All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2025 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
21:59
Colorado Mesa University TV Interviews Jared Taylor
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
First of all, I guess the first question, what is your impressions or reflections upon your speech and or the events of yesterday at Colorado Mesa University?
My deepest feeling is one of sadness, really.
I was very sad that despite President John Marshall's initial suggestion that students come and listen to my talk and deconstruct what he called dehumanizing ideas, Instead, he was part of a whole competing set of activities that were meant to draw students away from my talk.
This is a very saddening thing to me.
The idea of a university, the name comes from Universal, is to expose people to all kinds of ideas.
And this entire system was set up.
This celebration of unity, as they called it, was set up.
To draw people away from my talk so they would never hear what I had to say.
This, to me, is the opposite of education.
So, President Marshall, here in this community, has actually drawn quite a bit of criticism for even allowing you to come onto campus, or some have said that you should not have been allowed because of your views and your ideologies, and yet...
Because of freedom of speech and his views of freedom of speech, he allowed that to occur.
Is there anything that you would actually still commend him or credit him in any manner for that, at least on that level?
Certainly. In a way, President Marshall was in a tight spot.
He apparently believes in the First Amendment.
And as a matter of fact, there are Supreme Court precedents, according to which a publicly supported university.
Which CMU is, does not have the right to draw a line and say these opinions are absolutely unacceptable.
You could have made a court case to force him to let me on the campus.
He may or may not be aware of that.
But the fact that he stood firm and he said we believe in freedom of speech, in fact he called it sacred.
Yes, I commend him for that.
Are critical of his and other students not coming to your speech, but wouldn't also the First Amendment protect someone's right not to listen to your speech or not to attend if they so choose?
Of course.
People are free to listen to what I have to say or not.
What to me is most disappointing is that a university which is committed to educating students should in effect encourage them to put wax in their ears and shut their eyes and not expose themselves to ideas that may be different from some of the ones that they're learning in school.
I think that is a very saddening thing.
So in terms of your ideology, what is it that you think that...
What do people object to?
What do you think, from your perspective, why do people object to your viewpoints?
You'd have to ask them.
I know that I've been called all sorts of names.
A white supremacist or a fascist or a neo-Nazi.
I don't think any of those terms apply.
But the way the left works in the United States is to come up with terms like this.
And they are signals to people to say, this guy is so awful that you don't even have to pay any attention to what he says.
We have already figured him out.
He is a fascist.
So, that's all you need to know about him.
This is a tyrannical approach to what we claim to treasure, which is freedom of speech.
However, your views, your ideologies are fairly well published.
Publicized? I make no secret of them.
So again, if people do not agree with your views, they do have that right to disagree with them, correct?
Of course, of course, by all means.
But I wish that they tried to disagree with something that they understood.
All those people out there, I understand there were an estimated 500 people at this Unity Festival, all celebrating something.
Well, what were they celebrating?
The silencing or the attempted silencing of ideas that they'd never even heard?
What kind of educational experience is that?
So with these ideologies, I mean, you do not take the moniker or whatever of white supremacy?
Absolutely not.
How do you describe your ideologies?
I mean, I don't wish to say label, but what is the descriptor for your ideologies?
Well, as a matter of fact, the way I view the United States and racial questions and the demographic future of the United States was absolutely taken for granted by practically everyone in this country up until the 1950s or the 1960s.
It was not considered necessary to come up with something to describe things that people took for granted.
We don't have a special word for people who put on their trousers one leg at a time.
We now are living in a situation in which the ideas, then taken for granted, are considered horrible.
And so we have to come up with a name for them.
The name that I've chosen is race realism and white advocacy.
Those are the terms that I would use to describe my views, which, again, were absolutely taken for granted up until the 1950s or'60s.
When you say that they were taken for granted, Can you give me an example of that?
Certainly. So, with the Irish, and I think of this in terms, again, with your speech yesterday, you spoke of European whites.
Yes. And you spoke about how people from Italy or Spain, Poland...
The Irish, in the 1840s, with their immigration to the United States during their potato famine, you would consider them white?
Of course.
Who wouldn't?
Do you consider them something else?
I consider them human beings and Irish, I guess you might put it that way.
I'll go that direction.
With the Irish coming to the United States in the 1840s, they were not accepted as white people.
In fact, they were, in some ways, This was a misconception that the idea that the Irish were somehow not white.
Irish people were despised by English.
This was a centuries-old conflict that was imported into the United States.
And so a largely Anglo society held the Irish in low regard.
No one ever thought that they were somehow Asiatic or Middle Eastern or Black.
No. This was a conflict among Europeans that was imported into the United States.
But that has nothing to do with the question you initially asked.
You wanted to know what was taken What was taken for granted in the United States was that race is a legitimate biological category.
The idea that it's some sort of sociological optical illusion.
People would have laughed at that idea.
Race is a biological reality and people of different races build different societies.
We see that everywhere.
The other aspect of it, and that's what I would call race realism, again, taken for granted up until maybe the 1950s or 60s.
The other aspect is white advocacy.
Whites, just like every other racial group, have legitimate collective interests.
In the United States today, it's considered perfectly okay for Asians, Hispanics, blacks, all to have organizations, publications that promote their interests.
At the expense of whites, if need be.
But if whites talk in terms of their legitimate interests, somehow that's a horrible thing.
And again, up until the mid-20th century, everyone in the United States essentially would have agreed with me.
You brought up the whole thing of the clubs that are on campus, the Black Alliance, the Hispanic Alliance, Latino Alliance?
Black Alliance, Latino Alliance, Polynesian, I can't remember quite what their group is called.
Right. So you speak about those as almost like they belong to that club and they've insulated themselves from the rest of the campus.
I have no idea what they do.
The fact is those clubs exist.
They exist along racial lines.
What does that tell you?
As I said in my talk, This is supposed to be some sort of model for the ideal society.
That's what CMU is, according to President John Marshall.
Why is it that they are clustering together along racial lines?
All I am suggesting is that the fact that those clubs exist recognize that people have natural tribal tendencies and they like being around people who are the same race as themselves.
But on the other hand, wouldn't it be fair to say that these groups, and I think I can speak as being a faculty member and teaching, you may have a Latino alliance, but that doesn't keep anyone from that Latino alliance from also joining the chemistry club.
Of course.
Why? Because...
They like to be with chemists.
Of course.
Also, they may join the theater club.
Why? They wish to be around with other actors.
Of course.
But why?
Why is there a Latino alliance, for heaven's sake?
An alliance?
That sounds like almost a defensive organization.
We're fending off attack.
That's what international alliances are all about.
No, this suggests to me that despite this ideal society that CMU is supposed to be putting together, Nevertheless, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Polynesians, they feel the necessity to have some kind of thing that is exclusively theirs.
And this tells us something not about CMU, but about human nature.
But on the other hand, again, I'll go to this.
So you do not wish to be labeled a white supremacist.
I'm not a white supremacist.
People might read too much within your writings, within your social media posts.
No, they don't read too much in.
They are distracted by people who tell them what to think.
If they actually read what I write or listen to what I say, they would understand how absurd it is to call me a white supremacist.
Okay. So, I will say that there's a misconception then.
So are you not, because of just the word alliance, maybe having a misconception about what some of these groups are?
Just because of the word alliance, do you read too much into what they're doing or why?
Could be.
Could be.
But the word alliance is not like a club.
You have a chemistry club.
Do you have a chemistry alliance?
Why don't you have a chemistry alliance?
Because it doesn't sound as good?
It may be a matter of phonetics and alliteration.
No, no.
You know very well that's not why.
It's because alliance is a kind of militant term.
It's a term that people choose when they stand in opposition to others.
Alliances are made in opposition to others.
So, getting to some of your ideologies.
In terms of your views of society and how it should be constructed, do you believe that we should be segregated according to race?
I believe in complete freedom of association.
People should be able to choose their associates, their employees, their companions, their neighbors, entirely as they wish, for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all.
We should have complete freedom of association.
And under those circumstances, a great many people will choose to spend most of their time in a culturally and racially coherent circumstance.
And this is by no means immoral.
All I'm saying is that if blacks wish to be together with blacks or whites or Asians, there is absolutely no moral opprobrium due to those people.
Now, for those who wish to mix their lives up, Multiculty as possible, that's all fine too.
But this country should get over the idea that if people wish to live among people like themselves, there's something morally wrong with that.
It's natural, normal, and completely healthy.
But in today's society, when we have such a mix, I mean, we are multicultural, multi-ethnic on many levels.
We are.
And it would be very difficult for anyone, I think.
At least in my opinion, for anyone to exclude themselves or to guard themselves from people of other ethnicity.
It's not actually that difficult.
Look at the way most white people live in this country.
Do they fill their lives with diversity?
I bet this neighborhood around here, probably overwhelmingly white.
Is that by choice?
Is that by accident?
And if this neighborhood began to fill up...
With any other race, you would find these people slowly trickling away.
And where do they go?
They go to places that are, again, overwhelmingly white.
Now, it's called white flight.
It's supposed to be a horrible thing.
All I'm saying is, it is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
A neighborhood generally that is mixed racially, be it blacks and Hispanics, that is a transition point.
It's on its way to becoming...
One or the other as a general rule.
It's not just white people who like to be around people like themselves.
Why is it that you have Hispanic neighborhoods and black neighborhoods and Asian neighborhoods?
Why is that?
It's because they are expressing the natural human desire to be with people like themselves.
And so if you want to, yes, you can insulate yourself almost entirely from people unlike yourself.
So long as you do it without saying that's what you're doing, then it's okay.
You can champion diversity all you like in public, but live a completely homogeneous life and nobody will bother you.
As Joe Sobelin, who was really a wonderful philosopher, used to say, in their mating and migratory habits, Ku Klux Klansmen are indistinguishable from liberals.
Except for the white hoods.
He's talking about their mating and migratory habits, not their sartorial choices.
I just want to make sure there is a bit of a distinction between...
Only in their mating and migratory habits.
That's all we're talking about.
Look at the way all of these big deal...
I love diversity.
People live.
Where do they live?
Do they live full of diversity?
Do they have Mexican neighbors?
Do they have Haitian folks who come in for dinner?
No. It's all a spectacular, absolutely colossal case of hypocrisy.
On the other hand, I live in Palisade and my neighbor is from Honduras.
She married a gentleman from Colorado and now has become a citizen.
You know, of the United States.
I have her over for beers all the time.
That's fine.
People are free to associate entirely as they wish.
And people might view me.
I think it would be fair to say that my students would even tell you I'm probably called it progressive.
And yet I do not try to insulate myself from other people.
I think it's almost too much of a generalization to say that...
If you're progressive, you're still going to only hang around, even then, if you're a white progressive, you're only going to hang around with white people.
No, you can't draw a categorical rule that covers everyone, obviously.
But, as I said in my talk, if you ask a progressive, can you name a single neighborhood that is majority non-white that you'd like to live in, or a school that's majority non-white you'd like to send their children to?
Most of the time you're going to get an awkward reply.
I want to it's the the idea that I am and again help me out here because I want to make sure I don't Basically misconstrue any of your ideologies
You keep calling it ideologies.
There's no real ideology.
It's just a reflection of what most people have taken for granted for hundreds of years.
Alright, I'll use the word reflections.
I don't wish to misconstrue your reflections.
They don't happen to be my reflections.
But I'll use that phrase just to make sure.
A reflection of yours or a thought of yours that people of different races cannot get together?
Of course they can.
We have many, many examples of this.
I've never said that at all.
And if individuals wish to live lives of constant diversity, then God bless them.
But they should not consider themselves the moral superiors of or put obstacles in the way of people who don't wish to live that way.
That's all I'm saying.
But if we don't try to maybe be a little bit more, and I won't use the word inclusive, encompassing on how we behave with all Americans, and I'll refer to it as Americans, because again, I consider...
America is very ethnically diverse.
It's obviously ethnically diverse.
Wouldn't we be the stronger in the long run if we basically figure out a way to create a cohesive American culture that encompasses all of these different ethnicities?
Good luck.
Good luck.
It's not working very well, is it?
Racial conflict is a constant.
Racial tension.
The more you mix people who are different in their religions, their language, their race, the more tension and conflict you have.
Of course, it would be wonderful to wave a magic wand and make race not matter.
My contention is that that is a futile undertaking.
And instead of trying to continue with this futile undertaking, we should recognize that race does matter and that people are going to be happier and better off if they have at least the opportunity to live coherent lives among people like themselves.
In other words, we should build a society...
That accepts human nature as it is, rather than trying to build a society on the idea that we're going to change human nature.
Human nature is very difficult to change.
Would that viewpoint?
We've got to get going here, so we'll make this the last question.
Wouldn't that outlook of human nature?
Be somewhat pessimistic?
Pessimistic. In other words, because you believe that there's no way to change human nature, we should not even attempt to try?
I think every time somebody has tried to change human nature, it's been a spectacular failure.
The most obvious one was communism.
The attempt to build a society in which selfishness could be eliminated.
Look at what resulted from that.
Countless cadavers.
Poverty. All sorts of horrors.
No, we have to accept human beings as they are.
As the Founders said, if men were angels, they would not require government.
We have government because men are not angels.
We should try to build a society that accepts...
I mean, to say, okay, I think we're going to eliminate all the locks on our doors because we're going to change human nature.
That would be stupid.
There'd be a lot of theft, probably.
I'm going to ask one last question because, again, this whole idea of not being able to change human nature, do you not view that that is the purpose of religion?
Is that the reason for religion is to make people better than themselves and society better than itself through basically embracing God and embracing the virtues of a...
A god-like existence, maybe.
People can be made to be better and encouraged to be better.
I agree 100%.
And I think religion plays a very important role in that.
Philosophy does the same thing.
It tries to argue people into a position of behaving morally.
And moral behavior is vastly superior to immoral behavior.
But our nature is not going to be changed.
We can be nudged gently in one direction or another.
▲
Export Selection