All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2025 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
58:22
Jared Taylor Speaks at Colorado Mesa University
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, thank you all for coming, despite all the pressure you've been under not to come.
And I must say I've watched with some amusement the reaction on this campus to the prospect of my being here.
It's been quite a spectacle.
On March 7th, it was CMU President John Marshall who got the ball rolling with an email message to the entire campus in which he warned that a person with abhorrent and vile views Was going to speak.
But he said, free speech is sacred.
He said, our task is to empower you to pursue truth.
And he urged students to come to my talk because it was going to be the opportunity of your life to carefully deconstruct dehumanizing ideas.
That was silly of him to call my views abhorrent and vile without even hearing it.
But the bottom line was very good.
The idea was students were to come, listen, grapple with unfamiliar ideas, and, if they're wrong, to think about how to defeat them.
Well, I invited President Marshall to lead that exercise himself.
I sent him an email message and asked him to come take the podium after I was finished and explain why I am wrong.
He didn't even reply.
But I got a message from the student body president saying that President Marshall can't come.
He has accepted an invitation to an event that's being put on at precisely the same time as this talk.
And so he couldn't be here tonight.
What? First of all, he says, listening to me is the chance of a lifetime to expand your mind.
And now he's going to be the star of a counter-narrative put on to make sure that if you listen to him, you cannot listen to me.
It's put on to draw students away and make sure they never hear what I have to say.
And this was particularly strange because only a week after he wrote that initial letter, he told the Denver NBC affiliate that my ideas are easy to defeat with just a little bit of discussion.
If that's the case, he should leap at the opportunity to be here and defeat my miserable weakling ideas.
The campus is saying, I'm a fascist, I'm a neo-Nazi, I'm a white supremacist, I'm a spewer of hate.
Wouldn't it be a great feather in his cap to be right here and crush me beneath the wheels of his chariot as student and faculty cheer?
Why isn't he here?
I understand that there are people on campus who are asking the same question, that it's his job to come and refute me, but he has turned tail.
Even more people, however, A lot more people think that he should have simply banned me from the campus.
Megan Rivel, who teaches English here at CMU, she says, I jeopardize the safety of racially vulnerable students.
How on earth do I do that?
Are white people going to listen to my talk and then go out and get up lynch mobs?
What is this foolishness?
But she's not the only one who's worried.
On March 12th, your student body president sent out another campus-wide message, and he said, my presence makes many of us, if not all of us, feel unsafe, unheard, and unwelcome.
Now it's not just unsafe, it's unheard.
Did I strike her dumb?
And a student named Derek Hammett has started a change.org petition to pressure President Marshall to make sure I don't step foot here.
He says, many of our students.
Feel unsafe.
There's this unsafe business again.
I guess I'm a pretty terrifying guy.
The petition says, we believe in acceptance, acceptance and diversity.
Well, clearly not an acceptance of diverse ideas.
With no sense of irony, his petition goes on to say, we want the campus to be a space where everyone feels secure and accepted.
Well, not me, clearly.
And here's some comments from the people who signed the petition.
Natalie, she says, allowing this person to speak harms everyone.
Rick says, this university's reputation has been permanently sullied.
President John Marshall should be removed from his position immediately for letting me speak to you.
Spencer says, utterly disgusted by my university's decision to allow a white supremacist to spew his racist bile.
Another says, I'll be spreading fascist lies.
So you've been warned.
Be on the lookout for fascist lies, racist bile, which apparently I am about to spew.
Now, I've spoken at many universities.
Never have I struck such terror in the hearts of students.
Never has anyone been so determined to close his ears of what I had to say.
And frankly, This is pathetic.
Higher education is supposed to be about opening minds.
And the very idea of putting on a counter-narrative at the very time I'm speaking, in an event meant to draw people away, what is its purpose?
Its purpose is to keep students ignorant.
It's the very opposite of an education.
Even knows what I'm going to say.
But apparently the very thought of my being here strikes terror.
And you know what that says to me?
It says to me that this campus has no confidence at all in the ideas and the values it claims to support.
Those values must be awfully fragile if I single-handedly can bring them tumbling down.
Would a place that was confident be in a state of terror simply because I'm here?
Now, of course, let's be realistic.
No one is quaking in terror.
This is made of foolishness.
It's an excuse to feel righteous indignation.
It's a way of saying, oh, this moral scum, Jared Taylor, I'm so, so, so much better than he is.
Because, you see, Intense feelings of righteous indignation stimulate the basal ganglia of the brain.
That's the same part of the brain that narcotic drugs stimulate.
And you can become addicted to the feeling of righteous indignation.
Whenever you glory in thinking that you are someone's moral superior, you're a basal ganglia and getting together with the rest of your brain and pumping out dopamine just like a junkie.
With a needle in his arm.
Well, I appear to have been the best fix this campus of addicts ever had.
And just yesterday, I was briefly on campus.
Somebody drove by on a bicycle.
And he said, fuck you.
You're a piece of shit.
Now, I'm sure.
He got a wonderful dose of moral superiority.
A wonderful hit of dopamine.
I'm sure he felt just wonderful about himself.
Well, back to Colorado Mesa University.
Your president says over and over, this is a human-scale university.
Now, I don't know what other kind there is.
Is there an elephant-scale university someplace?
What's more important, he says, this is a model of the world we want to create.
So this is the ideal society being constructed right here in Grand Junction.
If that's the case, why at CMU is there a black student alliance?
It's an alliance.
It's apparently prepared to defend against attack, a black student alliance, a Polynesian alliance, a Latino student alliance, and then there's an Asian student association, a native student association.
Well, maybe out in the big bad world off campus.
Where wicked people like me are allowed to prowl around loose.
Maybe out there they need a place where they can be in alliance and prepared to defend themselves.
Why on this campus, which is supposed to be an ideal community in the making?
Is it perhaps official recognition of the fact that part of our nature is to be tribal and that people like being around people like themselves, people of the same Now, of course, a white student alliance would be unthinkable.
I would think that there should be only humans on this human-scale campus, not alliances about organized on the basis of race.
Something else about this university, your president, John Marshall, he has aspirations for this to be a Hispanic-serving institution.
Well, now, what is that?
A Hispanic-serving institution is one in which at least 25% of the students are Hispanic and meet certain other qualifiers.
Why would one do that?
Why would one do that?
Because it opens the door to millions of dollars of federal grants.
The Marshall Empire would expand by millions of dollars.
Is this the ideal community that President Marshall is trying to build?
You get extra money simply because there are Hispanics here?
Does that make sense?
It doesn't sound human-scale to me.
It sounds like racial preferences and the opposite of equality.
And how do you get these Hispanics?
You make it harder for whites or blacks or Asians to apply?
Why not be a human-serving university?
It all sounds pretty fishy to me.
But enough about CMU.
I'm supposed to be spewing fascist lies after all, so I better get to work.
But first, I will ask a fascist question.
Was Thomas Jefferson a fascist?
Was Abraham Lincoln a fascist?
They had very clear things to say about race.
We know very well what they thought about race.
And if you take the trouble to look into what they wrote and what they said, you'll find there's very little difference between what they said and what I said.
Look up what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about American Indians and blacks.
Far harsher things than anything I would say.
If I quoted him, it would curl your hair.
Or was he a fascist?
Despite the fact that he died before the first fascist party was ever founded.
Nine of the first 11 presidents of the United States owned slaves.
I guess they were all fascists, too.
My point is very simple.
To dissent from racial orthodoxy in the United States is by no means to be a fascist, for heaven's sake.
It really is a silly thing to call someone.
The same for white supremacy.
White supremacy is a historical term that did have a historical reality.
Back in the days, when European countries were colonizing non-white countries, it was done Among other reasons, in the belief that white people should rule over people of other races.
That's what white supremacy is all about.
I don't know if there's a single white supremacist in the world today.
I certainly don't know one.
I certainly don't want to rule over people of other races.
This is a meaningless term when used in contemporary America.
And it is, of course, the fiercest insult of the moral integrity of a white person.
It is a slightly more sophisticated way of saying, as your schoolmate said yesterday, you are a piece of shit when you call someone a white supremacist.
Now, my conception of the United States is one that practically everyone took for granted until the middle of the 20th century, right from colonial times up until the 1950s.
So any objections you have...
To my views, you should logically have for virtually every American who lived until about 1960.
What was the conception of America of the founding fathers?
Well, in 1788, the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
We have a brand new constitution, a brand new country, and the very next year, 1789, the first Congress of the United States met.
It had a lot of important things to decide.
It set up the Department of State.
It set up the Treasury, the Post Office, the Department of War.
It had to decide where the national capital was going to be.
And one other very important thing it had to decide.
Who is going to be a citizen of this brand new country?
Very important.
And let us note that without objection, without any recorded objection, it was decided in the first naturalization law of the United States in 1790 that citizenship was going to be available only to free white persons of good character.
And for the next 175 years, the United States had an immigration policy explicitly designed to keep the country majority white and European.
It changed by the Immigration Act of 1965, which, I assure you, was a con job.
It was promoted by the people who were pushing it as merely a kind of superficial gesture.
People who were pushing it promised this will not change the racial makeup of the country.
Now, I can assure you, if the congressmen and the senators who voted for it back in 1965, if someone had told them If you vote for this law, which will open the United States to immigration from all around the world, you white people, who are now a 90% majority,
you'll become a minority in just 70 years.
If you had told them that, if they had thought that, they wouldn't just say no to that law.
They would have said, hell no.
There was never any talk about diversity.
Americans were never asked, do you want to set in motion forces that are going to reduce white people to a minority?
No. Never.
Never in the history of the United States did anyone parrot this silly idea, diversity is our strength.
That didn't show up until the end of the 20th century, more than 200 years after the founding.
For 200 years, nobody thought diversity was a strength.
We had tremendous growth.
By 1871, the United States had the largest GDP in the world.
The First World War made it clear that we were a world power.
By 1945, we were a superpower.
In the 1950s, that was our period of greatest political, military, and cultural dominance.
And throughout this period, no one even dreamed that diversity Might be a strength.
But now, we all know that not only is diversity a strength, it's our greatest strength.
And when people talk about diversity, what are they talking about?
Let us imagine a university in which there are students from every European country, every white group in the entire world.
They'll be Estonians, they'll be Poles, they'll be Italians, they'll be Spaniards.
There might be people from, white people from South Africa, white people from New Zealand, Australia.
I think that would be a pretty interesting and diverse place.
But it would not be diverse by the standards of America, because when we talk about diversity, we almost always talk about race.
Such a university, which I think would be quite an interesting place to be, full of all sorts of interesting ideas, would not enjoy the strengths of diversity.
We're supposed to think, apparently, that up until the 1950s, the United States was really some sort of dung heap, and white people were about to choke to death on their own homogeneity, until, lo and behold, all of these people from all around the world, they brought diversity,
and suddenly, we had our greatest strength.
We had never had it before.
We had never had this strength before.
How did we ever get along without Guatemalans and Haitians?
How did we get along without Somalis?
Indonesians and Chinese.
My gosh!
Now, let me point out to you, this idea that diversity is a strength is an idea reserved only to white countries.
Only to white countries.
Imagine going to China, and you poke around, you look around, and you say to the Chinese, you know, not a bad country here.
But you know the worst thing?
The worst thing wrong with this country?
You would have many Chinese.
You need diversity.
Ginger the place up.
Millions, couple of million Pakistanis.
Saudi Arabians would be good.
Sub-Saharan African.
You know, get Indians from Bolivia.
That'll ginger the place up.
Then you'll have a real country.
Then you'll enjoy the strength of diversity.
They would call for the men in the white coats.
They'd put you in a rubber room.
And it is the same for any non-white country.
Japan's allowed to remain Japanese.
The Turks, the Indonesians, no one would dare say to them, look, you need a whole lot more of everybody else.
No one would dare say that.
Now there's an interesting exception to this rule.
Israel. Israel is a state that is explicitly Jewish.
It's part of its basic law to be explicitly Jewish.
In 1995, Not long before Yitzhak Sharmir was assassinated.
He was looking back over his achievements as Prime Minister of Israel, and he said there were many things, but the thing that he cared about most was that he had ensured that Israel remained at least 80% Jewish.
Now, why was that important for him?
It was important because he understood that for Israel to be a Jewish state, It had to have a certain number of Jews, and if Jews dropped below a certain threshold, its character would change.
The same is true of any nation.
But can you imagine an American president going before a joint session of Congress and saying, you know, the thing I'm proudest of, I kept the United States 80% white.
Oh, that would be no good.
But what's...
The difference.
I'd like to know what's the difference.
Now Bibi Netanyahu can come to the United States, address Congress, and people get up on their hind legs and they hoop and they holler and they cheer when he says, I'm defending the Jewish state.
But we better not defend a European state.
And I have a serious question.
How is diversity a strength in practical terms?
Racial diversity.
What's the strength?
I mean, does it improve crop yields?
Is it going to slow global warming?
Does it prevent tooth decay?
I mean, really, what is it that it does?
The way we talk about diversity, if we took it seriously, we would do something like this.
We would take the right number of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and if we really wanted super diversity, We'd throw in some Buddhists, nudists, fruit juice drinkers, and one-legged African lesbians, this super,
super diverse group, put them in a room, and pretty soon they would cure cancer.
They'd find the secret to world peace.
Isn't that so?
If it's the greatest strength?
No. Nobody believes that.
And, in fact, diversity, racial diversity, as well as linguistic diversity, religious diversity, all of these sources, these are sources.
Every race riot the United States has ever had is the fruit of diversity.
In a multiracial country, everything becomes a problem.
Is there enough diversity in the Oscars?
Enough black people?
Enough Hispanics?
Enough Asians getting Oscars?
Do we have enough Hispanic television anchors?
Are there enough black students in the Ivy League?
If there is a racially charged trial, and racially charged trials are also the fruit of diversity, are we going to have a racially appropriate jury?
All of this is the kind of conflict dissension that is caused by racial diversity.
And when there's a national election, we have to say, okay, what are you going to do to get the Asian vote, the black vote, the white vote?
That is a recognition that those groups have different interests.
What Asians want might not be the same as what Hispanics want, or whites, or blacks.
Is this a source of strength?
No. It's a source of dissension, conflict, people pulling in different directions all the time.
In Congress, we have the Black Congressional Caucus.
What's its purpose?
Its purpose is to examine all potential legislation.
And ask themselves, what's in it for us?
What's in it for black people?
We have a Hispanic caucus.
We have an Asian caucus.
They do exactly the same thing.
Is that a strength?
That you have these different pressure groups looking at legislation, not in terms of what's good for the country, but what's good for us.
In the country at large, we have an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Every year, it hears 25,000 racial discrimination cases.
The federal courts hear at least 3,000 racial discrimination cases every year.
And think of all the unpleasantness.
Think of all the racial conflict and the racial torment that never even makes it that far.
Every state government, county government, university, corporations, all of these big ones, they all have mechanisms in place.
To handle what is supposed to be our greatest strength, but what is, in fact, a source of dissension and division, namely the problems of different races not getting along.
The same with all branches of the military.
Now, I'm sure you've heard that the American military is really a kind of racial haven.
Everybody is a soldier, and we don't have racial problems in the military.
Well, in 2017, there was a survey of active-duty soldiers.
Military. And the question was, in the last 12 months, have you been a victim of racial discrimination or racial harassment?
And 31% of blacks said yes, they'd been victims.
21% of Hispanics, 23% of Asians, and 9% of whites.
Just in the last 12 months.
Well, the Department of Defense hid the results of this survey.
They were embarrassed by this.
Because they think that they have succeeded in creating this racial never-never land.
But we don't have conflict.
Now, it took a freedom of information request from Reuters to find out that, well, maybe diversity was not the greatest strength for the armed forces.
What do ordinary Americans think about this diversity?
Back in 1963, there was a Gallup poll.
They asked the following question.
Do you think that relations between black and white people will always be a problem for the United States or will a solution eventually be worked out?
Will it be always a problem or can it be solved?
At that time, 1963, blacks were pretty optimistic.
22%, only 22% said it'll always be a problem.
Whites were a little bit more pessimistic.
They said 55% that it was always going to be a problem.
Well, the most recent time Gallup asked that same question, is race relations always going to be a problem or is there going to be a solution, was in 2016.
And on that occasion, we got a different answer.
This is 53 years later.
The same question, 70% of blacks said, It's always going to be a problem.
Blacks went from 22% to 70%.
Whites went from 55% to 58%.
I cannot find a more recent poll on this.
My suspicion is the pollsters are afraid of what Americans are going to tell them.
Now, mostly I've talked about blacks, but it's not as though Hispanics fit seamlessly and beautifully into this rainbow coalition.
You don't hear about Riots in prisons.
The same reason you don't hear about racial problems in the military.
People are embarrassed about this.
They want to keep it under wraps.
But in 2024, in September, in High Desert State Prison, California, there was a riot between Blacks and Hispanics.
200 men were injured.
12 were hospitalized with stab wounds because of a race riot in a prison.
July 2024.
An Idaho State Correctional Center riot was so bad they had to completely shut down one of the housing units and disperse people to other units.
In 2018, in South Carolina's Lee Correctional Institution, there was a riot that left seven people dead.
22 people hospitalized.
I don't know how many others wounded because this time it was a three-way gang fight.
White gangs, black gangs, Hispanic gangs.
You've never heard about this.
It was barely in the news.
Now, something else I'm sure you've never heard.
Prisoners are invariably asking that they be segregated by race because that's the only way they can be safe.
And time again, white federal judges say no.
White federal judges are allowed to feel good about themselves.
We are being modern.
We believe in integration.
And who pays the price?
It's these poor prisoners who wish to be among people like themselves and find themselves in circumstances which sometimes they fight to the death.
Now, I'm not talking only about prisoners.
Let's talk about ordinary people.
Churches. Churches are one of the few institutions that the U.S. government has not tried to integrate.
You are free to go to any church you like.
And the last poll I could find from 2001, according to it, 87% of Christian churches are either overwhelmingly black or overwhelmingly white.
That's because people are entirely free to go where they want to go.
In addition, there are an estimated 10,000 Asian churches, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, because when they worship God, They wish to be among people like themselves.
I can assure you there is tremendous hypocrisy about this business of diversity.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were big promoters of diversity.
Bill Clinton, President Clinton, he was one of the first people to really beat the drum.
Diversity is our greatest strength.
Well, where did they decide to live, the Clintons, after they left the White House?
A place called Chappaqua.
New York.
It's one of the whitest places this side of Iceland.
It's got a black population of about 1%.
There is, again, tremendous hypocrisy about this.
If you want to have a little fun, find your most committed liberal and ask that person, can you name a single majority non-white neighborhood you'd like to live in?
Can you name a single majority non-white school you'd like your children to attend?
You'll find they'll be confused.
When people are left to their own devices, it's like going to church.
When people have backyard barbecues or dinner parties, they don't flood their lives with this rainbow diversity that's supposed to be our greatest strength.
Now, I'm going to switch gears a little bit.
I'm sure all of you have been told that racism is, if not an exclusively white evil, it is overwhelmingly A white evil.
I'm going to read to you some comments from prominent black people who have said some things the like of which I have never said and this did not hinder them professionally one bit.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is one of the most famous recent black authors in the country.
He wrote a book called Between the World and Me.
It was praised to the skies.
His book was number seven on the Guardian's list of the 100 best books of the 21st century.
100 best books of the 21st century, number seven.
Of course, he was a MacArthur genius.
This is just one of many similar passages from Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I would like to tell you that the day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be white renounce this demon religion of white supremacy and begin to think of themselves as human.
But I see no real promise of such a day.
We will never think of ourselves as human, apparently.
Nick Cannon, entertainer, TV host in 2020, he said during a broadcast that white people are closer to animals, and the only way they can act is evil.
That's nice.
During an online conference in 2021, Brittany Cooper, she's a professor at Rutgers University.
She still is.
The following comment didn't harm her career at all.
She explained that white people are such a terrible problem that, and I quote, we need to take these motherfuckers out.
Jamel Hill, a prominent sports journalist and writer for The Atlantic, that is top-tier journalism in the United States.
It never let me.
Write for The Atlantic, no matter how good my article was.
Jamel Hill, she writes for The Atlantic.
Just last year, she said she doesn't trust white women, and white men are the worst thing in America for decades.
Decades? Don't you mean centuries?
Come on, Jamel.
Now, Kayla A. Carter, she's the current racial equity officer for College Park.
Marilyn, she says black people should not have to explain why they are angry and why they are violent.
She says, remember, we are at war against colonialism.
That means white people.
And we're already planning for how we will eat and live and grow after we burn it all down.
I think if she had a way, there'd be no white survivors after she burns it all down.
And here's a lady named Ekemini Uwan, a public theologian.
She, by the way, was the host of the Zoom conference for Evangelicals for Harris.
During the most recent presidential campaign, we had these various Zoom conferences for people for Harris.
Well, it turns out she thinks whiteness is wicked.
It is wicked, rooted in violence and theft.
And she said that at a Christian racial reconciliation conference.
Now, I wonder what she thinks about us when she's not at a reconciliation conference.
And just one more.
Here is Professor Shaniqua Walker-Browns, professor of theology at Columbia Seminary.
In 2021, she published a prayer in a book of prayers, and it starts like this.
Dear God, help me to hate white people.
I want to stop caring about their misguided racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better.
Well, Shaniqua, I've got news for you.
We're not going to get any better.
You have to take us as we are, or not at all.
And I would suggest that she consider the second alternative seriously.
I suggest, if that's the way she feels about us, she should turn her back on white people and live as far away from us as possible.
Because, unlike Shaniqua, I believe that white people have poured more moral energy into being scrupulously fair, more than fair, to racial minorities than any group of people in the entire history of the world.
And white people are getting tired of being told that they are hateful people with misguided souls and that we are responsible for everything that goes wrong for them.
Now, that's what I think.
I think whites, as I say, have done everything humanly possible to be fair to racial minorities.
She thinks we have misguided, hopelessly racist souls.
Maybe she's right.
Maybe I'm wrong.
In either case, we have irreconcilable differences.
And in a marriage, irreconcilable differences are grounds for divorce.
You could say that for more than 400 years, There's been a kind of marriage between black people and white people and American Indians.
And then to this strange menage, we added other races, Hispanics, Asians, every nation under the sun.
For more than 400 years, we have been trying to build a society in which race can be made not to matter.
And we have clearly failed.
Last poll, 70% of blacks are convinced it's going to be a problem.
Forever. I believe we are failing because this attempt to build a nation in which race does not matter, can be made not to matter, is a misreading of human nature.
And this happens sometimes in idealistic human experiments.
Communism was a similar misreading of human nature.
The idea was to build a society in which people would live from each according to his ability.
To each according to his needs.
What an inspiring idea!
The strong would voluntarily work for the benefit of the weak.
Those with great talents would work voluntarily for the less well endowed.
And for 70 or 80 years, people pursued that will of the wisp.
And what did communism believe in its trail?
Poverty. Corruption.
Collapsed and millions of deaths.
Fortunately, we seem to have gotten over that particular misreading of human nature.
Selfishness cannot be eliminated.
You can't persuade people to work just as hard on a collective farm as they work on their own private farms.
It was a misreading.
So we must not try to build society on the idea that we can make humans into what we want.
We have to take them as they are.
We are fallen creatures.
The Founders said, if men were angels, there'd be no need for government.
We are not angels.
So there is government.
If men were angels, we wouldn't have to lock our door.
We wouldn't need police forces.
But we are not angels.
And we must take humans as they are.
I believe that this effort to build To build this completely mixed and racially mixed society is just not going to work because, as I said, we are tribal.
We have been tribal because of evolution of millions of years.
We are instinctively tribal.
That's why you have all this separation in churches and why you have these alliances even on this campus, which is supposed to be an ideal society.
No. Now, some people, some people say, well, okay, yes, race is a terrible, intractable problem.
And what's the solution?
Well, we'll just all have to marry each other.
And in this mixed-race future where there is no racial distinctions, that's the only solution.
No. No.
That plan means extinction, certainly for my people.
White people are perhaps, what, 7 or 8% of the world population, having four, maybe only 3% of the world's babies?
This mixing undertaking means white people disappear.
And of course, not just white people.
I don't want the Hopi, or the Navajo, or the Bambara, or the Fulani to disappear.
I don't want the Bhutanese to disappear.
Because I believe in diversity.
I believe in the gorgeous and marvelous human diversity that this planet has produced.
Japan is a marvelous and wonderful place.
Japanese culture is a multi-layered extravaganza of gifts to the world.
And that is because Japanese built those things.
If Japan ceased to be Japanese, Japanese culture would die.
If there were no more Japanese, maybe a few white people would still...
Do flower arranging.
Maybe a bit of tea ceremony.
But Japanese culture requires Japanese.
I believe the same for all human groups.
I want black people to be the best possible black people they can ever be.
And I don't believe that's possible if they're living in a society in which they think we, white people, have misguided racist souls.
That we are not even human.
Barely human.
I think black people can be happy only in a society in which they set the rules.
Where they let their own distinctive genius work its way out.
And to be the people that they are destined to be when they hold their own destiny in their own hands.
Free from any conception of oppression or memories of slavery.
When they are the people That govern themselves.
And, of course, I believe the same for my people.
And I believe that this wonderful diversity of human beings can be preserved only when each group has its own territory, its own area, where it is the exclusive proprietor, where a territory in which each group can be faithful to the traditions of its ancestors and pass them down to their descendants forever.
Only in this way can diversity be preserved.
This is my dream for all races, for all nations, and for all people.
you very much.
Wait, wait.
We're going to do a Q&A.
You can ask a question.
We're going to do a Q&A.
You like it?
For sure.
Please ask a question.
Yes. Oh, well.
Speak loudly.
Speak loudly.
Okay, I have a handful of questions for you.
One at a time.
One at a time.
Let's ask a little bit.
I thought I'd start here.
So, first and foremost, you told us that, obviously, over the course of 45 minutes, that diversity is not the strength of America, anybody in America, or any country in the world.
Here's my question.
When I look at immigration into America, from any country on the face of this planet, two hours, I see that it brings great prosperity not just to our economy, but to the average qualities of lives of everybody in our country.
Migrants over the course of the next 10 years are projected to add $1.7 trillion to the American GDP.
Undocumented migrants today pay $100 billion per tax in a year.
So if you want to tell me that you think getting rid of racial diversity is placed in America first...
It's coming at an expense of $1.7 trillion over the course of the next 10 years.
What is your question, please?
How do you consolidate the fact that you think America would be better if only white people were within it with the facts that I just shared to you about the economic advantage of racial diversity in our country?
Because economics.
Man does not live by bread alone.
Do you think money is all that matters?
By no means.
Money is by no means.
What I would tell you is this.
I listed many.
Of the dangers, many of the conflicts that are inevitable when you have racial diversity.
And you're telling me, you're telling me with a little bit more GDP, all that can be made not to matter.
Now what I would suggest to you is, wait, come on, come on, let me talk.
All you're saying is the GDP would grow.
How would the GDP handle without them?
It might grow just as fine.
Again, these are not merely economic questions.
These are questions of cultural and racial survival.
Next question, please.
Not you.
Of course, you don't want to hear from me more.
No, you can ask another question later.
One at a time.
Let someone else ask a question.
We might get back to you.
I'd like to personally ask why you think it's important to reference people that lived around 200 years ago and why.
It was okay for them to have their beliefs, and that makes it okay to have your beliefs.
Because to me, that was modern times for their times.
That was what was socially acceptable for them.
That is not what's socially acceptable now.
As somebody who grew up in a mixed-race family, diversity is so important because you get to see different experiences.
You get to see different things.
And learn about life that you'd never see if you just surrounded yourself by people that looked like you.
Do you have a question, please?
My question was, why are you thinking that people that lived 200 years ago being racist was okay, and that makes it okay for you to be racist?
Thank you.
Because I don't consider what you mean by racism.
Racism, what you mean, is something that is morally reprehensible.
People have a very hard time defining racism, but whatever it is, it's some kind of expression of moral inferiority.
I reject that completely.
I think the founders happen to be right about that.
I think the founders happen to be right about separation of powers.
I think they happen to be right about a lot of things.
All I'm saying is that multiracialism eventually will lead to mixing that obliterates all of the beautiful diversity that I believe in.
Even if people are living separately to some degree, it means they can certainly appreciate all the other things around the world.
You can appreciate everything that's wonderful about Japan without having a nation full of Japanese.
We can have opera companies in this country without having large groups of Italians in every city.
We can appreciate and respect differences.
All I'm talking about is a way to ensure That those differences survive and prosper.
Next question, please.
Yeah, a lot to unpack there with what you have to say.
I'm not unpacking.
Do I need to speak louder?
No, no, no, you're doing fine.
So you started off our whole discussion talking about CMU's reaction to your arrival.
Yes. I was confused at a point in which you said that they were terrified.
And then the very next sentence said, of course, no one's actually terrified.
So I am wondering, is CMU terrified or are they not terrified?
I was simply quoting the people who have written about my arrival.
I must have listed four or five different people who say they feel threatened.
They feel unsafe because I'm going to be here.
What I'm saying to you is, I don't believe it for a moment.
I don't believe anyone feels unsafe.
Is there anyone in this room who feels threatened and unsafe because I'm here?
Anyone? Do you?
Can I ask a follow-up question about CMU?
Sure. So you also indicated that you've never seen an opposition like this.
Is that true?
That is true.
Okay, so CMU has created one of the most powerful oppositions you've ever seen.
Well, certainly the most vocal, but it seems like the whole campus has been mobilized to be terrified by my possible presence.
Yes, I've never seen anything like that.
That is very interesting.
Yes, quite an accomplishment.
Yeah, I think you in front.
It's time for your next question.
Give us a question.
I appreciate you for allowing me to ask more than one question.
Of course.
So, first of all, I'd like to point out the fact that at multiple points throughout your speech, you pointed out that it's not getting better.
This problem of racial diversity will persist forever, and we just can't get along, and these liberal movements to usher in racial diversity are failing.
And I think it's funny to point out the fact that you called the oppositional movement we see outside of this building with 500 people something that you've seen for your first time.
I think what that demonstrates...
Is that we are changing and the only people holding us back are individuals like you.
So you're saying that the people who answer those polls, they're all wrong?
When the black people tell a pollster, they think that racial problems will never be solved.
Are they wrong?
Why is it, why is it that after 200 years, 400 years, we still have racial problems?
The whole idea of the civil rights movement.
Was that everybody was to be dismantling their sense of racial consciousness.
We were all going to be Americans, hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and that would be it.
That is clearly not the place.
And those 500 people out there, you've counted them?
There are 500?
I hope there are.
Why are they there?
They are there because they are so disturbed that someone might take a different point of view that they don't know.
Why are they not here?
They don't even have to come to know that they disagree with me because they have paid no attention to me.
Yes, behind you.
Well, I just thought I'd add on there.
I just thought I'd add on there real quick.
Can you ask me, why are these issues still persisting after 500 years?
How long did people think the earth is black?
How long did we leave child marriage legal?
Sometimes it does take time to overcome issues.
You're going to sit down?
You're going to be respectful or you're going to leave?
Of course, I will get a respectful one.
All right, just another follow-up question.
You said that CMU seems to indicate a sense of terror at your coming about not respecting your ideas, right?
Well, that's what the people who are on this campus, your student body president, said it makes everyone feel unsafe.
What kind of thing is that?
How does that really work?
What kind of consequence of my presence?
Makes them unsafe.
This is ridiculous.
Do you have a question?
No. Okay.
In the back.
Yes. I'd like to answer your question of why it makes people feel unsafe, if that's okay with you.
By all means, I'd like to know.
So, like I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a mixed-race household.
I have an African-American older sister.
I have African-American cases.
So, with that being said...
When there's somebody that has racist ideals, that believes in a racial hierarchy like you do...
I have said nothing about a hierarchy.
I've read some of your written works.
And which is the race that's at the top of that hierarchy?
You've said Asian on your end.
So you do believe in a racial hierarchy.
But I would like to continue to answer your question.
So I have personally seen how words become violence.
Statements turn into violent action.
You've personally seen this?
I have personally witnessed this.
Who is being violent to whom?
I'll tell you, my biological father against my African-American sister.
I was eight years old when he put her against a wall by her throat three feet up in the air saying that she was a F-ing N-word and deserved to die.
Wait, and this was caused by words?
Words caused this to happen?
Look. The belief that she was less than because of the color of her skin led to the violent attack.
So that is why people feel unsafe having somebody who believes in anti...
Black people, anti, Hispanic people.
I'm not anti these people at all.
As I've said, I want each group to flourish and prosper and pursue their own destinies.
That is the only way that they can be distinct.
Now, people who want to mix it up, by all means, let them do so.
I think that is just fine.
I am in the business of voluntary, peaceful separation.
Yes, in the red shirt.
What do you propose the solution is for our country?
The first thing would be for the government to get out of the business of constantly saying that we should come together despite the obvious preference people have to be separate.
I think, once again, back to this example of churches.
These are places where people can freely choose what they want to do.
And if, over the years, there were local autonomy on these matters.
If it were recognized that to wish to live in a racially and culturally coherent society is not by any means a morally inferior choice, it is a perfectly legitimate choice, then people could voluntarily separate and try to live in a way that suits their biological and cultural heritage.
It would be a gradual step, perhaps leading eventually to even...
Sufficient local autonomy so that we had a real form of federalism as we once did.
But the first idea is to make it understood that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with white people wishing to survive as a distinct people with a distinct culture just like everyone else.
And the only way that that can be done moving into the future is to have spaces where they are the permanent majority.
Any other questions?
Yes. If I'm understanding then, you're kind of advocating for re-segregation.
Segregating according to race.
Blacks here, Hispanics here, whites here.
Strictly on a voluntary basis.
Oh, where are you going to go?
Where? Well, there's plenty of room in the United States.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Wait a second.
In other words, we're going to take the country, we're going to divide it up into maybe three or four parts.
Some blacks will go here, some Hispanics may go here, some whites maybe go here.
Does that mean that I have to leave Colorado?
No, no, there can be.
What if this is a Hispanic part?
There can be voluntary separation on a small scale.
It does not have to be at that level of a state.
And again, if you wish to live in a majority Hispanic part.
That's fine with you.
All I'm saying is the first step is to recognize that there is nothing wrong with people wishing to separate.
Just the way if Koreans want to have a Korean church and they're more comfortable worshiping with fellow Koreans, there's nothing wrong with that.
It's a psychological first step.
Then the details will have to be worked out.
The details of where the devil is.
Well, it's either that.
Or eventually, everyone becomes the same.
And I think that would be a catastrophe for the world.
Sir, I think we have...
Thank you very much.
I think we have time for one more question.
I have a great question.
Oh, darn it.
Because I could tell you what's going on.
Hi. So, we had someone back there talk about what the solution might be.
Right. Would you agree that America today is the most racially diverse it's ever been?
Today? Yeah.
Oh yes, it is increasingly racially diverse.
So, with that in mind, what would the changes be?
What would be the benefit?
What would be the outcome with segregation today with how racially diverse it is?
Well, the nation itself wouldn't be any more or less diverse.
But people would be allowed to segregate and establish neighborhoods, establish communities where there was absolutely no reprobrium if Asians wanted to live among Asians, whites among whites, etc.
Just to recognize that this is a natural preference built into us over the millennia to be tribal and to leave off this idea of trying to build a society in which race can be essentially obliterated.
I have a last question.
I believe.
Why not isolate on eye color?
Hair color?
Why only be tribalists on the color of your skin?
Sure, because that's the basis on which prison gangs attack each other.
Why not isolate on the basis of prison gangs?
No, no, no, no.
Tell me why undocumented migrants are two times less likely to commit violent crimes than you.
That is not true.
I'm sorry.
P-N-A-S.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hey, hey.
Look, no.
Are they?
No. No.
All right.
I'll take the fucking time.
Do we have another...
You've been around for a minute.
I beg your pardon?
I said you've been around for a minute.
For a minute?
You're not a young man.
My question is...
Why? Why what?
What? We're talking about the color of skin.
We're talking about a lot more than that.
I heard history lessons.
I heard you state a point early, and you kind of said it at the end.
You gave us a history lesson for about 45 minutes.
My question is, why did you dedicate?
You're highly educated.
You've traveled.
You've seen things.
So why do I care?
Why spend your life?
Why do I care?
Why race?
Because I care about the survival of my people.
The white race, European people, are my extended family.
And I'm very sorry if that offends you, but family is what matters most.
My idea about race, Lily, is the way I feel about my own children.
I love my children more than I love anyone else's children.
Not because they're necessarily better, but because they're mine.
I can be very fond of other people's children, but mine come first.
And the white race, which I believe has achieved great things, is my biological family.
And this does not mean I have to be hostile in the slightest to other families, but I want my family to survive and prosper forever.
That's the answer to your question.
▲
Export Selection