Jeremy Carl, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and former Trump administration official, argues in The Unprotected Class that white Americans face systemic discrimination—from affirmative action to Hollywood’s mandatory non-white screen credits—while leftist claims of "white supremacy" ironically downplay its persistence. He ties demographic shifts (1965 Immigration Act reducing whites from 86% to 57%) and corporate exclusion to cultural messaging like "white guilt," advocating a Cold War-style political pushback. Though he critiques Charles Murray’s genetic theories, Carl supports Trump’s 2024 bid for defying establishment rules that often harm Republicans, while dismissing media conspiracy theories about Biden’s debate performance as overblown. His book’s rise in conservative circles signals growing mainstream acceptance of framing racial disparities as a two-way street. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Jeremy Carl.
I invited Jeremy on because the smartest person I know, my son Spencer Clavin, no relation, told me he was a really smart guy, something Spencer has never said about me, which is why he's not in my will.
Jeremy has written a daring, I have to say, this is an actual courageous book.
I don't use that word lightly.
It's an extremely intelligent book called The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart.
Jeremy is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, where his research focuses on multiculturalism, nationalism, race reactions, race relations, sorry, and immigration.
He's a former deputy assistant secretary of the interior of the United States under Donald Trump and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
It's a lot of good credits.
You can find him on exit, RealJeremy Carl, the C-A-R-L, or at the Substack The Course of Empire.
Jeremy, it's nice to meet you.
Thank you for coming on.
Thanks so much for having me, Andrew.
I want to read just a small portion of your introduction and talk to you about that to start.
White Americans increasingly are second-class citizens in a country their ancestors founded and in which until recently they were the overwhelming majority of the population.
We've come a long way from the days when we were securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity as the preamble to the Constitution puts it.
So, I mean, you can almost hear the leftists screaming like in the background.
And I suppose what they would say to you is, well, black people still do worse than whites.
They still have worse outcomes than whites.
Black people get arrested more, imprisoned more, are poorer.
Why should we care about white people?
Why should white people complain?
Right.
Well, there's a couple of things.
I mean, first, I didn't write it to complain or to create a victim class because I think we have enough of that right now in society.
But I'm really kind of trying to urge folks to basically stand up for equality, stand up for themselves, kind of have that level of self-respect, quite frankly.
And then I think the second kind of important thing to do is in this book, I really try to make it not just about black people and white people, but to look at its kind of broader range of races and ethnicities in which white Americans actually trail Asian Americans, for example, in pretty much any metric that you would want to use for current success in society.
And finally, there's a lot of empirical work that you can look at that shows that if it's really great to be a white American, it's sort of strange because what we see is that when white people can flee from that identity, at least officially, and identify as something else on a government document or something else, that's what they're doing.
And I outline that in the book.
So when black people join together, let's say they're activists.
When Hispanic people join together, they're activists.
When white people join together, they're the Klan.
And that immediately, I have to say, even, I got to be honest, even in my mind, I thought, do we really want a white movement necessarily?
Is that a danger?
Yeah.
Well, I think, I mean, certainly an excessive identity politics period is a danger.
I basically say in the book, this is a very, it's a kind of narrow thread that I'm trying to go through, but I'm trying to say, look, this is actually activism that is much like the civil rights activism that Martin Luther King Jr. did, in that he was organizing black people and allied whites, but not in the name of some black identity politics, but in the name of saying, hey, black Americans are entitled to the same sorts of constitutional protections and rights that all other Americans have.
So that's what I'm really trying to say too.
I'm not trying to kind of start a white identity movement, but I'm saying, hey, white people and other people who are allied, who, in fact, I've got many non-white endorsers of the book, need to be organizing in the name of everybody having equal rights, because right now, white people are being treated, both formally and informally, as second-class citizens, increasingly.
Can you expand on that a little bit?
How are white people being treated that way?
Sure.
So you've got everything from affirmative action where they're being discriminated against on the content, the color of their skin.
And this is now the Supreme Court may have trimmed that a little bit in universities, although, and I can expand on this.
I'm sort of skeptical that we're going to see anything like the kind of real movement on that that I think a lot of proponents are going to see.
But we have this on job applications.
And then you have it even, I kind of document it in sort of my book in all sorts of different areas of life.
So you have it even in the military.
You have it in the healthcare system where white people were sometimes deprioritized for care in ways that I document.
And then you have it even in ways that you can't kind of put as much of a quick finger on.
But if you look at sort of the entertainment business, for example, white people, and this has been kind of compiled by liberal scholars, have been portrayed more negatively on average in Hollywood characters since the 1960s.
So not even that recently that we've had this change than minorities.
So it's really, it's very pervasive.
And in each of the sort of 12 inner chapters of my book, I talk about a different area of society and the ways in which kind of anti-white discrimination manifests itself.
I can certainly tell you in Hollywood, I mean, it's very hard to get hired as a white person.
If you do, they will attach a black person to, if you're writing a script, they'll attach a black person to it.
He doesn't have to write anything.
He just gets screen credit because the unions insist on it.
So it's definitely happening.
So let me read you another brief statement from the book.
White supremacy, the fact that white supremacy is now proclaimed by the White House, Hollywood, and many major corporations to be the greatest threat to America is proof that in fact, white supremacy no longer holds great sway in America at all and hasn't for quite some time.
Can you explain that?
Sure.
So the analogy I actually use in the book, and it's, I think, a good one, so I'll use it here as well, is that if you're living under Kim Jong-un in North Korea and that type of oppression, you're not actually going to be complaining about Kim Jong-un because if you do, they're going to, you know, they're going to take you off to the gulag.
It's only when you're sort of safely away from that that you can kind of talk about how horrible Kim Jong-un was as a leader.
So it's the same sort of thing.
I mean, back 100 plus years ago, when you could really point to the fact that white supremacy or white privilege existed in society, nobody was talking about it for the most part.
But it's really, you begin to see, in fact, terms that the term white privilege first really appears from a professor at Wellesley in the mid-1980s.
And it's not a coincidence that this is happening in liberal academia right at the sort of point at which any sort of white privilege in academia that might have existed would have been really kind of a distant relic of the past.
So let's talk about, I mean, black people have some point about the past, right?
I mean, that black people have been abused.
Yeah.
So let's talk about how we got here from a point where the argument was we should judge a man by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.
And now the argument has become, no, you're allowed to judge people by the color of their skin.
Do you agree with your fellow Claremonter, Chris Caldwell, that civil rights law now constitutes a second constitution in conflict with the first?
I do.
And I talk about that to a degree, although I think I have a little bit, I don't want to say of a more subtle take because Chris's book is terrific and it is subtle in its own way.
But I have a slightly actually less negative, or maybe because I've been so involved in practical politics, a more understanding view of the Civil Rights Act than I think some critics do.
And then I think it's really easy to look back 60 years after the fact and say, ah, you know, we wound up in all these really bad places because of some things that were embedded in the 64 Act.
I kind of look at it as, yes, that's absolutely true.
And it's one of the reasons that we really need to fundamentally reform our civil rights laws.
But I'd say two things.
One, there were a lot of things that happened after the Civil Rights Act, things like disparate impact Supreme Court decisions, administrative judgments, things that were not inherent in the act itself, but were really kind of the deep state and the courts taking over that made it much more damaging in terms of the damages than it had to be.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge and be fair, we weren't at the time of the Civil Rights Act.
It wasn't as if we were some racial paradise, right?
And the Civil Rights Act was not responding to real problems.
So the Civil Rights Act was responding to a real problem that was out there.
It was a blunt instrument.
I think it accomplished some of its goals.
But I think now we've kind of reached a point in which the positives are far outweighed by the negatives, and it's just time to re-look at it in some fundamental ways.
What about the Great Society?
It has always seemed to me that the Great Society was this massive failure that did bring in tons of money into especially the Democrat coffers.
I mean, it gave them a way to buy votes and it failed.
And anytime you said that it failed, you were called racist.
How much does that affect the fix that we're in?
Well, I think it does.
And I think you're exactly right to point out this is not just the Civil Rights Act, right?
There's a whole bunch of things that happen after the Republicans run Barry Goldwater after the assassination of President Kennedy.
You have this kind of historic wipeout.
The Democrats have historic supermajorities and they use it to pass some pretty radical legislation.
And so it's not a coincidence that there you also get the heart seller immigration bill, which I talk about quite extensively in my book.
That's 1965.
And that leads to a fundamental radical transformation of America's immigration policy from anything it had been in its history to kind of where we are today.
And it takes us from a society, and this is very relevant to the book, where we were essentially in the 1960 census, we were roughly 85 or 86% white, non-Hispanic, we were 10 or 11% African American and sort of 3% everything else to a society today in which we're 57% white non-Hispanic.
And among under 18s, we are a minority white, non-Hispanic.
So it's been a fundamental demographic transformation of society.
And that, plus a whole bunch of other things that happened in the Great Society, I think, kind of, you know, it has a lot of downsides.
So that's kind of what I want to get to.
We're talking about the book, The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart by Jeremy Carl, C-A-R-L.
Give me some ideas of what, if you had to say, well, what are the big problems?
If you're a white man, if a white man is a young person comes to you who's white, what are the problems he is going to face?
Yeah, well, I think you're not going to have the same opportunities professionally.
You're not going to have the same opportunities educationally.
And I think you're even seeing, I mean, my wife and I are both Yale grads.
And so we were sort of part of that elite kind of academic background.
And I think when I look for, I've got five kids and I look for my kids, I'm kind of like, well, is that even on the table realistically if we're not giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the university?
I mean, sure, in an extreme case, it could be, but I don't know that it is.
I think big corporations, again, don't really want you.
So maybe you have to look more at the entrepreneurship category.
I think there's a lot of things, but it's even more just the messages you're getting from the culture that you are the problem, that you have white guilt, that you have white privilege, that there's all these sorts of sins of your ancestors that you have to atone for.
And of course, I talk about this in a church context as a Christian.
You know, I obviously believe that we're all sinful and we all have to repent, but that's not a basis of the color of our skin.
That's just because we're human beings.
Right.
So, so, but still, you're getting this feedback.
What's the answer to that?
I mean, is the answer to be defensive or is the answer to strike back?
I'm not quite sure.
I'm getting the idea of where the fight is.
What is the fight we're supposed to be in?
So, at a certain level, I think we've got to roll back these sorts of policies with, to borrow a Cold War metaphor, with mutually assured destruction, which was kind of how we kept the peace in the Cold War.
This was the idea that we sort of had a nuclear arsenal such that the Soviets weren't going to challenge us because they knew if they fired a missile, it was going to be the end for all of us.
So, I think the way that we get away from race politics in the way that none of us want to play is we have to show the Democrats that when they behave in this sort of racist way, that the political consequences for them are going to be so painful and we are going to make them so painful that they're going to back up and say, Hey, you know what?
Maybe we should kind of get back to that content of your character type thing because that would seem to be the best way to make things work in a multi-ethnic democracy.
Mutually Assured Destruction00:02:30
That's interesting.
How do you do that?
How do you make that painful for them?
So, I mean, I think part of it, I mean, this book is an awareness-raising exercise.
I mean, I'm just trying to say, as I started to point out, this is the most comprehensive look.
I think I'm not kind of patting myself on the back extensively and saying this is just a fact at this issue.
But there are certainly people who've looked at sub-elements of this issue, and it's kind of the metaphorical blind man touching different parts of the elephant.
And when I'm trying to go in here and say the elephant is an elephant, all this stuff is interrelated.
We need to talk about it.
We need to have a comprehensive way that we're pushing back and organizing and not being apologetic at calling the left out for their racist policies and empowering people so that if there is somebody on the left who's kind of being overtly anti-white as a politician, that they pay a political price for doing that.
And I think once you have that happen, which is a function of A, being able to talk about things openly, which is what I'm trying to do here, and in organizing politically, then you begin to change the dynamic.
For many people, tossing and turning all night is a frustrating experience.
For me, it's just nighttime.
That's what it's like.
But when I want to go to sleep fast, I use Beam.
It's not just your run-of-the-mill sleep aid.
It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you slip into the sweet embrace of rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies.
That's why I never use other sleep remedies.
Beam Dream contains a powerful, all-natural blend of racey, magnesium, L-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed.
I didn't bring it with me to Nashville today, and that's why I got two hours of sleep last night.
Today, my listeners get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder, their best-selling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar.
Now available in delicious flavors like cinnamon cocoa, chocolate peanut butter, and mint chip.
Better sleep has never tasted better.
Just mix beam dream into hot water or milk and enjoy before bedtime.
If you find yourself battling the bedtime blues, give it a shot.
Your weary self will thank you.
If you want to try Beam's best-selling dream powder, take advantage of 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com/slash Claven and use code Clavin at checkout.
That's shopbeam.com/slash Clavin with my promo code Claven for up to 40% off your order.
Why oh why do they spell Beam a four-letter word when what you want to know is how you spell Claven.
Climate Change and Discrimination00:13:54
It is K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no E's in Claven.
I just make it look this easy.
So, I mean, one of the things that strikes me about the idea of white identity is for thousands, literally 2,000 years, the people of Europe did nothing but kill each other and fight with each other.
And now in America, we're sort of all, you know, huddled here together.
But at the same time, there's plenty of animosity between Irish and Italian Jews and all, you know, all these people.
So how do you form a white identity without accepting some of the racist premises of the left?
Yeah, well, again, I'm not, I want to be very clear because I am very clear on this in the book.
And it's a subtle, it's a subtlety, but it is clear.
I'm not advocating for white identity politics of any time, any type.
I'm arguing for people who are put in this legal category of white in which they are being discriminated against to organize with other people, with many non-white people, to access equal rights.
So it's not about kind of trying to create white identity politics because as you point out, this is problematic for many reasons.
It's problematic ethically.
It's problematic practically because there's many, many different groups that kind of fall under that white umbrella and they haven't always all gotten along with each other.
But the government has kind of said, hey, you know, if you fall into this category, we're going to treat you as less than.
And even more informally, you have groups in society doing that.
So we have to push back against that.
So how do we start to talk about this?
I mean, your book is very blunt, which I really enjoyed.
I mean, it's extremely intelligent, but it's also very direct.
It's not a, you're not, you don't mince words.
How do we start to talk about this in the current climate?
Now, I don't, I'm not saying we should be afraid of the left or the media, but we should expect a blowback, unparalleled blowback for this kind of conversation.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I mean, I think one of the ways I did it, and for folks who look, I mean, I've gotten a huge variety of endorsers from various parts of the conservative movement, some of whom don't even like each other at all for this book.
And I'd like to think it's because it's a good book.
And I think one of the things that I tried to do very consciously in writing it is while I was very blunt, at the same time, anytime when we were even going through, I think the best thing my editors did, anytime kind of the language got too flowery or too heated in the draft, we just took it out.
And I'm just, you know, the fact race ipsiloquid, as they say in the legal profession, let the facts speak for themselves, right?
I don't need to kind of gild the lily here.
And so what I've tried to do in this book is just write a very factual, calm presentation that's not attacking people.
It's not telling other people they're bad.
It's not saying white people are the best.
Just saying, hey, this is a problem.
We need to talk about this problem.
There's nothing wrong with talking about this problem.
I want white people and non-white people to be comfortable in talking about this.
And that's the first step to moving forward.
I'm not pretending that my book is just going to magically change the discourse overnight all by itself, but I've seen some stuff already and that's been great.
Like, can you give me an example?
Oh, just, I mean, there's much more comfort, even since I've written the book, but first of all, in the two years since I started writing the book, I think people in the media, including guys like your colleague Matt Walsh at Daily Wire, are comfortable in talking about anti-whiteness in kind of very direct terms.
But even just like the term anti-white racism, I haven't done a Google Mgram on it, but I can tell you from my own Twitter feed, since this book came out just a couple months ago, the number of people I just see using that term who are very mainstream people who are not apologizing for using that term to describe what's actually going on, it's really increased a lot.
And again, I'm not saying that in the way of hoping to have a conflict, but that we just, we need to be honest about what's going on, because if we can't be honest, then we're not going to transcend any of this problem.
You know, Charles Murray, I had Charles Murray on the show and talked to him.
His theory basically is that genetically, if everybody is just treated in a colorblind manner, that would be the most just thing to do.
But at the same time, it might mean blacks are wind up in lesser positions.
Now, I have no way of knowing whether that's true or not, but Murray seems to think it is.
Do you think that that is true?
And if it's true, do you think it presents a problem?
I think it's a problem.
I mean, I think you could certainly say objectively, as of 2024, whether you could ameliorate it in some way if you were to look at, I mean, this is what the affirmative action case at Harvard was about, right?
I mean, if you did things on a race-blind way, you would have a different racial distribution than you have in a pretty dramatic way with blacks and Hispanics and Asian Americans and whites.
Now, whether that's a long-term truth, you know, that's a sort of subject outside of what I wrote my book on.
But what I would say is just this is the way to go forward is just to not discriminate.
And that there's not, it's not that there's no problems with not discriminating.
I mean, anytime you have groups that are differently represented in important institutions within society, people are going to care about that.
I think realistically also, you're not ever going to fully get rid of some sort of thumb on the scale that's going to be trying to equalize things a little bit, whether, you know, regardless of what I want or what you want or anybody else wants.
But I think it's much more dangerous if you look at the history of democracies to kind of have racial carve outs.
One of the things I mentioned in the book is I first started thinking about this issue very seriously 20 years ago.
My wife and I were newlyweds.
We were living in India.
And A, I noticed their caste politics took on the same sort of tenor as our racial politics with very, very destructive consequences.
And that made me think, huh, you know, that's sort of interesting that that's going on.
Secondly, I read Thomas Sowell's book, Affirmative Action Around the World, an empirical essay, which I'd highly recommend to your listeners.
And he kind of documents kind of how this sort of race quotas basically play out around the world in a variety of multi-ethnic democracies.
And I think the bottom line is when you have that type of racial categorization in multi-ethnic democracies, the track record for keeping social peace is not great.
The book, again, is The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart by Jeremy Carl, which is C-A-R-L.
And you can also find him at his substack, The Course of Empire.
I want to change the topic for a couple of minutes.
You sent out, you were in government during the Trump administration, and you sent out an ex-post after the last debate, which I strongly agreed with and thought was important, where you said that the theory on the right that the debate had been a setup to get rid of Joe Biden was untrue.
Can you expand on that?
Can you say why you said that?
Yeah, it's just I actually just expanded this literally.
Published on a post on my sub stack talking about my own personal experience.
But basically, it's that we don't need, you know, if you were going to do it, you would never do it this way.
The people who were making that decision whether Joe Biden was going to be a debate were Joe Biden and people who are very personally close to Joe Biden, not kind of the Democratic Party in general.
And they're not people who are going to benefit in any way if Joe Biden is pushed aside for somebody else.
So I think they made a decision because they're sort of, you know, there's a reality distortion field around working in a place like the White House.
You know, they sort of felt like, well, you know, we know he's not great, but it's, we can kind of, we'll spend a week.
We can kind of get him through it.
It'll be fine.
And they were kind of in denial about kind of how crippled Joe Biden really was until they got out there.
And then so now they're in this really difficult situation where they were covering for him and the media is covering for him.
And so I did this very viral Twitter post, but then I just expanded into a sub stack where I talked about my own experience working for a decade with the late Secretary of State George Schultz up into his late 90s and sort of the thought process that goes when you have a guy who used to be very able.
And in fact, in Schultz's case, probably more able than Biden, even well into his 90s, but you're kind of working with him and you're trying to accommodate that type of decline that he has.
And, you know, in this case, I just think you can't have that for the president of the United States.
I've heard some genuine horror stories about the way people were treated who worked in the Trump administration, treated by the press completely unnecessarily, even people who weren't that high up on the ladder.
What was your experience of that reality distortion field?
I guess is what I want to know.
What were you seeing inside and seen outside?
And what was the comparison like?
Oh, absolutely.
And I talk about this a lot in the environment chapter of the book because that's my kind of my original field of expertise was energy and environmental policy.
That's what I was doing under President Trump.
So I had written a lot about on the side when I was at Hoover, not as my kind of primary vocation, but sort of advocationally on some of these racial, race relations, national identity issues, immigration.
I'd written it all under my own name.
This wasn't like some sort of secret or anything I was ashamed of.
But when I took a fairly senior role in the Trump administration, suddenly my political opponents took a much more interest in it.
So I had a hit piece in the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.
I had numerous members of Congress denouncing me.
I mean, to the point that it was like so libelous that I actually consulted with a friend who ironically later became a childhood friend, a Biden federal judge.
And I said, look, you know, can I sue these guys for libel?
Because it's so outrageous what they're saying.
And he says, you know, look, the problem is when you're in Congress, you basically have sort of special constitutional provisions where within the context of your official duties, you can say sort of not whatever you want about anybody, but you have, it's pretty much impossible to win a libel case against a congressman.
But yeah, they came completely after me for stuff that had nothing to do with anything that I was doing in the Trump administration.
They made, you know, numerous false assertions.
And I'm, you know, it was just kind of a welcome to DC moment.
Again, I wasn't a DC guy.
But yeah, I was very ruthless.
You can't expect to be treated fairly by the DC media or the permanent Washington bureaucracy.
And that's just the name of the game.
Ironically, probably my biggest ally in the entire administration was a woman named Aurelia Skipwith, who was an African-American woman who was running Fish and Wildlife and who was really a great ally as I was kind of going through some of that.
But I think it's just, it's indicative of how unhinged the left has become on these issues, if you dare step outside the lines at all.
Specifically, you were dealing with the environment.
What was your experience of the facts that you were seeing versus the climate change agenda that you get from the press?
Well, that was really interesting because I think one thing that was very different about me than some political appointees, or frankly, most political appointees, not all, I want to be clear because some of them were really quite expert, but I had a lot of pretty deep technical expertise in my area.
I mean, I'd done doctoral work at Stanford in climate policy and things like that and energy policy.
And so a lot of the nonsense that the permanent bureaucracy was trying to get by politicals, I just wasn't having any of it.
I'm like sending it back saying, you know, read this article in Science Magazine that is totally contradicting what you're trying to make me, you know, sign off on here.
Or, you know, I actually would understand the climate and economic model enough that I would be like, you know, you really can't say that.
But of course, the problem is that very few politicals of any administration, I think particularly in Republican administrations, tend to have that type of deep subject matter expertise.
And as a result, the permanent bureaucracy kind of tends to come in and run things.
And that's, by the way, why this case that just came down today as we're taping this, the Chevron case, where essentially we're going to stop deferring to administrative agencies in ways that we've been doing for 40 years, is so important because it recaptures some of that, the power that the deep state and the bureaucracy has, to me, unaccountably taken over.
And it puts it back in the hands of more democratically accountable branches of government.
So I think that's great.
Do you feel that, you know, if we don't do something about the environment that we'll all be dead in five years ago or whatever?
No, no, I mean, you know, and again, it's so funny that I was actually attacked because I was one of the more dovish people in the Trump administration on environment issues.
But so it's, I'm not, I mean, I hate the term climate change denier, but I don't deny that climate change exists or that even humans are contributing that to that in some way.
But I completely deny, based on years of experience in looking at these models and of energy, you know, actually understanding what's going on on the ground, that anything that the Democrats are doing is at all useful in this regard, that it's not just totally counterproductive, that it's not just kind of about feeling good.
And that, you know, anyway, this could be a whole show in and of itself, but just safe it to say, like, you could believe in anthropogenic climate change and still think that what the Democrats are doing is somewhere between, you know, counterproductive and insane.
And that's largely my view of things.
So I ask you this.
I don't want to pressure you to answer it, but I'm interested.
Would You Reelect Trump?00:02:04
Would you like to see President Trump in office again?
Oh, yeah, no, absolutely.
I wouldn't hesitate to answer that at all.
And I mean, obviously, President Trump has his weak points, and I don't need to elaborate on them here, but I think he's also got great strengths.
And I think, you know, I think if you sort of look at what our voters are saying, you know, the thing that Trump does so well is he's, you know, he's not bound to a lot of these hidebound things that we kind of do in the past, these hide-bound rules that have not really worked for us with these, you know, he doesn't want to play a game where we always lose.
Now, you know, sometimes that goes too far, but a lot of times it's just what we need.
So I'm unambiguously and unashamedly pro-Trump in 2024 and wouldn't hesitate to go back into the administration again, you know, if I were called to do so and I felt like I could contribute.
That's refreshing to hear.
It's rare, rare that people speak that clearly.
You speak very bluntly and clearly in your book, The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart.
Again, it's Jeremy Carl, C-A-R-L, and you can find him on X at RealJeremyCarl or at his Substack, The Course of Empire.
Jeremy, it's really nice to meet you and talk to you.
I hope we get to talk again.
Thank you very much for coming on.
I appreciate it.
Absolutely so much.
It's a pleasure to meet and a pleasure to speak, and I'd love to do it again sometime.
Thanks a lot.
Really interesting.
Really glad to see people talking about this openly.
It shows you how much things have changed in the media landscape, that people can dare to speak about these things without fear of being completely destroyed.
That's a very subtle change, but a really important change.
It's because of places like the Daily Wire.
It's because of the way conservatives have been using substack and other forms of getting information out.
And it's very encouraging.
Jeremy Carl, again, the unprotected class.
I am Andrew Clavin, and I will be back on Friday with the Andrew Clavin Show.