonderful places where children can grow up proud to be white and happy to be white.
These remain only kind of semi-underground networks and they are tiny minorities in the cities in which they're located.
There are also above-ground efforts underway to establish areas, starting out small, where only white people will live.
One approach is to start with a large private tract of land and build a community.
It can be set up with a legal structure that permits discrimination.
A different approach.
Would be to find a community that is already majority white.
And enough people move there, win election to city government, school board, and make it a de facto white community.
Now, these approaches require pulling up stakes and moving.
But that's the kind of commitment that we must be ready to make to build community.
And eventually, as anger and disaffection build, As the morality of separation becomes more widely accepted, communities like these could be the beginning of efforts to achieve larger forms of separation and local autonomy.
Now, at these conferences, I sometimes get so wound up talking about what we owe our ancestors and comparing our struggle to Thermopylae and Blood River that I lose my composure and get weepy.
I'm not going to do that this year, I hope.
Does love to fight.
And if fighting were necessary, I'm sure that there are many in this room who would march laughing to their graves if they thought that would bring about the nation that we want and deserve.
Fighting would be the worst possible thing now.
I believe we could have what we want without fighting.
And in a way, fighting is easy.
Working is hard.
But we must work with the same spirit that would send us singing.
To our graves.
And I am more optimistic than ever.
Donald Trump will certainly not save us.
But I believe that his election could break the intellectual logjam on race that has kept us chained to suicidal ideas for 70 years.
As I said at the first conference 30 years ago, we have the right to be us, and only we can be us.
Our destiny must be in our hands.
We must be masters in our house.
We must be the people who teach our children.
We must be the judges and juries in our courtrooms.
We must be our own legislators and executives.
And our institutions must foster the unique spirit and genius of Europe.
And this would be something that was not contrived, but should spring naturally from the love of all that is beautiful.
in our heritage and the desire to make more beautiful things.
And for this, we must have a house that is ours and ours alone.
I believe that even now we are seeing the results of many hard years the work of so many of you in this room today.
For decades we've been planting seeds.
Let us continue to plant.
And let us lovingly tend the young shoots that have begun to sprout.
And if we are worthy heirs to our noble forebears, the harvest will be bountiful.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I believe we have a little time for questions.
Well, my leader, we are very grateful.
We would not be here without you, but there is room for commentary.
Of course.
I would like to say that these secessionist movements, as you mentioned, Are all geographic secessionist movements.
And they are actually, I think, a terrible peril and danger to us because we don't seek geographic separation.
We seek racial separation.
I think they fall under the category of what Sam Francis of blessed memory called an infantile delusion.
And I would characterize them as political masturbation.
So I would urge you To view state secessionism and geographic secessionism with more caution than to reevaluate it, because I think it's a false alternative to what we have.
So anyway, that's really not a question, so I'll end it.
I'm turning it into a question.
What are your feelings about these thoughts, about geographic secession?
Well, I hate to disagree with my elders and betters, but as I said, I think Any form of secession is a good example, a hopeful example.
And let's not forget, many of these places that are wanting to secede are very conservative, and I believe in often cases they represent a kind of implicit racial separation.
The Greater Idaho Movement, for example, the idea is to expand Idaho and subtract from the neighboring state of, I guess that's Washington.
What you would end up with is an overwhelmingly white area.
And the people who are organizing this, I understand, it's my impression, they are very vividly conscious of this.
So, racial separation, I'm sorry, geographic separation is not only a good precedent, it can be a kind of camouflage for racial separation.
Yes, sir.
Good morning.
This is my first AMREN conference, and other than breakfast, it is not disappointing me.
My question, I know you went to Yale, and I know you speak Japanese.
I don't know if psychic is one of your attributes, but I would ask you to look in your crystal ball.
For the next four years, I was excited, as my family was, on the outcome of the election.
All this talk about remigration and deportation, will it really have an impact, in your opinion, and would it affect our people at all?
Oh, I think remigration, if it is achieved, would be a profoundly significant thing.
My worry about remigration is whether it will happen.
As I've written elsewhere, once it begins, the media is going to have a huge campaign on the television news every night, weeping mothers, weeping children.
All saying, oh my gosh, my roots are in America.
I'm going back to Guatemala.
I've never lived there.
No, that is going to rend the hearts of many people.
And I suspect you'll have ICE agents coming on the news and saying, I get nightmares about shoving these people onto the trucks.
I can't stand it.
The TV news will have pictures of boxcars to Auschwitz, and they will pound the comparison.
Is Donald Trump going to be able to handle that?
Donald Trump likes to be liked.
I'm not sure whether he's got the backbone for that.
I think this man, Homan, what is his first name?
Tom Homan.
Tom Homan, who's going to be in charge of it.
I think he does.
But is he going to have the support of the administration?
This is a very tough thing to do.
I'm worried that it will not happen.
You'll have businessmen saying, I went bankrupt because all of my Guatemalan sheetrock hangers went.
South of the border.
There are going to be things like this.
This has to be done not merely out of a conviction that we are a nation of laws, but out of a conviction that the presence of people like these is bad for America.
Will the Trump administration go that far?
I'm doubting.
Yes, sir.
You mentioned the idea of setting up Areas where there's legal discrimination, are there any models for this?
I mean, I can think of a private club or something like that, but geographic areas with legal discrimination.
There are models.
And I don't know whether at this point it is wise to talk about them publicly, but there are models.
And I think there will be more all the time.
This to me is a very encouraging development.
And at another level, we could do what my friend Rabbi Schiller and his people have done.
Simply take over an existing town.
In Monsey, New York, New Square, if you call a plumber, he's going to be Orthodox.
Everyone is Orthodox.
All the people that your children spend time with, Orthodox.
They have built a community.
It's almost like the Amish.
They have built a community to preserve the spirit of their people.
There is no reason we could not do that.
It's just a matter of commitment.
And unlike my naysayer friend Sam Dixon, I don't think that there's anything the federal government could do about that.
We are allowed to buy houses and sell them privately.
We could all live together.
And I think these legal structures that are going to permit discrimination will, I hope...
Make them bulletproof.
And all of this will be more easily done, less likely to attract the ire of the authorities if it's done under a Trump administration.
Is it possible that our talk of secession is just another form of retreat?
And that at a certain point, if people keep coming in and transgressing borders, we're going to have to physically defend it?
It seems to me we keep avoiding that point.
We're now, what, 60% of the population?
I don't think that there is any practical way to send people out of the country who are U.S. citizens.
That would be a very, very tough thing to do.
I think, realistically, we have to reconcile ourselves with the facts that my generation and the previous generation betrayed us.
Deliberately or not, they betrayed us.
And we have to accept that as something that was done to us, by and large, by our own people.
And we have to take the consequences.
Furthermore, if we're talking about shooting people, that will do nothing but turn people against us.
People who otherwise might be attracted to some kind of fair-minded, reasonable solution, they're going to say, these people are cuckoo, these people are going to be arrested, I want nothing to do with them.
Both as a practical and as a fundamentally moral position.
I know, as I said before, the male mammal loves to fight.
But we have to curb that instinct.
White people, when their anger is up, are tremendous, vicious fighters.
But we have to control that.
Just real quick, first time, delighted to be here.
You mentioned maybe giving Twitter a go again or X. Would that go?
I've noticed as a YouTube watcher that Organizations that were scratched are back in some capacity.
Have you all considered anything like that?
Well, I have probably gone through the Twitter NowX appeal procedure 30 or 40 times.
And I will send a message and I'll say, you had absolutely no good reason to ban me.
Please reinstate me.
And they'll say, we'll take it under advisement.
I even went so far as to write a personal letter.
By snail mail, U.S. mail, to Elon Musk in his office in Silicon Valley, asking him, very polite, would he consider reinstating me?
I got no answer.
I don't know what the hang-up is.
There are people, I think, who are far wilder than I am, who are back.
And then, on the other hand, there are people whose accounts were blasted under the new regime.
Who had survived all the way up until the new dispensation.
So I believe there's a lot of bureaucracy involved, even though he has shaved away so much of the bureaucracy, I can't explain what the situation is.
I think Elon Musk is a busy man.
I think if my case were called to his attention, I think if he looked at what I do and say, I think he'd say, of course, put this man back on.
▲
Export Selection