All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:18:13
3339 An Honest Conversation About Race | Jared Taylor and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ben Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
So, we have on the line, and I guess for those of you video-based, on the screen, Jared Taylor.
Now, Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance, the president of the New Century Foundation, and the author of many books on race relations.
We're going to put links to those below.
I highly recommend them.
It's very data-driven, not ideological, very fact-based, and very eye-opening.
You know, it's sort of chilling when you realize the degree to which essential information for the improvement of race relations is kept hidden from people.
And the New Century Foundation recently released an updated version of, I guess you could call it a pamphlet, but a very data-driven presentation on the color of crime.
It's a report on differences in crime rates by race, an examination of questions of bias in the justice system, and, of course, interracial crime statistics.
Mr.
Taylor graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a BA in philosophy.
Oh, yes, that's before heavy postmodernism.
So that's back when a BA in philosophy actually meant...
Western philosophy, I would assume, and received a diploma in political science, political studies in Paris in 1978 in the Sorbonne, which I thought was originally a tasty French pastry, but which turns out to be a very highly recognized school of academics.
Mr.
Taylor, thank you for taking the time today.
Oh, it's my pleasure.
I'm honored to be on your program.
So, my...
I don't want to start off by talking about me, but just very briefly, my journey from traditional radical egalitarianism, in other words, the idea that if there are any discrepancies numerically between races and between gender, it must be due to either racism or sexism on the part of the dominant racial group or gender group, which is white males.
That was my...
It was as unquestioned as physics and whether the sun will rise tomorrow.
And then as a result of things I've talked about in my show and just various explorations, facts, as they inconveniently often tend to do, chipped away at the foundation of this belief.
And I realized that in many ways I had as much common sense about race and gender relations as a communist has about economic relations.
And it was rather shocking, rather appalling.
And I was wondering if you could help people sort of understand Where you started from, and I know from your childhood you have a pretty unique perspective on race relations and how you ended up in the position that you are.
Well, I suppose I don't wish to boast, but I wasn't quite as ignorant as you insofar as I never was under the illusion that men and women were essentially replaceable.
Somehow, I think it seems to me everyone who has a mother has some notion that mothers are different from fathers.
Fortunately, I had both and there was a distinct difference between the two.
But when it comes to race, I was certainly just as ignorant as you.
And it took me many, many years to overcome my illusions in that respect, and I clung to them tenaciously.
It was with great reluctance that I said goodbye to all of these happy fantasies about how we're all essentially replaceable and everyone is the same.
I had a slightly unusual background in that I was born in Japan and I lived there till I was 16 years old.
My parents were missionaries.
And most people assume that having been the one round eye in this sea of Orientals would have given me some sort of consciousness of being a white man.
In fact, that's not the case.
If I cast my mind back as best I can to my childhood, I really did believe that we were essentially the same.
I was largely accepted by my Japanese classmates.
I had really quite a wonderful and pleasant childhood.
I was in one place the whole time, so I was the same group of people from kindergarten right through until I graduated.
So it was a very, very pleasant and reasonably well-integrated childhood.
It was only later when I started traveling in Africa and started reading some surprising books that my notions about race, this notion that all races are basically the same, began to crumble.
And I suppose one of the most...
Oh, as I look back on it now, one of the most formative experiences was a trip I took from Ivory Coast to Liberia.
I was vagabonding in West Africa, and at that time, this was in, let's see, this would have been the mid-70s.
Ivory Coast is doing very well.
It had a very large presence of Frenchmen who were helping the economy move along.
It has since fallen into tribal warfare, and the French have been driven out, and it's a mess.
At that time, it was called the Japan of West Africa.
It was doing so well.
That's a time when Japan was doing well as well.
But as soon as I crossed the border into Liberia, I found that the place was almost a bombed-out wreck.
All the roads were full of potholes.
The cars were tumbled down.
The buildings looked as though they hadn't been maintained for 20 years.
And when I got to the capital, Liberia...
I asked a young student, I always went to the university because it was always interesting to go to the university and meet young people who had studied.
I asked him, well, I don't mean to give you any offense, but why is it that compared to Ivory Coast, your country is a mess?
He says, oh, that's a very easy question to answer.
We didn't have the benefit of being colonized by the French.
Well, until then...
Wait, wait, wait.
Sorry.
I don't know if this person was aware, but all Western imperialism was disastrous and predatory and horrifying and destructive and genocidal.
He probably didn't get the memo, or maybe it wasn't translated, so it's unfortunate that he didn't have the benefit of Marxist indoctrination regarding Western imperialism.
But sorry to interrupt, please.
Please continue.
Well, that's right.
Well, see, I was flabbergasted by this reply.
I had not only gotten the memo, I'd had this beaten into me ad nauseum.
And so I was absolutely staggered by that reply.
But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.
And then as I continued to travel in Africa, as I read more things about race and race differences, I gradually arrived at the conclusion that one would naturally reach if one were not brainwashed, if one simply trusted the evidence of one's senses, which is clearly what he had if one simply trusted the evidence of one's senses, which is But anyway, in retrospect, that was probably the one light bulb moment, but I've had several such.
In any case, I guess about 25 years ago now, I decided that I should start some sort of organization to talk about these things and also to try to express the legitimate interests of whites as a group.
Because after all, every other race in the United States and basically around the world has publications and interest groups that are trying to advance their interests, often at the expense of whites.
Whereas for whites to do this is considered anathema, it's Nazism, it's hate mongering, but that's not at all the case.
We have legitimate interests and so that's why I started American Renaissance and New Century Foundation.
And one of the things that you mentioned earlier in your introduction is the extent to which so much vital data on these questions is essentially kept underground, never talked about.
It's there for any enterprising researcher to look and find, but it's never talked about.
And one of those is the question of crime data.
And that is why we have published this monograph on race and crime that we call The Color of Crime.
And as you noted, we have recently updated our monograph.
I can actually show it on the screen here.
We have both a free PDF download version and a paper version.
I'm old-fashioned.
I like to hold paper in my hand a lot of the time, although I spend hours staring at screens.
So if anyone wishes to see the data, and you were complimentary enough to call it extremely heavily data-driven, which it is, It's available at our website at amren.com.
And if you'd like to hold a paper in your hand, we can send you a copy of that for a small fee.
But this is, I think, a perfect example of data that could change certainly the dialogue in the United States on the whole Black Lives Matter foolishness.
But is never presented to the public.
It's hugely important that we know what we're talking about rather than base our outburst strictly on emotion and anecdote.
Well, there is a frustrating aspect and it almost feels like, I shouldn't say it almost feels like, I think it is basically a trap wherein the request, if not the demand, is put out in society, particularly in American society, but also now increasingly in Europe.
They say, we need an honest conversation about race.
So, in the full optimism of my, I guess, Western upbringing, I say, ah, well, an honest conversation should really start with facts rather than feelings.
And we can certainly get to feelings, but let's make sure that we're all on the same page with regards to facts.
So come on in and let's have an honest conversation about race.
But it seems a lot of times that having an honest conversation about race in America is sort of like having an honest conversation about Stalinism in Soviet Russia.
Which is, you better tow the party line or it's off to the, you're a racist gulags with you.
And I think that's particularly frustrating because an honest conversation about race seems in general in America to be white people, admit your guilt, admit that you're bad, admit that you're racist.
Oh, and by the way, give us tens of billions of dollars in compensation.
That seems a little bit more like a shame and guilt-driven shakedown rather than honest conversation because, of course, if people wanted an honest conversation, we would start with the data because there are reasons for nervousness around certain ethnic groups and crime prevalence to be present.
It's not all a matter of racism.
And I wonder if you can start to step people through the facts and the somewhat shocking facts that are coming out of this updated version and also the challenges of getting hold of some of this data.
Yes - Yes.
No, this idea of having an honest conversation about race, when you started talking about that, I couldn't help thinking of Eric Holder, our former Attorney General, our first black Attorney General, by the way.
He accused whites of cowardice, in fact, because of their refusal to speak honestly about race.
Right.
But as you point out, his version of an honest conversation about race is for white people to salaam at the feet of black people and beg forgiveness and confess our sins.
That's an honest conversation for him.
In fact, I wrote him a letter not long after he'd accused whites of being cowards, and I said, I don't consider myself a coward on this subject.
I'd be delighted to have an honest conversation with you about race.
He didn't deign to reply, needless to say.
But yes, the whole question of crime...
All Americans have an intuitive sense that black people commit more crime on a per capita basis than whites.
This intuitive sense is absolutely correct.
And yet, the most common explanation for the fact that blacks are more likely to be in jail is that racist white police go out and arrest them unfairly.
Well, even when you think about this, the idea somehow that some bloodied man comes staggering into a police station saying, oh, I've just been attacked and mugged.
And the police say, well, what was the race of the guy who came after you?
And I said, it was a white guy.
And then are they supposed to say, oh, gosh, well, move along, young man, we're not interested.
We're not interested in arresting white people.
Or if I say, oh, he was a black man, then they say, okay, go round up the nearest available black man, and we'll pin the murder, we'll pin the mucking on him.
It just doesn't make sense.
We have a very well-established procedure whereby guilt is established, you have to have evidence, and the idea that somehow white policemen are out rounding up innocent black people and letting white people go is just ludicrous.
Can you think about it?
But aside from the absurdity of that particular scenario, which would have to be true in order for the statistics to pan out the way the egalitarians tell us they must, we have excellent data.
There's something called the National Crime Victimization Survey in which a sample of over 100,000 Americans is sampled every year.
That's a huge sample and asked about the crimes of which they have been victim.
And they will ask about many circumstances.
Was a weapon used?
Was it indoors?
Outdoors?
What time of day did you know the person?
And they ask about the race of the perpetrator.
And as it turns out, black people and people of all the different races are arrested in almost perfect proportion to the percentages that the victims report were the perpetrators.
In other words, if half the muggers that Americans say were black are Half the muggers are black.
Then, as it turns out, half the muggers that the police arrest are also black.
If it turns out that 30% of the people that Americans say raped them are black, as it turns out, police arrest about the 30% of the people that they arrest for rape are black.
These proportions match almost perfectly.
This is a study, this is, I think, a most eloquent refutation of the idea of racist police that is almost never, ever discussed.
I have never seen a discussion of the National Crime Victimization Survey in a major, ordinary, mainstream news source.
You will find references to it in specialized criminal journals, but never, never in mainstream sources.
Well, and I think one of the reasons for that is that, if not the main reason, I think everyone gets what happens if you start flicking the first domino.
Like, in other words, if, not to use a black and white analogy, but if you flick the first domino, I guess everyone's concerned with what happens afterwards.
Because if we say, okay, well, it's not racism.
In the American police and judicial and criminal system that is responsible for higher rates of black incarceration, the next question is, okay, well, if it's not that, then what is it?
And of course, the next thing that's usually suggested is, okay, well, let's say somehow, you know, the data magically wipes away most traces of bias in the police system.
The next question that comes up or the next pseudo-answer that comes up is, ah, well, you see, Mr.
Taylor, what the case is is that black people grow up very poor because of institutional racism.
Institutional is a magic word which says you don't have to find anyone guilty of racism.
They're just racist by virtue of being of a particular race, which, of course, is a racist statement, but let's just bypass that for the moment.
They say, ah, well, you see, it's lack of opportunity.
It's bad schools in the poor districts.
It's ghettos.
Therefore, even if we say it's not...
Police racism, it must be poverty.
And then, of course, what happens is the next logical thing is to say, okay, well, if it's poverty, then we must compare poor black neighborhoods to poor white neighborhoods.
And then what happens?
Well, that is not merely a rhetorical question.
We find that of all the possible alleged contributors to criminality, lack of education, poverty, divorce rates, illegitimacy rates, none of these has very much independent predictive power.
It is the race of the neighborhood that just cuts through all of the chaff, all of the noise, and that is what tells you where there's going to be a lot of crime.
And in fact, an argument I frequently make is that it's not so much poverty that causes crime as crime, in effect, causes a great deal of poverty.
If there is a criminal neighborhood full of criminal people, people are not going to start businesses there.
If you have spent your teens and 20s in and out of jail, chances are, once you reach the magical age of about 40, when people stop committing crimes, if they're still out on the street, you're going to be unemployable.
So crime results in poverty in a very, very large degree.
Another point I like to make is that during the Depression in the United States, in the end of the 1920s, early 30s, a large number of Americans suddenly became poor.
That did not result in a spike in crime.
Not at all.
There was no discernible connection at all.
And so, no, that's a fallacious argument.
But again, people are never confronted with the facts.
And if you do take arrest rates as the best indicators of crime commission rates, and that's the best data we have, aside from the reports of the victims, and as I say, these track almost perfectly in terms of proportions.
What we find are some really quite astonishing things.
In some of the large cities in the United States, and these are unusual samples in certain respects, because in large cities you find wealthier whites and often poorer blacks.
But you will find differentials in violent crime rates of 30-fold, in some cases 50-fold.
In the case of shootings in New York City, and a shooting is when someone fires a weapon in New York City and a bullet hits someone.
Blacks are arrested at nearly 100 times the rate of whites.
This is a staggering disproportion.
Very seldom in sociology do you get disparities as huge as this.
To the point where, if New York City were 100% white, and all the additional whites were committing crimes at the same rates as the whites who are currently living there, You would have a decrease in the murder rate of about 90%.
Muggings would drop 85%.
Shootings would practically vanish and disappear.
You could fire probably three quarters, maybe 80-90% of your police force.
And all of these statistics are there, available, in the police department's annual report.
I would bet you any amount of money the New York Times has never discussed those statistics.
As you say, once you open the door, where does it end?
Once you determine that perhaps the races are not equivalent, oh my gosh, where does this lead?
To that argument, I point out that we are now building a society based on a complete misperception about race, which leads to all kinds of absurd distortions, inequalities, and all manner of unfairness in the other direction, I think is increasingly intolerable.
Well, I mean, to me, the race relations throughout the West are equivalent to the communist view of I think?
And this idea that the only differences in ethnic groups, and in particular black and white, we'll talk about some of the other ethnic groups as well, the idea that it's all racism is fundamentally incorrect.
And I think where the challenge is, is that if you start to say, okay, well, it's not racism in the police, and it's not poverty.
I think we're good to go.
I think we're good to go.
A, is there something destructive in the black culture?
And B, is there something biologically different between the races?
And those two areas are such staggering landmines for people that it's sort of, it's a truth test.
You know, like in the old days in the medieval court system, if you were accused of a crime, one of the ways you could prove your innocence was to reach into a boiling vat of water and pull out an iron rod.
And there are actually some vaguely decent reasons for that, because only innocent people would assume that God would protect them from such a burning.
But that's the truth test for me for intellectual integrity with regards to this.
And one that I failed myself for many years, so I say this with all humility, is that can you reach in and even begin to entertain the idea of either a dysfunctional black culture and the question of racial differences that are biologically rooted?
Yes, that is, as you say, the thermonuclear question.
I tend to call it the radioactive question.
Yes, indeed.
That is the road down which very, very few minds are prepared to venture, no matter what the data.
And as a matter of fact, I was just reading an article by a fellow Kofnan, I believe his name is, he has investigated the extent into which scientists in the psychometric and psychological testing area have decided not to investigate this question, or if they do investigate it, frankly, to lie about it.
Because it is more important to promote lies about racial differences.
In other words, to minimize them, to pretend they do not exist, rather than recognize them.
I've always taken a different view on that.
After all, if we posit as an irrefutable and unarguable fact that white people and black people are, from a mentality point of view, absolutely identically the same, And then we tell black people, alright, the reason you do not do so well in school is because of racist teachers.
The reason you don't do well economically is because of racist employers.
The reason you're in jail is because of those racist police.
Everything that goes wrong for you, past, present, and future, is the fault of these wicked white people.
What better way to teach black people to hate white people?
That's, in fact, the message that we give black people day in, day out.
And in fact, it's a way of almost infantilizing blacks.
It's telling them, nothing is really your fault.
I think, in a way, that is as bad a message as inciting them to hate whites.
Because, when you think about it, as we grow up, All of us eventually reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are not the smartest, the best looking, the most musical, the most attractive, the opposite sex.
There's always somebody who, in a fair fight, is going to beat us.
And if we keep telling black people, no, no, you've always been cheated.
We never give them a chance to grow up.
Furthermore, up until maybe 60 or 70 years ago, the idea that the races were unequal in average was taken for granted.
And that didn't result in the kinds of horrible despair or the kind of violence that people predict now if you were ever to make something acknowledged publicly that there are racial differences.
As you said, in the 1950s, in fact, from the 1920s on, at least since even under slavery, for heaven's sake, There were more stable families among blacks than there are today.
And, of course, at that time, the idea that blacks were mentally not comparable to whites was utterly taken for granted.
I don't think that we risk some sort of psychological or social upheaval if we recognize the truth.
On the contrary, by failing to recognize the truth, we build in all sorts of absurdities into our society.
If you can't tell the truth about racial ability and racial groups, you can hardly tell the truth about anything else.
Okay, so let's dig into some of those differences for those people who, I guess, are in the mainstream and have had all of this information, like Moses striding through the Red Sea.
All of this information has been kept from people.
Some of the basics, which I've talked about with other experts in the field on this show, we'll put a playlist to ethnicities and intelligence, ethnicities and IQ below.
But to me, the most important one is IQ. Yes.
And, of course, people are alarmed about talking about this because Dr.
Jason Richwine had a career until – he now has a career, but it's a different kind of career – until he pointed out that Hispanics have lower IQs than whites.
One of the greatest biologists in the 20th century, James Watson, co-discoverer with Crick of the structure of DNA.
Well, he mentioned something about this and was forced out of his career and had to end up selling his Nobel Prize for food.
So it is a very, very challenging position.
But nonetheless, we must gird our loins and press onward, as is the case with all honest intellectual inquiries.
But the data seems to be fairly conclusive that sub-Saharan African blacks have an IQ that is an average of 70, which is two standard deviations below the average for white Western Europeans and whites in North America.
And that American blacks, because of a 20 to 25 percent admixture of European DNA, have an IQ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans clocking in at about 85.
And from what I understand of the data, if you normalize by IQ, the vast majority of racial differences disappear.
In other words, we're not comparing apples to apples if we're comparing blacks to whites in America.
What we want to do is compare blacks who have an IQ of 85 with whites who have an IQ of 85.
And we find similar levels of dysfunction and criminality and single parenthood and so on.
However, arguably, and I think very strongly arguably, the situation for American blacks has gotten a lot worse since they were co-opted by sort of semi-socialist political correctness and absolved of responsibility to a large degree.
And so far as in the post-war period in America, a lot of blacks were emerging from poverty.
A lot of them were moving into higher education.
A lot of blacks were getting professional degrees and so on.
And now that this giant cloak of insurmountable white racism between you and any success factor is Thank you.
course, all successful blacks counter the narrative of insurmountable white racism and therefore become an enemy to this very prevalent idea in both leftists and in certain sections of the black community to the enormous tragedy of race relations, in my opinion.
Well, two points there.
First of all, even when you do control for IQ, there are residual differences.
And these can perhaps be attributed to differences in the willingness to forego present satisfaction for future gain.
There seems to be an independent variable along those lines as well.
Blacks have, I never can remember whether there's a greater or lesser time, how that works out according to the lingo.
Less capacity to defer gratification, I think, is probably the best, the easiest way to put it, because I have that problem, too.
Yes, yes.
They're less able to sacrifice now for future benefit.
And this is found from childhood on.
And even when you control for IQ. But I agree with you.
IQ is really the fundamental differential.
And interestingly enough, all of the tests which have been accused of grievous bias, systematic bias against blacks because they were invented by white people, well, lo and behold, North Asians score higher on them than whites.
And the way we find North Asians living in terms of illegitimacy rates, per capita income, crime rates, in all of those respects, they build societies that are frankly objectively superior to those of whites, which does not necessarily mean that we wish to turn Japanese or be replaced by Japanese or Koreans.
But along those standards, they are different and they can be described as superior to us.
The other question you raised is the extent to which the success of individual blacks refutes the idea of monolithic racism.
It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference.
We can have a black president of the United States, a black attorney general.
We can have all of these black movie stars and basketball players.
It doesn't make a bit of difference.
Every one of them is either some sort of freak exception or they would claim they would have gotten even further had they been white.
I remember years ago the president of the NAACP. At that time, I've forgotten his name now.
This is perhaps 20 years ago.
He was saying, okay, I've done pretty well.
I'm president of the NAACP. If I were white, I'd be president of the United States.
Well, of course, now we have a black man who's president of the United States.
How far could he have gone without racism?
I mean, obviously, he, too, had to combat racism daily.
He was this wonderful, productive guy who had to be twice as good to get half as far, as the expression goes.
What could he have accomplished if he were not this spat upon color?
But in any case, no, the fact individual success stories never seem to go very far to refute this monolithic racism that all blacks face.
And at the same time, oddly enough, the exceptional achievement of a certain non-white group, namely Asians in the United States or in any multiracial society, that too never refutes this theory of monolithic white racial exploitation either.
But that's never spoken of.
And I've talked about it in this show about the invisible North Asians.
They're ghosts.
They don't exist.
Because whenever people – I had a guy call in some months ago.
He wanted to talk about racism in America.
And I said, oh, do you mean like Hispanic racism towards blacks or Puerto Rican racism towards X group?
And he's like, no.
You know what I'm talking about because it's always and forever portrayed.
aid, when you speak of racism, it can only and forever be whites against blacks.
Now, the question, of course, is if you start to factor in the North Asians, and by that we mean, I assume you mean the Chinese, Koreans, and the Japanese and so on, who score on IQ tests that are supposedly so Euro and white centric, who score higher than whites by up to half a standard deviation at times.
So the question then becomes, if you bring the Japanese, say, into the equation and you And Japanese have a higher per capita income than whites.
They have greater family stability.
They achieve greater educational levels in general.
And they exhibit all the same factors of a higher IQ group that you would imagine.
In other words, if you took the whites who have the same IQs as the average of the North Asians, they're doing about the same.
Then if you bring the North Asians into the equation, what happens is the monolithic white racism cracks and falls, and then we say, well, whites must be somehow pro-North Asian because they're doing better, but they must be anti-black.
So it can't be just general otherness that white people have a problem with.
It must be more specific to the black community.
And again, that's just dominoes.
And people are experts at preventing these first, hang on like grim death, but make sure this first domino never goes down.
Because then you have to say, okay, well, if whites aren't racist, because North Asians do better in white societies than blacks, then maybe we should look and see if there are differences in behavior between North Asians and blacks.
And again, that just leads you down this domino path when you start looking at the statistics, as you point out in The Color of Crime, North Asians, which have of course been called the model minority, commit crimes at significantly lower rates than whites.
And therefore, we would expect them to be judged.
So if people are judging the behaviors of groups, rather than just having some innate prejudice, we have a problem because then not all white negative views towards blacks can be blamed on mere white racism.
Because the moment empiricism drifts into this, We have to start talking about facts rather than prejudices.
Yes, that's certainly true.
American society operates according to a very simple syllogism.
All groups are by definition equal.
Some groups do not succeed at the same rate as other groups.
Ergo, every one of those differences must be the result of systematic oppression by the majority group.
Now, as you point out, Asians end up having to be ghosts in order for that to hold true.
And yes, this exceptional success story of Asians is never, never part of that question.
Now, let's talk a little bit about one of the hottest topics at the moment, if not the hottest topic, which is the question of Hispanics.
Because...
With Donald Trump's ascendancy, and to people who don't have access to this information, and by that I generally mean indoctrinated leftists, people who don't have this information find the rise, the meteoric rise of Donald Trump to be absolutely incomprehensible.
But of course, you've done in The Color of Crime and a lot of your other work, you've done a lot of work on helping people to understand some of the challenges of the mass Hispanic migration into America and its effects on criminality, on the school system, on bullying, on school violence, on neighborhoods and so on.
So for people who don't live in all white gated communities, which seems sometimes to be the majority of leftists, can you help people understand one of the reasons why Donald Trump is becoming so successful when he talks about Hispanic crime or immigrant crime, illegal immigrant crime in particular?
I think that there are really two important reasons for Donald Trump's success.
And even if he doesn't become President of the United States, he will achieve something absolutely remarkable that will go down in history.
It will be downplayed, but it will be extremely significant.
And that is, he is the first candidate in, oh, perhaps half a century to talk about immigration in terms of the interests of the American people.
This is unprecedented.
Mostly, when we talk about immigration, we assume that it's a wonderful thing for America, no matter where anyone comes from, no matter how ill-educated, no matter how crime-prone, no matter how failed the society from which he issues.
It's all wonderful for America because diversity itself is a wonderful thing.
And so, for the people who actually live with the consequences of diversity, they see that when their primary school is filled with people for whom the teachers have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to teach them English, how to speak English, rather than mathematics or history, they realize that's not an advantage.
When they are living next to people who play mariachi music at 4 a.m.
in the morning, who keep chickens that crow at 3 a.m., when they want to go and play on the baseball field, but they find that it's taken over by Hispanics who are playing soccer.
All of this kind of oil and water sense of being invaded by a foreign country.
People don't like it.
They don't like it, and it's perfectly normal that they not like it.
And by the way, it's not just whites who don't like it.
Ask some of the blacks who have left South Central Los Angeles what it's like to be invaded by Hispanics.
They don't care for it one bit either.
So, we have a presidential candidate who's speaking in terms of the undesirability of certain immigrants.
And their undesirability to speak in those terms implicitly is to say, we need immigrants who will fit into the United States and contribute to our country.
That is an obviously sensible approach to immigration, but it's unprecedented in the last, oh, four or five decades in terms of any kind of prominent presidential candidate or congressman or senator.
So this is so refreshing to ordinary white people who are sick and tired of pressing one to listen to, to be connected to someone who actually speaks English.
They don't wish to have this choice of speaking to someone in Spanish.
The other thing that I think that Donald Trump has done, and this is something that the so-called far right in Europe has done very well, is to combine a sense of racial or cultural nationalism with a sense of socialism.
if you will.
Ordinary Americans do not hate government.
They hate government when it seems to be coddling blacks and immigrants and criminals and the sexually incomprehensible and all of these people have a chip on their shoulder against white America.
They do not like that kind of government.
But in terms of social security, in terms of medical help for those who cannot afford it, a kind of a safety net, most white Americans are not upset about that.
They don't take this narrow libertarian view that the conservatives so wish to promote.
And so he's appealing both to a kind of socialistic aspect that many people have as well as a nationalist sense.
That would be the kind of appeal we find in the Vlaams Belong in Belgium, the Flemish nationalists.
We find that in the French National Front.
We find that also in some of the Austrian parties.
This has been very successful in Europe.
And so Donald Trump, whether consciously or not, I think in his case simply instinctively, He is combining the aspects of nationalism, national identity, with the sense of socialism, which is government is supposed to be helping look after people who can't look after themselves.
And that's been extremely, extremely successful.
We'll see whether it carries him all the way to the presidency.
I believe that it will, but we'll obviously, we'll see that time will tell.
This is something that's hard for people to understand.
First of all, of course, they say, well, America is a nation of immigrants, and that's true to some degree, but the vast majority of American immigrants up until 1965 were significant majority white Europeans.
Same Judeo-Christian, Greek or Roman culture for the most part.
Lots of regional differences.
Nobody's going to conflate somebody from the Basque region with somebody from Poland.
But nonetheless, races blend and people from various ethnicities, sorry, people from various nations within the same race.
Usually end up being fairly indistinguishable over the course of, say, two to three generations after the first generation cultural effects wear off.
We generally model ourselves after our peers rather than after our parents, which is why people with a strong Scottish accent raise kids who don't have a strong Scottish accent.
Even though the parents teach the kid how to speak, they don't end up with a brogue because they're modeling themselves after their peers.
But the races don't seem to go that way.
It seems very hard for people to move beyond the question of race.
Now, whether that's innate and biological or, as you've pointed out, one of the great biologists has pointed out that two subspecies of the same species never inhabit the same geographical area for very long.
There's always a sort of fight for dominance.
But since 1965, the idea of European immigration, that America was a white Christian European derived nation, has been completely cast by the wayside.
And now the vast majority of immigrants are coming in who are not white and not European and come from cultures that are antithetical to the entire American experiment.
And my argument very briefly has been that after Khrushchev pointed out the endless crimes and brutalities of Joseph Stalin, And the idea that communism was – or leftism was some wonderful utopia which had been sustained by the left since the founding of communist Russia in 1917.
Well, the evidence was in and it was a nightmare and so they couldn't win the intellectual or fact-based argument anymore.
So they just started importing groups who vote wildly for Democrats.
Muslims vote wildly for Democrats.
Hispanics vote wildly for Democrats.
Third world groups of every race...
Vote wildly for Democrats.
So they've got their thumb on the scale.
They don't want to engage in intellectual debate because the facts aren't on their side.
So they're stacking the deck by bringing in people who are going to vote for them.
And the fact that third worlders in general vote for the left should give everyone somewhat of a pause when it comes to examining the left.
But I think that aspect to say, not all immigrants are created equal.
And the last thing I'll mention is that it's not America plus immigrants.
It's America minus whites plus immigrants.
That's the important thing.
And this is particularly true in Europe.
As immigration goes up, the birth rate of the whites goes down.
Now, I mean, correlation is not causation and so on.
But given that most immigrants require a huge amount of government resources, and those resources have to come from somewhere, when you get low functioning, low IQ, largely illiterate, at least in the ways of the West immigrants coming in, You have a massive wealth transfer from whites and blacks who are native to immigrants, which means that there's less money available for whites and blacks who are native to raise their own kids.
So what you do is you end up with very fertile third-world immigrants coming into a country, taking away resources by which the natives might have their own children.
So it is an escalating displacement, which is what we can see happening in Europe, and that is demographically a disaster in the long run.
Sorry for the long speech.
If you can extract a question from that, I'd be perfectly thrilled or just a comment.
No, no, no.
I agree with you 100%.
As you well know, the United States up until 1965 had an immigration policy that was designed to keep the country overwhelmingly Northern European.
In fact, the very first naturalization law passed in 1790 by the very first Congress of the United States.
This is when the new country was deciding, well, what sort of country do we wish to be?
They established a naturalization law that required that every candidate for naturalization be a free, white person of good character.
They had a very clear notion.
This is going to be a nation for white people.
And in 1965, when the law was changed, the people who were boosting that law, as you probably know, promised that this was not going to result in any kind of upset in the ethnic balance.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Now, we don't know if they were fools or whether they were liars, but they were one or the other.
In any case, there has been a huge upset, and if in 1965 the Congress had been told, well, in less than 100 years, in probably about 80 years, this change in immigration means that whites will become a numerical minority in the United States.
We can be absolutely certain that law would never have been passed.
Americans simply took it for granted that they were an outpost of Europe.
And that is why people who have grown up in an outpost of Europe, when they find that their neighborhood has become an outpost of Haiti or Guatemala or Mexico, They are absolutely infuriated, and because they haven't had an opportunity to vote for Donald Trump before, at the very least, they will move to some other part of the United States that is still an outpost of Europe.
So yes, this demographic change combined, as you say, with declining birth rates really spells a remarkable and transformative change in In the entire texture of life in the United States.
And I agree with you.
I think that the declining birth rates in both Europe and the United States among whites have at least in part are due to this transfer of wealth that you just described.
At the same time, I think there is some kind of psychological barrier to whites.
When they look out and they see the changing of their country, they see their country slipping from their fingers.
I think that at some deep psychological level, that makes them think, well, gosh, I'm not sure how many young descendants of mine I wish to send in to this future America where they will be a minority and perhaps even a hated minority.
I can't prove this, but I think there's probably some kind of psychological effect there as well that depresses white fertility rates.
But who knows?
I mean, we find the same kind of depressed fertility in places like Japan or Korea, Taiwan, where they don't have that transforming effect either of demography.
But in any case, yes, what we're facing is oblivion, ultimately, if this continues at its current pace.
Well, and the degree to which white culture has benefited the world.
And of course, white culture is a very, very wide net.
But if you sort of look at the inventions and the art and the music and the political, you know, the philosophy, of course, came out of white culture in ancient Greece as a whole.
The scientific method, the free market, a lot of the inventions that have come out of the free market.
The funny thing is, is that if white people really cared about the world, they would very much wish to preserve white culture.
Because white culture benefits the world so enormously that if white people commit some sort of pathological altruism seppuku and spill their own innards in collective white guilt, the world will be far poorer off thereby.
And there will be far fewer advantages and innovations and creations and art and music, literature and so on to benefit the world as a whole.
So even if we're enmeshed in this pathological altruism and wish to benefit the world as a whole, doing so at the expense of our own culture is actually harming the world to an enormous and possibly irrecoverable degree.
You may be surprised to know just how many non-whites have contacted me or my organization, American Renaissance, with precisely that point.
They say, look, white people, please do not commit suicide.
The world needs you.
This is something that people in India have wrote to me about.
People in Africa have commented on this.
Asians have commented on this.
There is a surprising number of wide-awake people out there who recognize the extraordinary gifts we've made to world civilization.
They don't want a world without us.
It is whites, apparently, who are prepared to walk off the cliff voluntarily.
It's really quite an astonishing thing.
I've even been thinking of making a little collection Of these missives from non-whites all around the world saying, look, we're rooting for you.
Make sure that white people don't die out.
We need you.
Well, and this is the thing I've made a case on the show before.
And when Hispanics or when Mexicans leave Mexico as, you know, more than a quarter of the entire population of Mexico is in the United States.
I mean, this is an appalling thing.
It should make everybody get to the rooftops with some barbaric yorps of what the heck is going on.
But when Mexicans leave Mexico and come to America, it's because they wish to enjoy the uniquely American character of the country, its culture, and its institutions.
And there is no...
I think it's been referred to as magic soil.
You know, there's magic dirt that just...
It's Republican dirt.
You know, it's all been blessed with the Constitution, and it's been turned into a species of holy water, and it's been sprinkled all over America, and everyone who comes just...
Clearly, if Japan was evacuated and there were like three Japanese people left and the entire population of Mexico moved to Japan, well, Japan would no longer be Japanese.
It would be a Mexican island with some odd shrines, at least from the point of view of the Mexicans.
And so the idea that people come to America because they prefer America to wherever they're coming from...
And then we should assist them as much as humanly possible to help them turn America into exactly where they've come from, where they don't want to be anymore, is a disservice even to the immigrants who've come.
So the Hispanics who come don't want America to turn into Mexico.
So the people who've come legally and have invested in becoming Americans do so because they enjoy some aspect of the American culture.
Americans don't have the right to take that benefit away from them, which they have worked so hard to achieve.
It would be logical if the ones who came legally and see the differences between Mexico and the United States were, as you suggest, to be opposed to mass immigration from Mexico or certainly illegal immigration from Mexico.
But that's not, in fact, what we find.
It seems that the more successful Hispanics are in the United States, if they become college professors, if they become state legislators, if they become congressmen, the more radical they become.
The more they insist that our borders should be open, the more they insist that the southwestern part of the United States was stolen from Mexico, it belongs to them.
And therefore, they have the right to keep coming in.
It doesn't seem to work out logically.
Ultimately, it seems that the pool of blood and nation and history and shared culture is stronger than the rational desire to live in a place where things work so much better from that miserable place that they escaped from so many generations ago, in some cases.
So, no, that would be a rational thing to do, but we almost never see it doing.
But everything that you mention is, of course, a political or quasi-political.
It's not a market-facing institution in becoming a professor.
It's becoming part of a state cartel, becoming a politician.
So then you're in the business of propagandizing and buying votes.
But I know that there's a significant degree of support among blacks and Hispanics for Donald Trump for this very reason.
Of course, blacks don't like the endless wave of illegal immigrants because it depresses wages and opportunities for blacks.
A lot of Hispanics don't like it because they actually treasure a good deal of the liberties and lack of – one of the problems with Hispanics is they want more and more government services by polls, but they want to pay less and less in terms of taxation, which could help turn America into the wonderfully financially stable countries that we see in Central and South America.
So, I do think that there are a lot of people who do want for America to retain its character, and what is fundamentally strange to me is that for whites to say the interests of white people are important, the interests of white people should be defined and protected, and white people should advocate for their own benefit, is considered to be...
One of the grossest expressions of racism, if not Nazism and so on, in white countries.
I mean, if I were to go to Japan and say that Japanese people should never be allowed to advocate for Japanese interests in their own country.
You know more about Japan than I do.
I think they'd laugh.
Who are you to come and say the Japanese people in their own country cannot advocate for Japanese interests?
But this is where we've come to, and it's a shocking place to think of.
They would call for the men in the white coats if you suggested such a thing to them.
We shall see just how many Hispanics end up voting for Donald Trump.
This will be a very interesting exercise.
Hispanics have, as you say, overwhelmingly voted for Democrats.
I think partly it has to do with the Democratic coddling of immigrants.
Now, whether Donald Trump will have any effect on that, we will see.
And of course, as you point out, the black reaction is a fascinating one.
Back in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan regularized what turned out to be three or four million illegal immigrants, the black Congressional Congress was very much opposed to that.
Now, they are in favor of legalization of illegal immigrants.
And there has been a remarkable change among blacks to go from wanting to protect their own constituents against this illegal cheap labor to what appears to me to be the idea that they will build a rainbow coalition against the white man.
That somehow, they and Mexicans, arm in arm, will overcome white America.
This will be the end of white privilege.
I think this is a badly, badly mistaken view.
And it seems to me that if blacks had any sense at all, they would vote overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has never said anything uncomplimentary about blacks.
He's never talked about race and IQ. He's never talked about the differences in crime rates.
None of those things.
The only shocking things that he said by contemporary standards are the idea of keeping Muslims out.
I think most blacks aren't particularly happy at the idea of having Muslims, and having pointed out that many, not many Mexican immigrants are undesirable characters.
This should resonate profoundly with blacks.
So we will see whether they are led by the Pied Piper tune of their so-called leaders, Or whether they will be able to vote their own legitimate interests just as whites do in terms of whether or not we want any more Hispanic immigrants or whether or not we want to import the same Muslim problem that the Europeans are suffering from.
Well, and this is something that is almost incomprehensible to people.
It didn't used to be, but I think it certainly is now.
And this is specifically targeted towards whites because whites are specifically targeted in this area.
Because there is this postmodern argument, which goes something like this, that the dominant group...
But anybody who's not part of the dominant group cannot be racist.
And what that means, of course, is that there is a massive moral subsidy towards cries of racism against white people.
And it's not an equal fight.
You know, it's not even bringing a knife to a gunfight, as the old saying used to go from The Untouchables.
It is that white people can never complain about racism against white people.
And, of course, if you look in society, in particular, if you look at curriculum going on in the social justice warrior factory of modern universities in what used to be called the humanities, and now I think can reasonably be called the leftist bigotries, the fermenting of anti-white hatred is extremely strong and very toxic and very dangerous.
And that, of course, comes to the big question, is that I can't help but think, Jared, that if I lived in a society of white people...
Then the giant flyswatter of shut up, whitey, you're racist could never be used against me.
We could actually have debates about ideas rather than ethnicities.
We could actually have debates where reason and argument could win.
And of course, it's not like all white people are rational and of course not, right?
right.
But the reality is that the giant thermonuclear strike of you're a racist could not be brought to bear in the debate or in the discussion.
And I got to tell you, that's kind of tempting in a lot of ways, because if other people are unwilling to drop the race card, I'm not sure I want to play the game anymore.
Well, you're again making this odd assumption that facts somehow matter.
I think we're dealing with what's in a bad, bad thinker.
Bad thinker.
I think we're in effect dealing with what is the equivalent of a religion.
One of the speakers at our upcoming American Renaissance Conference later this month, Dan Root, he says that compared to Islam, which is probably the most powerful religion in the world today, egalitarianism is probably the second most powerful religion.
When people are absorbed by this idea, they cease to think in terms of facts.
The facts don't matter.
They can ignore the facts.
Or if they discover the facts, they're perfectly happy to suppress them.
So how we deal with something like this is a real problem.
I tend to take this ploddingly logical approach.
I say, here are the facts.
Isn't this a reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts?
Well, first of all, we ignore the facts, and logic has nothing to do with it.
All of these people who are trained to hate themselves, they seem to take a real pleasure, these white people do.
A friend of mine points out that white people love to feel good about themselves by feeling bad about being white.
This is a source of great virtue, self-exaltation for them.
Where this comes from, for me, is in fact a mystery.
And I've tried to think about this.
People talk about the effects of the two world wars.
People talk about a perverted sense of Christianity.
People talk about the alleged machination of Jews who have taught white people to hate themselves.
None of this stuff really makes any sense to me.
I don't understand why a dominant people, really at the height of its powers, has suddenly decided that they don't really deserve to exist.
They were at the apex of civilization.
And now we've decided, gosh, there's something fundamentally wrong with us.
And if we just glimmer away and disappear that will somehow be a benefit to the entire rest of the world.
I don't know where this self-hating, self-loathing mentality could possibly have come from.
I sometimes wonder if there's something genetically defective in white people.
After all, you can make the argument, if white people do not take the steps necessary to survive, nature doesn't care.
Nature is brutal.
By nature's terms, whites do not deserve to survive if they are unwilling to take the steps that will assure their survival.
I can run past a tiny little theory, if you like.
This is new, so it's not polished.
Let's take a brief swing and you can tell me what you think.
I think one of the reasons why whites ended up with the smallest governments is that whether it's the result of Socrates' argument that reason equals virtue equals happiness or whether it's the result of the implantation of a self-critical conscience through Christianity, I don't know.
I don't know.
But there does seem to be something very strong in terms of guilt in white cultures.
And guilt is a wonderful thing in a lot of ways.
The Jiminy Cricket conscience that I grew up with, what does your inner voice say and so on.
If you can get a group of people to internalize moral standards, you can end up with an extraordinarily efficient society because you don't need roaming gangs of people with clubs beating people up and stoning people and you don't need a giant government apparatus to enforce social norms because people internalize those and they feel bad.
And, you know, I'm a father and I see this with my daughter, you know, like if I say, well, this wasn't that great, she's like, oh, you know, like she's got this, oh, you know, well, I really shouldn't do that.
And she's very sort of morally sensitive and wants to do the right thing.
Now, whether that comes out of our versus case selection, as the late Dr.
Philip Rushton talked about, or whether that comes out of a peculiar alchemy of cultural influences, I'm not sure.
But white people internalize their moral standards and then universalize them.
Yes.
And guilt cultures...
Are incredibly efficient.
You can have tiny governments.
Guilt cultures means that if I cheat you, I feel bad.
So we don't need a giant enforcement mechanism for contracts.
It's one of the main reasons I think why it's accumulated so much wealth is this internalization and self-attack for deviating from moral standards.
To me, that's a very powerful mechanism, but it leaves you peculiarly vulnerable to other cultures because most other cultures are based on attack of deviance.
Not guilt, but attack of deviance.
You'll beat the crap out of people who deviate from some particular social norm.
There's fear of attack.
There's fear of being harmed externally.
There's not that same internalization.
Now, the problem is, of course, that these cultures that are attack-based are exquisitely good at verbal abuse, and they don't have that same internalization of conscience.
And so when guilt cultures come into contact with attack cultures, the guilt cultures, it's not an equal fight, because the attack cultures can make the guilty cultures feel bad, but the guilty cultures can't make the attack cultures feel bad, which is why everyone...
Gets angry at white people for slavery, even though white people ended slavery, and nobody gets mad at the Muslims for the far more extensive slave trade that caused the death of 100 million Africans.
Nobody's yelling at the Muslims to pay reparations and all, because they don't feel bad about it, because they don't live in a guilt culture.
And whether that's biology or culture doesn't particularly matter at this point.
And so the way that I think about it in my own mind is it's like you're in a boxing match with someone and they have a little button in their boxing glove that delivers a big electric shock to you.
Because the attack cultures make the guilt cultures feel bad, which is why when you yell racism at a white person, they feel bad.
And what that does is it makes people want to yell racism more because when white people feel bad, they hand over resources to feel better.
Like, oh, I'm a bad person because I'm a racist.
You know, here's affirmative action, here's welfare, here's free public education, here's whatever.
And so now I feel better.
But of course, it's buying five minutes of peace while escalating the attacks in the long run.
And I think for me, looking at sort of European culture, this internalization, I think we're good to go.
And because white people being case-selected or whatever in general will do almost anything to avoid that feeling of anxiety and self-attack, it is an unfair battle.
And I think that the left has figured this out very quickly and keep pushing that button.
They keep hitting that electrical attack in the boxing match.
And it's just an unfair fight.
And I think that is the great challenge.
I'm sorry if that's a very off-the-cuff sort of thing I've been mulling over.
No, no.
Everything that you say makes sense.
I would counter it with a few perhaps superficial objections and then maybe I'll propose one of my own theories about what it is that has caused this denaturing of white people.
First of all, I'm not sure that those who are most vigorous in the attack on their own people, leftist egalitarians, are necessarily people who feel a great deal of guilt.
I'm not sure about that.
At the same time, This is something that at least most of Eastern Europe was spared.
We used to feel sorry for the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain, though those poor people were being deprived of the joys of Western Europe.
Well, they're the people who perhaps may survive in terms of Western civilization because they still have a sense of nationality.
They're the ones who are building the walls saying, nope, we don't want any Syrian immigrants, we don't want any Muslim immigrants, and they take it for granted.
Everyone takes it for granted.
So there is this small remnant of whites who have been spared that kind of behavior.
Now, are their societies any less guilt-oriented than those in the West?
I'm not sure.
There's something that has taken place west of the Iron Curtain.
I think it perhaps started in the United States that is really unprecedented in entire human history.
And despite the fact that we were certainly more Christian than And perhaps more susceptible to guilt, oh, from the period of maybe 150 or 200 years ago to the period of 50 years ago.
We were not susceptible to these outside the tribe blandishments.
We might have had this sense of responsibility to our own people, but there were very clear racial boundaries that were drawn.
This notion of somehow melting away the natural biological and cultural and instinctive differences that people find when they encounter the other.
That is a new thing.
That is a new thing.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you say.
I think the idea of guilt culture, the idea that we internalize our own values, and that doesn't require a massive police force, and one in which people can generally trust each other.
Those are very important sources of wealth.
Let me just mention something very quickly here, and I definitely want to hear your theory as well.
But if we start to get into sort of the male-female differences, I think that's very important.
I think the women are very important for instilling guilt, but the men are very important for defending borders.
We'll pop this up on the screen.
screen, there's a sort of famous internet meme floating around of a lot of the defense ministers of Western Europe are these smiling, blonde, happy, perky women.
And then they've got, you know, this is the guy from China, and this is the guy from Russia.
And there are these dour, sour, dead-eyed people you want on the wall.
And then there's this truly terrifying, virtually demonic iron wall of a man from Poland.
And so I think that biologically, women have traditionally developed more empathy and not as strong in-group preferences, whereas in almost all the major ape species, it is the men who patrol the perimeter and keep the women and children safe from attack.
And given that we have systematically dismantled male influence in society in the West for a couple of generations, I think that's also contributing to this pathological altruism and lack of a sense of having borders that need to be defended in a dangerous world.
Yes, I certainly agree with that.
To me, the idea that races could be somehow equivalent would be plausible to someone who has never been around someone of a different race.
After all, it was the Scandinavians who have been lecturing Americans for decades about how we should treat blacks, Scandinavians who'd never met a black in their lives.
But when it comes to the equivalent of the sexes, Say, in terms of putting people in combat or making them in control of the armed forces.
To me, this is even more implausible than the idea that races could be equivalent.
Because we all know women in our own lives.
Women are simply not as aggressive.
But as you say, the idea that there are really no differences, that women can be artillerists and special forces, warriors, this is something that is only possible in the West.
I mean, can you imagine the Chinese saying to themselves, oh my god, they're going to put women on submarines.
They're going to put women on special forces.
Where are gooses cooked now?
They must be laughing at us.
Laughing at us.
And I think that the whole notion that the races are equivalent has been really the first stepping stone towards one absurdity after another.
That the sexes are equivalent.
That fat people should be just as desirable as healthy looking people.
That beauty is arbitrary and meaningless.
As soon as the notion that races are equivalent and interchangeable, as soon as that was accepted, it seemed to be opened the door to one absurdity after another.
All of the ancient distinctions that every human society has treasured and maintained is in the process of crumbling down.
And this cannot last.
And those societies that maintain those distinctions will survive Those that cannot, I think, will be shoved aside by societies which, as you suggest as well, have maintained more of the manly virtues as well.
We have been emasculated in the West.
This is all part of our decline.
You said that you wanted to propose a possible alternate theory for the pathological self-destructive altruism.
Given that it's me interviewing you, you should really get a little bit more of the say.
It's a credit to my enjoyment of the conversation that I'm butting in so much, but I wanted to give you the spotlight for that.
Well, when you think about the characteristics of European societies, what is it that we have contributed in terms of society?
The idea of one man, one vote, or freedom of speech.
These are really very revolutionary.
The idea that the weak man or the poor man should have just as much political participation as the wealthy and the powerful man.
Or a situation in which the rule of law is taken for granted.
The rich man, if he breaks the law, he too is just as subject to penalties as the poor man or the weak man.
This notion of equality.
This notion that the law should apply to everyone.
The idea that even if someone is insignificant, he has rights that need to be respected.
Rights that should be maintained.
This you don't find in any other society.
Also, the notion of sexual equality.
The big man having only one wife.
This too is a surprising thing.
You don't find that in other cultures.
The notion that women have a point of view.
That they are to be respected.
The idea that the powerless are to be respected and have a point of view.
This notion of a reciprocal sense of the interests, of valuing the point of view, the lives, the interests of others.
We take that even further into other species.
We care about the snail darter and the Kreshmar cave mold beetle in a way that you don't find others caring about them.
And that's why Weiss ended slavery not just in their own countries and cultures but around the world.
That's exactly right.
We are the ones who care the most about the environment.
We think about future generations.
They too should have clean air to breathe, oceans in which the corals multiply.
All of this is a notion somehow of a larger sense of responsibility, of respecting the rights and the demands and the situations of others.
These, I think, are all part of the hallmarks of the society and the civilization that we as white Europeans have created.
You don't find these things elsewhere.
But then, this notion of reciprocity, of thinking of the interests of others, which I think is very, very valuable within the tribe, within the nation.
This has been perverted by people who, from without the tribe, have said, well, wait a minute, you owe all those things to us as well.
And for centuries, we were able to draw the line.
We were able to say, well, no, no, you are Africans, or you are South Americans, and we have certain places where we draw the line.
Our capability to draw the line in terms of this notion of mutual reciprocity, mutual respect, equality, that has been destroyed, and now we find all of our virtues turned against us.
Like you, this is just sort of an off-the-cuff notion that has occurred to me off and on.
I've never done the kind of solid research that I would have to do in order to back it up.
I don't even know where you'd look for this, because this is very, very hypothetical.
And as I pointed out, if tolerance is a virtue, and I'm concerned that Aristotle said that tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying civilization, but if tolerance is a virtue, then we should not allow intolerant people into a tolerant society.
That's the universalization that has been lost.
Universalization, which is both a strength and weakness of Western thought, you know, the idea that it's not just my in-tribe that is good, but there are moral standards that apply universally.
That's, I think, a very wonderful and powerful thing, which also goes into the guilt thing, because if people don't feel guilt, there's no point having universal ethics, because there's no soil to plant that conscience in.
But this whole notion of different standards of morality, I think, is a very important There's a famous quotation of Pareto.
I wish I could quote it accurately, but it's something to the effect that when you are in a position of power, I ask you to share your power with me because that is your principle.
When I am in a position of power, I take what little power you have because that is my principle.
There's an interesting equivalent of that.
After the Battle of Islandwalla in South Africa, you remember this was the case in which the Zulus completely overwhelmed and massacred a British detachment, one of the worst defeats in British military history.
Well, after that, there was an engagement in which the British captured a number of Zulus.
And they said to the Zulus that they captured, look, in Islandwalla, when you overran our garrison, you didn't take prisoners.
You massacred them all.
Why should we not massacre you?
And the Zulus said, well, massacring prisoners, that is our custom.
It is not your custom to massacre prisoners, so you must not massacre us.
And the British were unable to gainsay that argument.
Well, you're right.
And of course, they were not massacred.
There are different standards here, and our standards are being turned against us in a way that will be ultimately lethal to us.
Well, I mean, the Muslim mayor has complained that there are too many white people working in a certain industry, even though whites are becoming the minority.
Does anyone imagine that when whites are the minority in their own countries, that the new majorities are going to treat them with the same delicacy and care and concern that whites have treated minorities?
I mean, nobody could possibly imagine that.
All you have to do is look at what's happening to the white minority in South Africa and the Boers and the murderers and the slaughters.
It's a fantasy.
When Trump the other day praised Western civilization and mentioned some of the wonderful things that Western civilization has brought to the world, I've got to think that that came as a deep shock to a lot of people who've heard nothing but verbal abuse poured upon the glowing...
Ashes that remain of Western pride.
And I do think that that is a remarkable phenomenon.
People do have a right to feel proud of their history and their culture because it is the pride in your history and culture that motivates you to add to its glories.
And without that, we deny people a lot of the capacity to live lives of productivity and honor and decency and courage and the expansion and extension of human ethics.
When you teach people to shame their own culture, they have nothing with which to build the glories of their own lives on.
And every person derived from a demolished culture is diminished thereby.
I certainly agree.
And one wonders what sort of lives American cottage students can look forward to after they're told over and over for four years straight that theirs is a history of nothing but sexism and exploitation and homophobia.
It's absolutely remarkable that they survive as well as they do.
Now, I get the impression that many of them just grit their teeth and they know this is all nonsense, but some of them end up believing these things.
Now, you mentioned Donald Trump just now.
I have fantasies about Donald Trump.
I admit that they're puerile and juvenile, but I have this fantasy of Donald Trump sort of tossing off observations.
For example, he might very well say, well, what's wrong with whites wanting to live in a majority white neighborhood?
Or what's wrong with whites wanting to live in a majority white country?
I think he is perhaps capable of a remark of that kind.
Or he might someday say, well, you just can't expect as many black students to be in the honors programs in the high schools because they're just not as smart.
Now, if the President of the United States, even in a haphazard and nonchalant manner, were to toss off an argument, a remark like that, it could not be hushed up.
It would mean that people would have to look into the, there'd be a great debate of, oh, this is horrible.
But some of the facts would then emerge.
And again, maybe this is purely wishful thinking on my part.
And perhaps Donald Trump will become vastly more conventional the more he moves along.
That's entirely possible.
He'll have to, of course.
Politics is the art of the possible and he will have to make necessary compromises.
But the degree to which he's willing to speak truth to power as it stands is encouraging And at least he's provoked a debate which Americans have been desperate to have about illegal immigration.
He has provoked a debate on that.
And in that, the facts do seem to be winning out.
So I remain cautiously optimistic.
Well, let's close it off.
Is there any upcoming projects?
You mentioned that you have a conference coming up.
It's amren.com where people can go for more information about your I will leave you with the closing words of encouragement to an audience.
I'm going to just imitate the audience for a moment.
They're sort of looking at the screen like this.
Something along those lines.
Is there any sort of words of encouragement or not appeasement but mollification you might want to offer to people who are perhaps a little surprised at the tenor of the conversation?
I suppose all I would say is that if it is perfectly natural and normal for Hispanics to prefer the company of other Hispanics and to take pride in their heritage and their accomplishments, or if it is perfectly normal and natural for blacks or Asians or any other group to take pride in their accomplishments and to prefer to be around people like themselves, why is it wrong only for whites?
We take it for granted that the Japanese have the right to preserve a Japanese society.
We take it for granted that Israel has the right to maintain a Jewish state.
Why is it wrong for the French to wish to maintain a French state?
It's only a matter of fairness.
And that's the fundamental question that I would ask of the skeptics and those who would accuse me and perhaps you as well of being hate mongers somehow.
Why is it wrong for us to wish for our culture and people to survive rather than be diluted and shoved into oblivion?
That is my question, and I've never had a good answer to that question.
Well, because the only good answer, the only honest answer is that if whites are to be denied all the privileges that other ethnic groups enjoy in terms of self-preference and cohesion, and perhaps even a homeland, if only whites are to be denied that, then clearly that is a manifestation of virulent anti-white racism.
And that may be the biggest issue of racism that needs to be dealt with in the world today, and primarily it is white-on-white racism.
So I really appreciate your time.
It was a very enjoyable conversation.
We'll put links to where people can get your vital statistics and prolific output of articles and videos.
I really appreciate your time.
▲
Export Selection