Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor - US Refugee Program May Favor Whites

Oct. 17, 2025 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:02:00

US Refugee Program May Favor Whites

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey marvel at the admin’s realization that the US is too diverse. They also discuss black homicide, how “cancellation” works, and why reparations have hit a snag.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, dear listeners, welcome to Radio Renaissance.
	I'm your host, Jared Taylor.
	And with me is my indispensable co-host, the one and only Paul Kerzy.
	Today is October 17th, Anno Dominee, 2025.
	And as usual, we begin with comments.
	Someone writes to say, I wanted to correct something from a previous show.
	You'd said that J.D. Vance was kicked off of Blue Sky.
	However, he was kicked off only for a short time because Blue Sky thought the account was fake.
	Once he was verified, his account was quickly restored.
	I happen to follow him there.
	By the way, I think it would be lots of fun if Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kersey got Blue Sky accounts.
	Well, that is an important correction.
	You and I both thought that he'd been permanently bounced because he was Jade Vance.
	This is a very, very useful correction.
	And Mr. Kerzy, perhaps we should get on Blue Sky, make big stinks over there.
	What do you think?
	Actually, I think it's very dangerous.
	Um dangerous in a very in a very direct way.
	I think that when you go when you I I have looked at, I have lurked.
	I have spent a few moments looking over there, and just the amount of vitril and and the doxology that exists over there.
	These people are rabid.
	Uh I I would invite you to spend about an hour just looking at some of the comments, seeing what's trending, seeing how they how they react and interact with people.
	And it is it is um it is the type of digital space I don't want to spend too much time on.
	Well, I'm sure that you could create havoc, get them furious, but you're afraid that the consequences could be physically dangerous?
	Wow.
	Well, I'll tell you what, we're gonna talk about a story that uh of a Johns Hopkins study.
	And it would be fun to go there and say, do any of you guys actually want to truly think about what this data shows?
	Well, exactly.
	Exactly.
	Show them data.
	In any case, let's get through with the comments here.
	This is a very sad comment, in a way.
	One of the most difficult matters to come to terms with as a race realist is how to deal with family members, your own flesh and blood.
	It's bleak to realize that my own parents vote against the interests of our race.
	And I wonder, if I, a young white woman were victimized like Austin Metcalfe or Irina Zarutka.
	I think those people need no introduction.
	Would my father go to bat for my killer?
	Wow, isn't that a sobering thing to have to ask yourself?
	My feelings for my folks are more pity than resentment, though.
	They are kind-hearted people and raised me with great support and generosity.
	Moreover, the white family is of the essence, and it pains me to drive a wage between myself and those who raised me.
	We refrain from political discussion, but every so often it rears its head and causes a row.
	What are your thoughts on the matter?
	Boy and boy.
	You know, that I think it's so typical of white people.
	White people who vote against the interests of their own race.
	They're by no means evil.
	And this lady who is writing to us is absolutely right.
	They are kind-hearted, good, good people.
	They just do not understand.
	Well, I think that uh this more or less informal truth, truth that you have entered into with your parents, is absolutely the right thing to do.
	You simply have to ignore certain subjects.
	I know it's a very, very difficult thing.
	We're tempted to comment when the people we love say something that is completely absurd.
	In my own case, my father was one of these odd people, got more and more liberal the older he got.
	But that did not affect our love for each other at all.
	We just didn't talk about certain political matters.
	And that's a very disappointing kind of situation to arrive at, but I think it is.
	In certain cases, it is absolutely essential.
	And it pains me, it grieves me to hear about families that have actually been torn apart.
	Parents, brothers and sisters, whatever it is with whom You don't even talk because of politics.
	That's a terrible, terrible thing.
	And as this caller, as this listener says, family is so important, I think that if it requires that you bite your tongue, you should certainly respect your mother and your father and try to get along with your family as best as possible.
	Let's see.
	Here's someone who writes, I was hoping you'd say a word about the history of the black population in the U.S. going from unarmed to armed during roughly the second half of the 20th century.
	I believe that the wisdom of whites who for so long took steps to prevent blacks from getting guns has been proven wise.
	As soon as blacks got guns in their hands, they made anywhere they lived or war or move to a war zone.
	This is, in fact, consistent data any sociologist dreams of.
	I long for some acceptable way for blacks to be restrained, as in Dezabon.
	We've gone from essentially not allowing blacks to have guns to not punishing them for using them.
	Now, this last part, not punishing them for using them, that is, I don't think, a deliberate thing at all.
	The fact is that in many big cities in which there are large numbers of blacks, the murder clearance rate has dropped below 50%.
	You have a more than a better than half a better than uh equal odds of killing someone and getting away with it.
	That is a terrible, terrible thing, and it is due uh mostly to gun homicides.
	Now, I have from time to time suggested that blacks all be disarmed.
	I've said, if you really care about black lives, what's happening to black lives?
	Black people are shooting each other.
	Well, if they are completely disarmed, they would stop shooting each other.
	I'm only half serious about that, because uh if it were legally impossible for blacks to own guns, as we all know, blacks don't seem to worry about breaking the law, and a great many of them would get guns illegally.
	But if they were some way in effect to make sure that no no guns ever ended up in the hands of black people, that would result in a tremendous drop in the black homicide rate.
	So if you care about black lives, well, take it serious.
	Let's see.
	Uh oh, here's a comment.
	I am now listening to FBI boots, ADL, and SBLC.
	I think that was last week's program.
	And I disagree with your answer that the lack of in-group preference among whites is due to propaganda alone.
	As has been said on your podcast many times, demographics is destiny.
	White people are genetically from harsh climates, it requires strong future orientation, as well as an innate desire to work cooperatively.
	Without working cooperatively, dying of starvation is a real possibility.
	Sometimes survival requires everyone to work together.
	This is in contrast to milder climates where they're hunter-gatherers, farmers and get multiple crops a year.
	Unfortunately, this help thy neighbor belief is not reciprocated with people who have evolved over hundreds of generations in an environment that's this is not required.
	Yes, it's certainly true.
	The nature of whites is different, certainly from the nature of blacks and certain other races as well.
	And if I made the point that the only reason whites don't defend their own interests is propaganda, that was certainly excessive.
	And I must have said that because another comment commenter mentions, Christianity, with its emphasis on humility and self-denial is part of the problem.
	White people have heard to distrust their own appetites and desires and look outside themselves for truth.
	Add to this the vice of vainglory, which creates a kind of prestige in which white people compete with one another to be more virtuous and less self-interested.
	That makes it much more difficult for us to pursue our own interests.
	Any additional comments, uh, Mr. Kerzy?
	No, I I think you nailed it.
	That was a question in regards to a comment you made, and I think you um you eloquently said what needed to be stated.
	Well, if I did say That, well, certainly we are subject to propaganda.
	And if all of the propaganda were to change, then our behavior would change.
	But we are much easier to propagandize in this kind of pathological altruism mode than people of other races.
	I'll just say, I'll tell you what, I'll say this.
	I wish that all of our propaganda was what the Department of Homeland Security Twitter account is putting out on a daily basis.
	That would be quite exciting if that's all we got from every segment of society.
	Well, if Twitter were the real world, the real world would be an unreal world.
	There's no question about that.
	Well, the first story I would like to get into this remarkable observation by the Trump administration about refugees.
	Oh, wow.
	Yes, this is an article in the New York Times.
	I was surprised the New York Times was capable of writing an article without just spitting fire.
	But the article was relatively straightforward.
	This is what the Trump people are thinking.
	It's considering a radical overhaul of the refugee system that would slash the program to bare bones while giving preference to English speakers, white South Africans, and Europeans.
	Mr. Trump suspended refugee admissions on his first day in office and asked for proposals about how and whether the administration should even continue the program.
	The proposed changes are put new emphasis on whether applicants would be able to assimilate to the United States.
	What a radical idea.
	What a radical idea.
	We'd like them to fit in.
	The proposals advised Mr. Trump to prioritize Europeans who have been targeted for peaceful expression of views online, such as opposition to mass migration or support for populist political parties.
	We know here we're talking about Great Britain, for example, where you can go to jail just for expressing yourself on unpopular subjects, or in Germany, where you can be hounded and uh uh have many of your important rights circumscribed by the fact that you are part of the AFD, alternative for Deutschland, certainly in its youth group.
	So we know who he's talking about.
	Mr. Trump has made clear he wants to crack down on immigration in general, both legal and illegal.
	Now, Mr. Kersey, I don't know what your view on this is.
	However, I think it would be a mistake to encourage immigration by people in Britain who are patriots, nationalists, and who would get in trouble for expressing themselves, and it would be a mistake to uh prioritize immigration of people from the AFD.
	I think Germany and Britain need to have those people.
	We need active, involved, engaged, committed patriots everywhere in the white world.
	And uh, if need be, perhaps we can adjust populations in some way.
	But all those patriots, I think, ideally they should stay where they are and win back their own homelands.
	Mr. Taylor, it's hard to believe, sir, that it's been 10 years since the horror of what Merkel allowed into Germany manifested into the attacks around Christmas.
	Do you remember it was 2015?
	I believe we had just started the podcast, and that's when, was it Hamburg in front of that gorgeous Gothic cathedral?
	That's where there were thousands of sexual assaults.
	No, that was cologne.
	Cologne, forgive me.
	Cologne.
	I knew you'd have it right.
	As soon as they said Hamburg, I realized I was wrong.
	It was wrong.
	Cologne.
	But 10 years now, that's continued.
	Has been building up a base where they are now, from reports I've seen from polls, they're the largest party in the country.
	And yet the entire infrastructure of the German political machine is designed to try and stop that, even going to the links of potentially banning the AFD.
	Well, they've not done that yet.
	Not yet.
	They did they did declare the youth group a, I can't remember what the category is, but uh some sort of dangerous organization that permits them to engage in surveillance as if they were terrorists.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	It's it's the the uh the party itself is not quite on that status yet, but people have been working very, very hard, as you say, not only to put them on that status but outright ban the most popular party in the country.
	Incredible.
	But anyway, let's continue with uh this article in the New York Times.
	Mr. Trump's oh, let's see, according to the rationale laid out in proposals submitted to Mr. Trump, America's acceptance of refugees has made the country too diverse.
	Good grief.
	These are things I've been saying for 35 years.
	And now, lo and behold, people are saying it within the Trump, this the Trump administration.
	The sharp increase in diversity has reduced the level of social trust essential for the functioning of a democratic polity, says one of the documents.
	Gee, somebody must have read Robert Putnam of Harvard.
	Mr. Trump's federal agencies proposed imposing limits on the number of refugees who can resettle in communities that already have many immigrants because the United States should avoid, quote, the concentration of non-native citizens and promote assimilation.
	I'm not to promoting assimilation.
	I just want to keep them out.
	But Mr. Trump is also planning to slash the number of refugees allowed to 7,500, a drastic decrease from the limit of 125,000 set by the Biden administration.
	The proposals call for, and now this is an important thing too.
	The proposal calls for U.S. embassies to make referrals for who should be considered for refugee status rather than let the United Nations make the decision.
	It's for all for years been the one, I think it's the UNHCR, the United States High Commission on Refugees.
	They're the ones that in their wisdom and their bliss decides, okay, these guys uh really deserve the help of the United States.
	These people really deserve to live around.
	White people.
	So, you Americans, you're gonna take this lot.
	This change, as the UN explains, would allow for greater American control of who gets funneled into the refugee pipeline.
	What an idea.
	Maybe Americans should decide.
	But I must say, uh, even just a few months ago, before the election was uh actually uh won by Donald Trump.
	I would never have imagined that the actual the actual Trump administration would be considering basically saying, okay, we want white people come into the country.
	All this diversity is no good.
	We need white people.
	This is an extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary change.
	Uh now, uh, Mr. Kerzy, I believe you have a story on the new kind of black unemployment that has been a consequence of the Trump administration.
	I do very interesting change.
	I do.
	One quick observation.
	Yes, please.
	I still think one of the most illuminating moments of 2025 was back when the first group of Afrikaners came to the United States of America.
	And the reaction we saw from the left and the corporate media and the uh people who were just mortified to see these white families show up waving the American flag and being so grateful to be here.
	That to me is the that made, I think someone posted it best on X. All that we've suffered through the Trump administration 1.0, 2020, COVID, all that to this moment, that made it all worth it.
	To see to see the faces of those people who, again, I'm surprised we haven't seen a lot more articles about them.
	I think there was one article about one of the people who had had some unsavory things to say on social media.
	I kind of remember that story.
	Uh, but they've all just kind of blended in.
	And I think I suspect the problem with doing stories about them is that they've all been successes.
	I bet.
	Most of them have gone to work.
	They're grateful, they're hardworking, they make good members of the community.
	And so, golly, what's the New York Times going to have to say about that?
	Oh my gosh.
	No, they wanted to talk about that.
	Well, Mr. Kersey, uh, give us your story about black unemployment.
	This is the third article the New York Times has published since Doge came into being, and we saw so many black individuals disproportionately let go from the federal government.
	And this was this was quite uh quite an interesting little little read.
	Um, In fact, I think I saw where Steve Saylor did something pretty big on it, and I thought that it was worth bringing up as I pull it up here.
	This is from the New York Times.
	We we just quoted them about refugee and the fact that Trump wants whites here.
	Well, here we go.
	Black unemployment is surging again.
	This time it's different.
	Um federal layoffs and an end to diversity initiatives have weakened a historically strong labor market for black workers.
	Joblessness is rising again for blacks, two years after reaching a record low.
	It's a troubling indicator.
	Joblessness often spikes higher for historically marginalized groups during economic downters and takes longer to fall.
	This time, the Trump administration's assault on diversity programs and cuts to the federal workforce could make it even more difficult for black workers to recover when conditions improve.
	The African American unemployment rate has surged over the past four months from six to seven point five percent, while the rate for white people ticked down slightly to 3.7%.
	On top of a slowing economy, the White House's actions have disproportionately harmed black workers, economists said.
	I think the speed at which things have changed in such a dramatic fashion is out of the ordinary, said Valerie Wilson, who directs the program on race ethnicity and the economy at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.
	There's been such a rapid shift in policy rather than something cyclical or structural about the economy.
	At least since the 1970s, Mr. Taylor, when the federal government started tracking unemployment by race, the rate for black people has run about twice the rate for whites.
	Because of inferior educational opportunities, the legacy of mass incarceration and discrimination over generations.
	Black people confront greater challenges in the job market.
	That's a bit of editorializing.
	I'll say it sure is.
	Wow.
	A strong economy during Trump's first term created more jobs for black workers, but many of them were lost when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in-person employment particularly hard.
	Generous public subsidies, though, cushioned the blow, and hiring rebounded quickly.
	In 2023, conditions for black workers looked as healthy as ever.
	Unemployment reached a low of 4.8%.
	Wages rose at the fastest pace since data collection began in the 90s.
	Conditions started to deteriorate, though, in 2024, after pandemic era subsidies expired.
	Hiring slowed, high price, high prices weighed heavily on low income earners.
	Black households were the only racial group last year in which median income fell, and the poverty rose, according to the Census Bureau.
	Now, so this is even before the Trump administration.
	Yeah, you have to represent.
	Yeah, what I guess, and and they're there and they don't go into detail about uh the extent to which there were programs put in place for employers to be incentivized to hire again, which is one of the things that that happened during COVID.
	I'm sure you recall back in 2020, 2021.
	Well, all those PPP loans were designed to maintain the workforce.
	That's exactly right.
	Um, see, uh, you know, uh uh pardon me for barging in.
	No, but it seemed to me that a lot of this article had to do with the idea that when Doge marches in and slash the federal workforce, then the people disapproporate the fact that they're going to be black.
	That's right.
	Also, when you get rid of DEI.
	Who are the people running the DEI programs?
	Who are the people being hired because of the DEI programs?
	These are disproportionately black.
	So I thought that that seemed to be the focus of this article.
	And yet what you just read suggests that even before Trump came into office, something was going wrong about the black unemployment rate.
	And that uh the uh even before he took office, what was that that the median household income of blacks was the only one that declined everybody else held ground.
	Now that's a very interesting thing, even before Trump came in.
	And what's fascinating about that is they've buried the the what they're trying to get across, which they've pointed out in these prior articles when they've lamented the uh impact of black unemployment from the federal workforce and by extension the state workforce being slashed In places like Charles County and Prince George's County, Maryland, which are the two, I believe the two highest median income counties for blacks in the country and the impact.
	We've talked about that.
	Yes.
	I've got these two other New York Times articles where they are lamenting what this is doing.
	They're just aghast at what's happening.
	Go ahead.
	No, no, no.
	No continue.
	Yes.
	Well, I was going to say this.
	It's stunning to think that the government is shut down right now.
	I I don't has your life been impacted in any way.
	No, I don't miss it at all.
	And we're we're we've now seen 200,000 uh we've now seen hundreds of thousands of of black federal workers lose their jobs.
	And hey, the mail keeps coming on time.
	I in fact I get it actually earlier than usual.
	Um, my life hasn't been impacted at all.
	And it leads uh, I would say somewhat callous person might say, what was the point of these jobs?
	If well, of course.
	But now, have you actually seen statistics, racial statistics on the people who've lost their jobs during not only this shut down series of firings, but before that.
	Have you actually seen a breakdown racially as to what percentage of the people who have been fired because of Doge and because of the shutdown are black or white or Hispanic, for example.
	Trevor Burrus, Jr.
	There are a number of articles in the Washington Post and New York Times that did deal with that.
	I'd have to pop uh unfortunately the New York Times, as you know, is behind a paywall, so you have to use one of those paywall removers.
	It would take a second, but when you go to your next story, I'll pull up one that I have and get to that point.
	Okay, I'd like I'd like to see those factors.
	Let's jump in real quick to a couple more quotes here as you uh alluded.
	This is from uh Didric Asante Mohammed, the president of the joint center for political and economic studies, a think tank based a think take focused on issues affecting black Americans.
	How many think tanks are there like this?
	I think I think everything tank in America is focused on black issues.
	Come on.
	Yes, it's yeah, exactly.
	Um I was hoping the commitment to invest in America so that a broader set of Americans were actually receiving benefits in terms of low employment, unemployment, and higher wages would continue.
	He said he was particularly disappointed in large businesses that said they would support black workers in response to protests for racial justice in 2020, only to pull back.
	Mr. Taylor, that's been one of the fascinating things I've thought of recently, is in 2021, there was an article that said corporate America has pledged 200 billion dollars to Black Lives Matter causes to, you know, to to BLM.
	And we remember that that Bloomberg article that said that 94% of jobs within the S P 500 companies had gone to people of color.
	That was new jobs.
	New jobs.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	But but again, that's an unbelievable fiduciary infusion of cash from from these corporations uh specifically and dedicated solely to the those were pledges.
	Those were pledges.
	And that was at the height of the mass insanity.
	Trevor Burrus, Jr.
	It was.
	And my suspicion is that only a small portion of those pledges were actually was actually acted on.
	You don't have to answer this question right now, but at what point was the high water mark of when America went insane, when it looked like wow, we've passed that point of no return.
	Have you have you ever have you given thought to that?
	Oh, I have.
	I've thought about that a lot.
	I think those that period of from the summer it well, it was May 25th.
	That was the magic day, 2020, when George Floyd uh went to his reward.
	And from that period up to I would say about October.
	In October, they were still repeatedly attacking the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	Yeah.
	And nobody was doing anything about it.
	Even Don Donald Trump was in office.
	He was sort of wringing his hands.
	What can we do?
	Law and order.
	And I thought uh, good grief.
	This is just the the most uh the abominable thing I can imagine, the most horrible capitulation of the white man ever in the history of white men.
	And to me, it's remarkable that in just five years, we have Bounced back so resolutely.
	In any case, uh, that would be my I would say from May 25th up until say maybe October, September, October of 2020.
	That was the Nadier.
	That was when the white man absolutely hit bottom.
	I was appalled.
	I would argue real quick, I would say that it was in February of 2021 when the joint chief when the uh Secretary of Defense, the black guy forgot his name, he made the military stand down to address extremism and the United States military and all the people who were who were forced out, who lost their jobs.
	And I think we're seeing that still uh impacted uh the impact of the of the ideological uh wasn't that wasn't that a guy named Brown?
	I don't know.
	I think it's Brown, but I'll think of it in a second.
	But going back to this article.
	It's a very it's a very valid thought point when we think about what happened last week when President Trump had Andy No and other people do a roundtable discussion on the threat of Antifa and what you just said, these attacks on the Portland federal courthouse and these properties.
	It's just astonishing to think it was Lloyd something.
	Um, Lloyd Austin.
	Lloyd Austin.
	Good for you.
	Yeah.
	But but anyways, it's it's amazing to think that now we're having the White House is having roundtable discussions open to the public about the threat of Antifa.
	And I'm sure you saw that um that incredible federal uh indictment of the ICE attack uh the participants down in Texas.
	And they it's a 10-page report came out yesterday where they show that it is a it is a highly funded and uh incredibly um incredibly well organized.
	Well organized entity.
	And they're they're it obviously looks like someone came forward to talk and said, hey, you grant me some sort of clemency here.
	So it's gonna be fascinating to watch.
	But in the case of what we're talking about in regards to these job losses, this is where this article actually gets really interesting.
	Job losses are concentrated among black women working in professional professional services such as HR, according to Ms. Wilson's analysis of federal data.
	A hiring freeze and mass layoffs in the federal workforce, which have continued during the government shutdown now exceed 200,000 and have fallen disproportionately on black workers.
	The hiring freeze is an impediment to young workers trying to get their foot in the door, too.
	The federal government is one of those places people are able to get an entry-level job, said Begina Azulary.
	Um I guess that's how you pronounce her name.
	The chief economists at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which researches the safety social net.
	That's a whole industry that closed to new hires.
	It seems like this this industry she's talking about is just a place to find otherwise unemployable black people.
	Yep.
	Jobs for incompetence.
	That's what it boils down to.
	So again, this is this is the type of stuff these two articles that we just talked about, the just fascinating complete departure of.
	I mean, how many white people do you think were brought in as refugees over the past 10 years?
	Would you have them on one hand?
	Maybe on your fingers and toes.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, but now you've got a point where they're prioritizing whites.
	Incredible.
	We're seeing just these these massive cuts to the federal government uh employment ranks, and it's falling on these departments that, again, they were just they existed to employ blacks.
	Well, that's taking it a little far.
	But uh they certainly seemed to be structured that way.
	Well, here is uh here are a couple of stories on reparations.
	In a way, uh it shows two sides of the question.
	And let's start with Evanston, Illinois.
	That was the first city actually to offer cash payments to black residents for alleged discrimination in the past.
	I think it may actually be the only city that's actually written checks.
	But it has doled out six point eight million dollars in payments to more than 250 residents.
	But you'll be astonished, Mr. Kirsten.
	Critics say the program has done little to address the underlying causes of the housing crisis.
	In any case, sort of the reparations program, people who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969.
	That presumably was the period of redlining, or who are descendants of a resident who lived in the city during that period, are eligible to get $25,000.
	The payments were originally restricted to funds for housing costs, including down payments, repairs, or repayment of penalties.
	In other words, if you're in tax arrears or something, hey, you can say, whoa, I'm black.
	I was a victim of so you know if you haven't paid your taxes, you know, you get bailed out.
	But the city later expanded the program to include $25,000 direct cash payments.
	I guess you can spend that on uh I don't know, only fans, whatever it is you want to spend it on.
	Proponents of the reparations program argue that past housing policies have denied black families the opportunity to build generational wealth.
	Black residents account for only 16% of the city's population.
	Judicial Watch, good for judicial watch, has sued the city over this 20 million reparations program, saying that it violates equal protection clause.
	Its use of race-based eligibility is presumptively unconstitutional, it says.
	It also has a fatal flaw in that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination.
	Well, these liberals love that.
	You know, just because you're black, just because you've survived into the current year, you are by definition a victim of discrimination and you deserve handouts.
	Evanston's program, and I think this is really quite interesting, is funded by the city's real estate transfer tax and tax revenues from recreational marijuana purchases.
	I guess there's a city tax on buying a joint.
	Other municipalities have since passed resolutions forming tax task forces to look into this, but Evanston's the only city to actually write checks.
	Now, here is commentary by Robin Lou Simmons.
	She is chairwoman of the Evanston Reparations Committee.
	She says, Reparations alone are not enough.
	We know the road to repair and justice in the black community is going to be a generation of work.
	Just one generation, Robin Baby.
	It's going to be many programs and initiatives and more funding.
	Well, let's take a look at Robin Rue Simmons.
	Needless to say, she is an African Americanist.
	And according to her resume, her whole resume is just black and black, black, black, black, black, black, black.
	She is president of the Evanston Black Business Alliance, a lifetime member of Encobra.
	You may be one of the few people who know what NCOBRA stands for, Mr. Kersey.
	But for those of you who do not know, it stands for National Coalition of Blacks for Reparation in America.
	She is a commissioner at the National African-American Reparations Commission.
	I mean, her whole life is reparations.
	She's a board member of the National League of Cities National Black Caucus.
	She worked for nonprofit on Chicago South Side that supported over 1,000 entrepreneurs, and it says virtually all black and three-quarters women in launching or growing their own businesses.
	Now, this is the interesting part.
	She has been just smothered in awards for all the work she's been doing for black people, including be awarded a she was named a Pritzker Fellow.
	Ah, I guess.
	I see who uh that's our that's our $1.4 million blackjack-winning governor of Illinois, right?
	That's our boy.
	Now, I don't know if he personally set this fund up, but I'm sure it's all Pritzker money.
	Now, where did he get his money?
	I heard once, but I've forgotten now.
	Some famous rich family, wasn't he?
	He is a uh, he is a member of uh of a family bestowed with generational wealth.
	I don't remember if it's pharmaceuticals, it has to do with medical, I do believe.
	Okay, in any case, she was made a Pritzker Fellow at the University of Chicago.
	This is a month-long fellowship in which the winners teach, mentor, and engage with students.
	And her series of lectures was called The Road to Reparations.
	Can you believe that?
	This had many sessions, including one called Storytelling and Hip Hop, Advancing the Reparations Movement.
	Wow.
	Hip hop is advancing the reparations movement.
	But she says reparations payments are not enough.
	Well, Robin Darling, it will never be enough, will it?
	Never, never, never.
	White people have got to be squeezed until their last drop of blood has been extracted.
	Now, meanwhile, I thought this was quite interesting.
	Further with the story of reparations, in 2020, and we covered this in some detail, Mr. Kersey, California created the first state task force to study how to remedy the harms caused by slavery.
	This despite the fact that California entered the Union as a no-slave state, never had slavery in the in state.
	But anyway, let's see.
	Three years later, the PAN recommended it had more than a hundred recommendations, including paying each black $800,000.
	Now, that would have worked out several times the annual state budget, but you know, who cares?
	Since then, California's movement towards reparations has slowed as the state leaders have had to decide whether to spend actual tax dollars.
	Furthermore, the public remains opposed, and no surprise there.
	In California, a 2023 poll by UC Berkeley found that 59% of voters opposed a payout.
	59% of voters.
	I'm surprised it's not a higher number.
	All of those Hispanics and Asians who are living there, are they going to say, hey, we're going to write checks to blacks?
	For heaven's sake, our ancestors were involved.
	But apparently, only 59% are opposed.
	Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, as we know, he just signed legislation this month to create a state agency that would determine who would qualify as a descendant of slavery.
	You know, there was a huge discussion when they set up this task force to ladle out reparations as to whether or not all black people, whether they showed up uh from Nigeria yesterday, whether they too should have their foot in the public trough.
	But uh, now as you decide who qualifies as a descendant of slave, you have to be descended of slavery.
	But, and this is interesting, he vetoed measures that would have given such descendants preference in college admissions, home loan assistance, and restitution for poverty taken from them by eminent domain.
	Of course, a lot of people have had property taken from them by eminent domain, but only blacks would get special consideration.
	Now, the fact that Newsom had the veto this means the state voted for all this stuff.
	Preference in college admissions, home loan assistance, etc.
	That's been pointed out.
	The Supreme Court's 2023 decision banning affirmative action in universities has complicated some of these efforts.
	One Republican state senator said it could not pass constitutional muster.
	Furthermore, and even the New York Times admits this.
	Mr. Newson may have less political motivation than he did before, as he weighs the possibility for running for president in 2028.
	Democrats are grappling with the possibility that one reason they lost was that they were too hopped up about identity politics.
	Furthermore, my very own governor, now that I live in Maryland, Wes Moore, a Democrat and also a black.
	He vetoed legislation this year that would have created a commission to recommend reparations.
	Of course, the fact that he had to veto it means that the State House Voted for it.
	Now, on the subject of who wants it, who doesn't want it, a 2021 pew survey found that 68% of Americans said that uh blacks should not be repaid.
	68%.
	That includes 80% of whites.
	80% of whites say, heck no.
	58% of Hispanics, they're much less opposed to it.
	Oddly enough.
	Maybe they think that, hmm, if blacks can cash in, maybe we can too eventually.
	We got our own sob stories, dog on it.
	So only 58% of Hispanics say no.
	And uh 65% of Asians say no, interestingly enough.
	On the other hand, 77% of blacks, they think they deserve handouts.
	You and me, Mr. Kerzy.
	So there's a real divide here.
	In any case, that's the latest on reparations.
	Now, did you succeed in uh looking up what you had hoped to look up?
	I did succeed in that.
	The Pritzker family was uh early investors in the Hyatt Hotel chain.
	Huh.
	Yeah.
	It wasn't, it wasn't uh they were just, you know, I guess they beat the Begites uh they were they um they uh yeah anyways, it's it's it's they they made their money in and and then other in business investments is what we're told, but it was primarily in in hotel and that that burgeoning um that burgeoning growth industry long time ago.
	So they are.
	Um but anyways, no, it's it is fascinating to know that uh Tom Wolf's bonfire the vanities riff of plaques for blacks uh is is definitely true in real life.
	Because I'm sure plaques for blacks?
	What did he mean by that?
	Plaques for blacks.
	You give you give blacks plaques to put on their wall and they feel and you feel as if they've uh done something worthy of commemoration and and admiration.
	And um that woman's CV that you read of all the of all the honors she's been bestowed with and given.
	I didn't even read the list of honors.
	You know, cities and foundations and universities.
	I mean, it was endless.
	Gosh, imagine, imagine, Mr. Curse, if you and I got city honors and county honors and foundations.
	I love universities for all our work for the white community.
	Ha ha hard to imagine, isn't it?
	It would be it would be fantastic to get a honorary key at the city of Jackson, Mississippi when it was once again a uh metropolis uh where social capital could flourish, and there were a few high schools that actually had um passing go ahead.
	Maybe posthumously you'll get the keys, you'll get the keys.
	I've seen your office many times.
	I've seen your library, and I think the greatest honor for you, sir, would be to see the Stonewall Jackson statue go back up on Monument Avenue.
	I've thought about that a lot.
	Uh what would be a great way to honor your all your sacrifices, everything you've done, and I think it would be too.
	Robert E. Lee, I'd vote for Robert Eli first, but uh Stonewall, he was a great man too.
	In any case, Mr. Kerzy, you have uh an interesting set of data on black homicide.
	This is one of my most this subject fascinates more than anything because we've talked about all these companies, all these uh nonprofits that exist to study black uh impact of uh of such and such on the overall black aggregate when it comes to economics.
	But Johns Hopkins has an amazing um organization known as the uh violence prevent hold on one second, let me pull it up here.
	I want to make sure I get this right.
	I believe it's the violence policy center.
	And I just for some reason last night was interested to see if there's been any new studies over the past couple years, especially since COVID about black homicide.
	And this one popped up.
	We have never talked about it.
	I did a quick Google search.
	There were some articles in the Washington Post, New York Times about it, basically to bemoan what blacks do, what guns do to the black community, but it didn't actually look at the data and realize what blacks do to the communities they're in with guns.
	I mean, that's what the whole study is showing.
	And uh the violence policy center is a left-of-center uh nonprofit that advocates for gun control.
	And when you read the article with a critical eye, Mr. Taylor, you'd realize there's one simple way to have gun control in the United States.
	And it's something that you mentioned, you've advocated before, albeit tongue-in-cheek about how to make black lives really matter.
	And uh we learned in this piece that 90% of black homicide victims killed with guns.
	That was the headline.
	This is from July 9th, 2024.
	Guns are by far the most common weapon used to kill black homicide victims in America, according to black homicide victimization in the United States, an analysis of 2022 data.
	Uh as stated, it's from the VPC.
	It shows that in 2022 there were 13,466 black homicide victims in the U.S., and 87.4% of these victims were killed with guns.
	Now, you also said something very important earlier.
	Almost 50% of homicides in the United States of America go uncleared.
	So all this study is showing is the bodies of those who are killed.
	We have no idea who committed these homicides.
	They don't go into that at all.
	That's important.
	But what we can learn from this study is this quote from the executive director, Josh Sugarman.
	The toll of gun homicide, the toll gun homicide exacts on black men, women, boys, and girls as a national shame that demands action.
	The resulting devastation ravages families, friends, and communities.
	The purpose of this report is to help support advocates and organizations working to stop this lethal violence while continuing to educate and engage the public and policymakers on the need to address this ongoing crisis.
	Well, I'd go one further, Mr. Sugarman.
	The unbelievable devastation that blacks with guns ravit uh cause on families, friends, uh, strangers, and communities is a reason to address this ongoing crisis of blacks with guns.
	But anyways, we learn that in 22, in 2022, the 10 states with the highest black homicide victimization rates were Missouri, obviously St. Louis, Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Illinois, Chicago, Oregon.
	That would be Portland.
	Because Mr. Taylor, I believe Oregon is only 4% black, and they're largely concentrated in Portland.
	Louisiana, Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi.
	No, no, Mr. Kersey, those are black homicide rates, right?
	Yes.
	Not overall homicide rates.
	No, no, no, no.
	If you actually look at the uh when you open the study, you can see the the black versus the white victimization rates.
	And the white rates are very, very, very, very small in regards to per 100,000.
	Uh this was the 16th year in a row that Missouri ranked either first or second in the nation for black homicide victimization.
	We've actually talked about this study before, uh, back in back before COVID, because this comes out every year.
	And I believe that this was one of the first years they actually went back in uh 2024 to start looking at uh the post-George Floyd world, uh post-COVID world.
	Despite already having the highest black homicide victimization rate in the country, in the last decade, CDC data reveal that the black homicide victimization rate in Missouri more than doubled increasing from 30.7 per 100,000 in 2013 to 65.7 percent in 2022.
	That's really remarkable.
	Uh they don't offer any uh speculation as to why it should have doubled, do they?
	Uh they don't.
	They they just put out the data and one of the let's see if I can pull up this other quote.
	Um Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, they had a community gun violence gun vet uh gun report, and they showed for that same year, I'm sorry, for 2021, that young black males aged 15 to 34 made up two percent of the U.S. population.
	But Mr. Taylor, they account for 36% of all homicide fatal fatalities that year.
	Well, you know, the trouble is it's all very well to talk about victims.
	Yes.
	And I wish we had equally detailed information on perpetrators.
	But that's very, very hard to get.
	It's it's there's only a few cities that still provide that.
	Yeah.
	And that would be so much fun for you to have uh bestowed upon you the honor of basically doing this on a nationwide scale uh at the macro and micro level.
	Could you imagine if you got to be uh if the Trump administration came to you and said, Mr. Taylor, we understand you have a vast interest in crime stats and you want to make our country safer, our cities safer, you're going to be in charge of this initiative.
	That would be a fun job.
	But uh I bet there are people at the at the uh Bureau of Justice Statistics, so that's within the Department of Justice, who would dig their heels in and try very, very hard not to find out the whole interracial murder rate business.
	That's I think it would even shock us when you start to just look at this data and some of these charts that they have and just the just how low it is for white.
	It's not that much higher for Hispanic Latino.
	It is higher, disproportionately higher, but then you see these on these graphs, uh, the difference in gun homicide rates by gender and race.
	Yeah.
	And even the black female uh victimization rates dwarf the white male or the white female rate.
	You're like, whoa, something's wrong here.
	Um I I highly, highly recommend all of our listeners take a look at this study so you can actually see a lot of the uh a lot of the a lot of the findings.
	Uh I'm not going to read uh of of about what it shows, but it's just it's onerous.
	And it is it is shocking to think how because you've broken down in a great video you did the New York City crime rates for 2024.
	And I I don't remember what you postulated a all-white New York City would look like in terms of crime if the criminals and the racial groups that are responsible for most of the crime were no longer residing in New York.
	Oh, well, the one of the most striking crimes would be shootings.
	And that is when somebody fires a firearm and wounds somebody but does not kill him.
	In that case, the number of shootings would decline, as I recall, uh by 95%.
	They would practically disappear.
	Murder would drop uh, oh, by 80, 85 percent, mugging by 90 percent.
	No, on all white New York City, assuming that the whites that uh arrived in New York City committed crimes at exactly the same rate as the current residents.
	You could you really could defund the police practically.
	There'd be nothing for them to do.
	But anyway.
	Well, and and there'd also be no more need for a gang database.
	Well, that's right.
	They could finally get rid of it with a good conscience.
	Okay, let's see.
	Um there's an interesting article by a fellow named Toby Young.
	And he is the head of the free speech union in Britain.
	And it's on why academics cancel each other.
	And here's I'll read some passages from the article.
	As the head of the free speech union, I frequently have to rescue academics who are in the process of being canceled, usually at the behest of their colleagues.
	Scarcely a weeks go by without an open letter circulating, in which hundreds of lecturers are calling for the scalp of a heretical co-worker.
	To date, we have had to defend 160 academics mobbed by their co-workers.
	I guess that's strictly in Britain.
	I think that's probably worse, even worse than in the United States.
	That adjective mobbed, uh, what does he mean by that?
	Is that mobbed?
	Oh, that means uh when everybody gets on Facebook or Twitter or a digital mob.
	Oh, yeah, I beg your pardon.
	Yes.
	I was hoping it was something like out of out of uh Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, they'd show up with torches and just stop joking.
	No, no, no, no.
	It's it's not core.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, uh Toby Young goes on to write this in his new book, When Everyone Knows that everyone knows, the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has a theory.
	He starts by asking why tyrants are able to stave off revolt in spite of widespread discontent.
	It's because the citizens are unaware of how widespread unhappiness is.
	Believing that a particular point of view is widely shared, as well as believing that those who hold it know it's shared, is how ideological dogmas are enforced in universities.
	The dogmas may be adhered to sincerely by only a tiny minority, but so long as anyone challenging them gets a swift beating in the form of a social media mobbing, or worse, the extent of the dissent isn't common knowledge.
	Excuse me.
	Take, for example, a group of professors at the University of Auckland.
	In the autumn of 2021, seven professors with a letter of the New Zealand listener that took issue with a proposal by a government working group that high school teachers.
	Excuse me for a moment here.
	I really have to cough.
	I beg to pardon you.
	I beg to pardon you.
	Fortunately, I reached for the mute button just in time, that high school teachers should give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science.
	These professors said you can't treat Maori myths as if they were physics, chemistry and biology.
	Then two of the author's colleagues issued an open letter condemning them for causing untold harm and hurt.
	They invited anyone who agreed to add their names to the letter.
	And two thousand academics signed up.
	Can you believe this?
	This is New Zealand.
	Maori myths have to be treated just as if they were the equivalent of physics and chemistry and biology.
	The views of the people who dissented were denounced by the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Association of Scientists, and the Tertiary Education Unit, as well as by the own vice-chancellor of their university.
	Deep down, says Pinker, probably all of the people denouncing them thought scientific knowledge was superior to Maori mythology, but they were afraid that only a few people really thought this.
	They harbored this belief in science like a guilty secret and felt obliged to advertise their fealty to what they took to be the prevailing orthodoxy for being singled out as heretics.
	Because the extent of skepticism isn't common knowledge, or the dogs not only survive but are energetically enforced by people who have long since stopped believing in them in themselves.
	Now, I wonder how true that is.
	I suspect there is an element of truth to that.
	It's the people who yell the loudest, who support these idiotic orthodoxies that we have been trumpeted, they've been trumpeted to us generation after generation.
	They are the ones who manage to silence the dissenters, despite the fact that according to this, the dissenters are far, far more numerous than they are actually than they actually think they are.
	Now, Mr. Cursey, I've had discussions for a long time with a good friend of mine on the whole question of race and IQ.
	He thinks that practically everybody, everybody in America understands that blacks, on average, just aren't as smart as whites, and that explains everything.
	My view is that can't be true.
	If that really were true, people simply would not behave the way they do.
	They wouldn't promote DEI.
	I mean, uh, and also they would never have voted No Child Left Behind, for example.
	That was this cuckoo cuckoo legislation, overwhelmingly voted by both houses of Congress, in which schools were punished if they couldn't get the test scores of blacks and Hispanics up to the level of whites and Asians.
	Back in the Halcyon days of George W. Bush, if memory correctly.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	I can't help but believe that, oh, a very, very large proportion of Americans believe that the races are independent and are equal in that respect.
	In any case, it's a very, very interesting idea that you have to have some well, that there could be a huge level of dissent against orthodoxy, but people just don't realize that's the case, and that's why this stuff gets shoved down our throats.
	Well, if I just so pine real quick whole gun debate and uh lack of future time orientation, impulse control, these are all uh attributes or or diminished attributes that are associated with intelligence and and race.
	That's right.
	I think our entire, our entire system that we've lived in that I was born into in the mid-80s.
	That again, I don't blame Boomers for everything because so many things were set in motion when when your generation was uh was forced to integrate.
	I'm reading a book right now about the integration of college football that was forced upon the Southeastern Conference primarily in the early 70s and what that did to the social cohesion, social capital that existed on campuses.
	And the same thing that we were just talking about in regards to federal employment being the one of the primary ways that a black middle class was created.
	You would ask for the statistics, and the statistics are found for any of our listeners who want to check it out.
	The New York Times on August 31st, 2025, published an article with the title, In Trump's Federal Workforce Cuts, Black Women Are Among the Hardest Hit.
	And it has a quick quote that I'll just read real quick.
	Um, I just had it here.
	For generations, the federal government served as a ladder to the middle class for black Americans who were shut out of jobs because of discrimination.
	The federal government has historically offered the population more job stability, pay equity, and career advancement than the private sector.
	Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal government aggressively enforced affirmative action and hiring and anti-discrimination rules that Mr. Trump has sought to roll back.
	Mr. Taylor, we sacrificed civilization.
	I thought you were gonna uh give us some statistics.
	Well, they're actually what what's funny is they're not even in the article.
	We just learned this.
	Uh it just says that black women make up 12% of the federal workforce, nearly double their share of the labor force overall, and that they've been disproportionately affected by the cuts.
	It doesn't give you the number.
	Uh you have to go down into it.
	But my point is we created a uh we created a a colorblind society where IQ were race didn't matter unless you were non-white, and then you could say that you've been historically discriminated against, thus the the need for you to advance in a position that you otherwise wouldn't be able to get were it not for this Mr. Kersey narrative.
	I'm afraid we are out of time.
	We can bring this up next week and talk.
	Yeah, this is a fun hour.
	A fun hour.
	There's a lot of pet there's a lot of great things to be talking about.
	You know, there's so many things.
	We uh I had all sorts of wonderful things to say about Letitia James.
	We'll talk about her next.
	There'll probably be new things to talk about her next week.
	In any case, ladies and gentlemen, our beloved listeners, thank you so much for spending this time with us.
	It is a joy and an honor for us, and we look forward to spending this time with you again next week.

▲