July 18, 2009 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
43:09
20090718_Hour_2
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populous radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Welcome back to the show, everyone.
The second hour of tonight's live installment of the award-winning Political Cesspool radio program.
I'm your host, James Edwards, joined tonight in studio by my good friend Keith Alexander, who is hosting with us for a few more minutes before Bill Rowland arrives on scene, and then he's going to take over for the final half of the show tonight.
It is Saturday, July 18th.
We've had a fun and productive, and I think, dare I say, encouraging first hour of the program.
The hour that just passed, of course.
We were talking about some double standards that have appeared in the media this week.
We talked about some encouraging trends in terms of the Tea Party movement, in terms of the gigantic anti-Obama rally that took place July 9th in Chicago.
We've got pictures of that event on our website, thepoliticalcesspool.org.
We talked about some other encouraging trends.
And, of course, we talked about Sonia Sotomayor and, I guess, the big mainstream political news story this week, her confirmation hearings.
Now, we're still waiting to get this audio of what Pat Buchanan said about Sotomayor on the Rachel Maddow show.
But until we get there, I had mentioned right before we went to the break at the end of the first hour that we had received a letter from a listener in South Africa.
And this was a letter that I had shared with the other members of the hosting staff, Keith, Bill, Eddie, Winston, et cetera, and the production team.
And I say it, and I mean it when I say that this program has been blessed in terms of growth.
And we receive so many emails now and letters.
But upon receipt of the following note, I dropped everything else in order to give this writer a personal reply.
I think I speak on behalf of the entire staff of the program when we say we have such a great deal of respect and admiration for what our brothers and sisters in South Africa have gone through.
We're with them in spirit, if not more.
I only wish we could do more.
But it is such a privilege to know that our show is reaching and having a positive impact on so many of our people so far away.
And that knowing that we might be encouraging our friends in South Africa, that gives me, Keith, the fuel to keep working as hard as I can on this program.
But here is what they wrote from South Africa.
Hello, James.
Just wanted to let you know how far afield you have fans.
I download your older shows from the internet at work, and I love it.
I like the guests you've had on recently.
Ted Pike, Craig Bodaker, Bob Whitaker, and my favorite, Jared Taylor.
I wish you could come to South Africa so I could show you what we've accomplished.
I've made copies of some of your broadcasts, and I give them to other students and white youth organizations.
I hope you don't mind.
And Keith, obviously we don't mind when people are finding reasons for encouragement in our work.
And it's just, again, so humbling to understand that we have an impact on people as far away as South Africa.
Well, you know, you were mentioning this as part of the basic idea that you were telling the audience about how encouraged you've been and how much encouraging news there is.
The most encouraging thing for conservatives is that liberalism is like a blight and it tends to sicken and kill every institution and every group that embraces it.
For example, mainline Protestant denominations.
There was an article in the news how the Episcopal Church is now expanding its outreach to gays by allowing them full access to ordained positions.
Yeah, I mean, isn't that that just flies in the face?
I mean, obviously, these church goers have never opened a Bible as far as that goes.
It just couldn't be made clear.
It's a church that is doing this.
It couldn't be made clear that that's an abomination in the eyes of Christ.
Well, the thing is, the people that are in the pews are not necessarily supporting this type of stuff.
It's the leadership.
And as a result, mainline Protestantism, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Congregationalist Church, Disciples of Christ, the Episcopal Church, are all dying congregations, just like newspapers are dying, daily newspapers all over the United States, because they've embraced liberalism.
Same thing for broadcast news like ABC, NBC, CBS, their news programs.
You know, Katie Kirk had all-time low ratings recently.
And just like this gentleman from South Africa, the nations of South Africa and Zimbabwe have embraced liberalism, and liberalism is killing those nations.
And it will probably have the same situation in America and elsewhere.
The problem is we just don't want it to kill off the whole nation because we've got a lot of enemies out there that would like to swoop in, nature pours a vacuum and take us over if that were to happen.
But, you know, God doesn't allow evil to prosper, and liberalism is the modern face of evil.
Well, Keith, it is.
And if you want to have a little idea of where this country is going to be heading and what you might be reading in the local daily paper, if newspapers survive at all, which they're really dying because they're pandering to people who don't read, nevertheless, let's just pretend that the newspapers are going to survive.
This is the kind of stuff you'll read about.
Like I read about in the Philadelphia Daily News this week.
One of the top headlines of the Philadelphia Daily News, Keith, was Transgendered Female Dies During Voodoo Ritual.
That was in the Philadelphia Daily News.
I mean, that's a legitimate story.
I know everybody is really concerned about that.
Well, I mean, they made it up to be like some great tragedy.
If you want to read the story, if you really want to read it, we've got it at thepoliticalsesspool.org, just go to our blog.
And you've got more stories like this.
Earlier this week, this is in the New York Times.
New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about how the dignity code, as he calls it, has been, quote unquote, completely obliterated in Washington, D.C.
This columnist, again, for the New York Times, David Brooks, was on MSNBC this week discussing this concept, and he recalled how he, quote, sat next to a Republican senator once at a dinner, and how this Republican senator continued to caress his inner thigh for the entire meal.
Now, I don't know about you, Keith, but my money's on Lindsey Graham, but nevertheless, this is the kind of stuff that, I mean, it's not just Democrats, it's not just Republicans, it's both, and it's certainly the media.
Now, I understand we have this Pat Buchanan clip ready.
We're going to go to that after the next commercial break, but I mean, this is the kind of stuff that passes as news.
This commentator goes on television to talk about how a Republican senator was grabbing his crotch the whole dinner.
And I'm not talking about the Republican senator was grabbing his own crotch.
He was grabbing the crotch of this columnist the whole time.
And then the Philadelphia Daily News has lamentations about how the transgendered female, which is, of course, a man living as a woman, died during a voodoo ritual.
This is what passes as news.
Whereas when thousands upon thousands of real Americans unite in downtown Chicago to protest Obama and higher taxes, the only people talking about it is the political cesspool.
Well, you would think that the mainstream media, being as liberal as they are, would be very heartened in approving of this grabbing the inner thigh of David Brooks by some Republican senator.
It just goes to show that George Wallace was absolutely correct in 1968 when he said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major political parties.
That sounds like a Democrat.
I guess that Republican senator goes to that church we were just talking about.
I mean, but you know, it's funny, but it's sick.
I mean, it's perverse.
It's abnormal.
It's gross.
Well, again, it shows that double standard.
You know, if a Republican or a supposed conservative does something like this, it's horrible.
But on the other hand, if a Democrat does it, well, then you're a horrible, intolerant homophobe if you were to even take notice of it.
I got one more for you.
Since we're talking about the news and what's making news, this is what's making news in London.
Pagan police officers are now getting their own holidays at taxpayer-supported expense.
What in the world are the pagan holidays?
Well, I think they're making them up.
But nevertheless, you know, Christmas, Christmas isn't a holiday anymore.
It's the holiday we dare not mention by name.
It's the holiday.
Now it's just called like winter break or whatever.
But the story there, and this is again on our blog, the story out of the newspaper over there in London reads, police who worship heathen gods will get eight days off a year to celebrate their pagan festivals.
They're also in line for thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in recognition of their status as a community of pagans.
Again, Keith, you're a Christian, you want to celebrate Christmas?
What happens?
You got to go to work.
It's not really even a holiday anymore.
It's just the winter break.
Well, look, President Bush wouldn't put a nativity scene on the White House lawn, but he did put a menorah during the last year or two of his presidency.
So it's just taking over everything.
You know, it's basically, you know, Christianity, you know, it's like George Orwell's animal farm where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Apparently, Christianity is at the bottom of the heap now as far as the cultural Marxists.
As far as a recognized religious holiday, the pagans are counting Halloween as one of their holidays.
I go on to read here.
I guess I could give them that in terms of the origins there.
But they're counting summer solstice and winter solstice.
Anytime the season changes, I guess that's a pagan holiday.
You know, stuff like that.
But anyway, it's not the point.
I mean, if they want to celebrate that and worship that, that's fine.
But they're doing it at taxpayer expense and they're getting the day off.
Whereas, again, it's just double standards.
I guess it's sort of like an article a little while ago about there had a Satanist minister or something that was a chaplain in the U.S. Army.
That was Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
We'll be back right after this.
Hello?
Welcome back to get on the political cesspool.
Call us on James's Dime, toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, at long last, good things do come to those who wait.
About a few minutes ago, a couple of segments back, Keith Alexander and I were talking about the Sonia Sotomayor hearings in which she inevitably will become the next United States Supreme Court justice, part because the Democrats have an unbreakable majority right now, and partly because the Republican resistance isn't much resistance at all.
Controlled opposition at best.
But Keith, we were saying that if one man is really speaking his mind on this, other than us, it's Pat Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan was on MSNBC last week on the Rachel Maddow Show.
It's an 11-minute long clip.
We're not going to play the whole thing.
We're going to play three minutes of it.
And this is what Pat Buchanan is saying on national television about Sonia Sotomayor.
And again, as I said in the first hour, you would expect this from Pat, a man who's appeared on this show as a repeat guest.
Listen to it, everyone, and then Keith and I are going to jump in and give you our take on Buchanan's comments.
Here he is now on the Rachel Maddow Show, Pat Buchanan.
One prominent Republican who believes that the Republicans did not make enough of the issue of race at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings is my MSNBC colleague Patrick J. Buchanan, who argued in his column this week that the hearings should have been seized on even more by Republicans to try to win over white conservatives who feel aggrieved by racial issues.
He says, quote, these are the folks who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors.
What Republicans must do is expose Sotomayor as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males.
Even if Sotomayor is confirmed, Pat says, making the nation aware she is a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an assignment worth pursuing.
Joining us now is my MSNBC political colleague, Pat Buchanan.
Pat, it's been far too long since you've been on the show.
It's really nice to see you.
Good to see you, Rachel.
So your argument is that Republicans could reap political rewards by making the argument that Sotomayor essentially doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court, that she's only there because of her race.
Did I understand your argument correctly?
Well, I think I would vote no on Sonia Sotomayor the same way I would have voted no on Harriet Myers, and I said so the first day she was nominated.
I don't think Judge Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court.
She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution.
She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or a major book or something like that on the law.
And I do believe she's an affirmative action appointment by the President of the United States.
He eliminated everyone but four women, and then he picked the Hispanic.
So I think this is an affirmative action appointment, and I would vote no.
And what do you think that affirmative action is for?
Affirmative action is to increase diversity by discriminating against white males.
As Alan Backey was discriminated at the University of California at Davis, as Brian Weber, that worker in Louisiana, was discriminated against.
As Frank Rickey and those firefighters were discriminated against, as Jennifer Graz was discriminated against and kept out of the University of Michigan, which she set her heart on, even though her grades were far higher than people who were allowed in there.
That's the type affirmative action is basically reverse discrimination against white males, and it's as wrong as discrimination against black females and Hispanics and others, and that's why I oppose it.
Obviously, I have a different view about it, but I wanted to give you a chance to explain what you're talking about.
But why do you have a different view?
Why do you think to discriminate against white males?
Let me ask you this: why do you think it is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?
Well, I think white men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy.
All right, this has been a country.
Keith, that's Pat Buchanan at his finest.
That is why we love Pat Buchanan.
That's why we have him on this show.
That was Pat Buchanan in comments made to Rachel Maddow.
You could tell her stammering remarks as he just laid it on the line as matter-of-factly and as eloquently as he could.
The double standards that exist are egregious and at the expense of white males and white males only.
Keith, your thoughts on Pat Buchanan?
Well, Pat Buchanan is a perfect example of what my wife's grandfather used to say.
He'll call a spade a dirty shovel.
He's like the motto of our radio program, no retreat, no surrender, no compromise.
He is going to state the case against affirmative action as strongly and as unequivocally as the proponents of affirmative action state their case.
And see, they don't know how to cope with that in the mainstream media.
They basically expect somebody to stammer and yammer and apologize about, for example, that there's been a predominance of white males on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well, it wasn't until 1964 that there was a law that said that you couldn't do that.
And since then, basically, there's been a transformation of society and a concerted effort to marginalize white males and to dispossess them and take them out of positions of authority and power in the United States in business and academia and in the government and in the legal profession.
Well, you know, Keith, and you've seen this and suffered this firsthand, as have so many of our listening audience, I love it when Pat said, Rachel Maddow said she disagreed with Pat, and he said, why do you disagree?
Why do you think it's okay to discriminate against white males?
He didn't mint any words.
He delivered the exact same, I mean the exact same commentary that we deliver on this show night in and night out.
No better, no worse.
And this is what it's about.
And people need to start waking up to this.
And I am glad that we are able to have a venue where we can advocate, truly advocate for equal opportunity, and that includes equal opportunity for white males, as Pat Buchanan is doing.
Well, it's just like we had said before, James, when the 64 Civil Rights Act was passed and when all of this civil rights activism was going on, nobody said, at least on the left, that the purpose was to replace one type of discrimination with another, discrimination against minorities with discrimination against whites.
But that's exactly what they have done, and it's good to have somebody that will call their hand on this.
And Pat Buchanan doesn't retreat.
He doesn't prevaricate.
He doesn't try to, you know, say that something is wrong with being white, which seems to be the typical neocon position.
Pat Buchanan tells it like it is.
And we're very much in his debt to have a spokesman as intelligent, as articulate, and as dogged as he is in our corner on this.
Well, it was a great clip.
He continues to speak out as we do.
And you know, it gets lonely out there, Keith, being one of the few, and I hate to use the word mainstream or establishment, but I mean, obviously, we're broadcast on AM radio stations across the country.
We're on a major network.
The Political Assessment is a mainstream media voice and certainly a mainstream radio program.
And it gets lonely out there from time to time, seemingly being one of the few mainstream entities that is advocating for equal rights for European Americans.
And then you hear someone like Pat Buchanan go on in this NBC and do it every bit as good, if not better, than we're doing it.
And it makes you feel as though you have a little company.
And obviously, we get that as well from the emails that pour in from our listening audience.
And you put it all together, and you've got a community out there that agrees in some of the same principles and tenets.
And the thing you have to do at that point is get them organized into take action to battle some of these injustices in the court of public opinion and elsewhere.
And perhaps you can start turning the tide.
I think that our message sells itself, and we've just got to do a better job of taking the people who believe in that message.
And we know it to be many hundreds of thousands, thousands, if not millions, of Americans, and get them animated to action.
Well, let me say this in closing.
See, what this shows is how far this cultural center of gravity has moved to the left.
In 1964, the position that we take would be the liberal position: that we don't want discrimination against anyone, either against blacks, Hispanics, women, or white males.
But now that position qualifies you as a member of the extreme right in the eyes of the mainstream media.
You see, it's not we who have changed, it's the cultural center of gravity that moves.
And unfortunately, that's what liberalism is: it's like a cancer that metastasizes and is constantly changing itself.
Keith, we got to go to break.
Thanks for being on with us.
We'll be back with more in the cesspool right after this.
Okay.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
And express your opinion in the Political Says poll.
Call us toll free at 1-866-986-6397.
Thank you, Art Frith.
Welcome back to the Political Assessful Radio Program, everyone.
James Edwards here with you, and I am joined now by Bill Rowland, who is filling in now for the rest of the program as my co-host.
And Keith Alexander is just now leaving the studio to go tend to pressing affairs of state.
We appreciate Keith for his service in the Political Cess Pole this evening.
And I hope everyone enjoyed that Pat Buchanan clip that we just played.
I know we built it up a little bit, but I hope it was worth the wait.
Now we move on with hopefully topics of equal interest and intrigue.
And Bill, welcome in tonight, my friend.
As usual, I'm delighted to be here tonight.
And so far, I've been listening to the show, and it's been just really good.
It's been fantastic.
Of course, Keith always does great commentary.
And we've got a guest on deck right now, a new guest to the show, someone who actually wrote in and sent us an email saying how much he enjoyed the show.
And so we'll be having him on up in just a minute.
But so far, the show sounds great.
Well, thank you so much, Bill.
Of course, ladies and gentlemen, you know, this is a volunteer-run project here, the Political Cessible for the past five years, built on the backs of volunteers like me and Bill and Eddie.
And so we all work for a living.
In addition to hosting this show and all the strides that it's made, it's just really been unprecedented.
That's why sometimes we have more than one co-host in any given program because we all have families and jobs to tend to.
And I'm so thankful for the service that people like Keith, Bill Winston, and Eddie Miller provide to this show.
Together, we make it happen along with, of course, the production staff and crew here at WLRM Radio and everyone at Liberty News Radio and so on and so forth.
And of course, the great guests and members who make up our listening audience, not the least of which is the gentleman we have on the line right now, Bill.
As you mentioned, he sent in an email, which I was just delighted and ecstatic to read.
I had not yet replied to the gentleman.
I was going to do that this weekend.
But you went ahead and not only replied to him, but asked him if he'd like to come on the show and understand he's been listening to the program for a number of years now, has followed us from our beginnings here at WLRM over into Dixie Broadcasting, then Republic Broadcasting, and now our permanent home, Liberty News Radio.
And he's been there for quite a while, listened to a lot of your talk, Bill, apparently.
Well, I hope not.
I hope he's been listening to something better than that.
But in any case, we're joined tonight by James, who is a social theorist currently residing in New England.
And his professional interests center on power, politics, and identity and the effects of politics of identity on Western civilization.
He maintains a blog, which is theforemostproblem.blogspot.com.
And I got interested in Mr. James because he did send that fantastic email.
And also, I went to his blog spot and was very much impressed.
So we're going to have him now on.
He is in English, which I can relate to that.
I've got one too from the University of California, UCLA.
And welcome to the show, Mr. James.
Thank you, James and Bill, for having me.
Oh, well, it's a delight.
We're glad to have you.
We were impressed with your email, and we figured makes a good guest, so we're going to have you on.
Tell us a little bit about the foremost problem and why you got involved in apparently not only putting up a website, which anybody can do, but you've actually had your feet on the ground at some public displays of your views, demonstrations, and so forth.
Yeah, exactly.
I'm actually involved with a group called Northeast White Pride at nuke.org.
And I've been working with them for about a year or so.
They've been around for about four years.
And I've been doing some research and looking into what the problems are and what the best solution to those problems are.
And after I did some research, I thought probably the best thing for me to do with my degree, my experience, and my interest is to start a blog that documents what some of the roots of the problem are.
And I call that the foremost problem, which is a phrase which I borrowed from Henry Ford, his book, The International View, the World's Foremost Problems.
And the subtitle of the blog is Examining the Causes, Effects, and Consequences of Jewish Cultural Hegemony.
Basically, what I'm trying to do is show the things that happen to us in our everyday life, some of the policy and some of the effects and the damage of that policy to the white identity and to the white group and where the root of those problems lie.
Okay.
I see that you are, by the way, I failed to mention that you're currently active up in New England.
And this particular protest that you attended and were active and active in organizing it, but you certainly were participating in and took the helm on certain issues.
But it is in New England.
And you were at a protest.
And I'll tell you what impressed me, and I'm going to roll through this a little bit, was that you actually, and I'm going to recommend people go to this website, and I'll tell you what it is again at the break.
But you go to this protest or this demonstration, it's against illegal immigration.
And the way you describe it, it sounds like it's a pretty effective tactic.
And that is, you actually engage on the other side.
Is that right?
Yeah, I'm having some a hard time hearing what you're saying, Bill.
The audio seems to be pretty, the volume seems to be pretty low on your mic there or whatever.
But I think you asked me to talk a little bit about the protests that happened and some of the response to it.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Yeah, the protest was held last Saturday.
And usually what happens with these protests is you'll get a bunch of antis or a bunch of people that don't want you to speak out.
And they try to silence the voice of white men.
And basically what I did when I got there was I got there a little bit early and nobody else was there.
So I thought I would just go over and talk to them because it seemed to me that their position is untenable.
It's a hateful position and that yet they're saying that we're the haters.
So I went over and talked to them and there was a group of probably 15 or 20 of them when I arrived.
And most of them seemed to, after a few minutes, they settled down.
They realized that I wasn't there to cause a problem or anything.
I just wanted to talk.
And they were very civil.
There was a group of maybe two really, two or three of them that just didn't even want me to talk to the other group.
And they were loud and they were trying to shout over me as I was talking to other people.
Even after we had made introductions, shaken hands, and introduced ourselves, they still didn't want me to be able to speak to the group.
But I walked around for a while while I waited for some of my comrades to gather around and I talked to different people.
And a couple of media members approached me and asked me for an interview.
And what really sparked some of the interest up here in the media was the fact that when they wrote their story in the New Hampshire Telegraph, it didn't have anything to do with what had actually happened on the ground.
They had deliberately spun the story in order to, I assume, sell newspapers or something.
They thought that that was controversial.
So because I had my blog, I figured, well, I'll just write a blog telling my side of the story.
And then I went over to the Nashua Telegraph's article.
I included a wrote a comment and I included a link back to my blog.
And that sparked some interest in the local media.
I was invited on a show out of Nashua, a local radio show there.
And then I got some interest from some other people.
And that's pretty much the story.
I see.
Well, I noticed in this article you say that two people think of the people who, I guess, were shouting you down or going on a rant in a rape, women, and that one of them said something about having mixed-race children, and the other one actually said she was Jewish.
And she did not have a Jewish last name, I noticed, but that doesn't mean anything.
And that, you know, you went through the usual litany of accusations against white Europeans, that you were, I guess she insinuated you were a neo-Nazi or something.
But now there was a man with her who was actually more on your side than on her side, it appears.
Is that correct?
Yeah, she was calling me a Nazi pig at one time.
I think that just means that she's hamorophobic.
But yeah, to answer your question, her husband sort of got in between us, which was another part of why I wrote the blog, because they took a picture that made it look like everybody was sort of upset.
And it really wasn't everybody.
It was just her and another woman.
And her husband got in between us and repeatedly told her to calm down, to settle down, that she was acting irrationally.
And then he turned to me and he introduced himself, and we started talking.
And he essentially, I think, said, I think I'm standing on the wrong side of the street.
Is that correct?
I'm sorry?
Her husband, I think, even said at one point, I think I'm standing on the wrong side of the street, or I'm on the wrong side on this.
Yes, he came over to us after, and he said to me that, you know, we talked for a little bit, and then he said, you know, I think I might be standing on the wrong side of the street.
Because he said, we actually talked about the Constitution and stuff.
And he says, well, yeah, that's my point of view, is that I want, you know, I think that people should be able to speak out.
And, you know, they were, I'm not sure exactly who organized that group, but last year it was organized by a Unitarian church in the area.
And the pastor of that church is his claim to fame is that he wrote a book about Alan Ginsburg.
Basically.
Sorry to interrupt.
Sorry to interrupt.
We will continue on with this right after this.
Got to go to break.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
We'll return.
Jump in the political cesspool with James in the game.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
Great to be back with you, everyone.
James Edwards and Bill Rowland here with you in the Political Cesspool tonight.
We've covered a lot of ground so far, and for a change, most of the news we've been bringing to your attention tonight has been relatively good news.
And so for that matter, it's been a rather uplifting program, and we continue to be uplifted now by our guest, Russell James, who came to our attention this week as a result of a very kind email he sent in.
And in the course of reading this email, he had alerted us to some of his activism.
And so that's what we're finding out more about right now.
And I am enjoying the interview so much.
I'm kind of sitting back and letting Bill handle it.
Bill, please continue on with Russell James.
We were interrupted, of course, by came up in the last quarter hour.
So I'm going to pick up with Mr. James talking about how one of the members of a counter-protest group at this demonstration that his comrades were holding against illegal immigrants actually won over at least one of his opponents.
And this man was the husband, apparently, lady who was screaming in your ear.
That's where we left off, Russell.
So let's take it from there.
Right, yeah.
He had come over and he talked to us.
We talked about the Constitution for a few minutes.
And he really realized that we weren't the bad guys.
We weren't out there to try and silence people's speech.
We were out there to try to speak.
And I got the sense from some other people that were there, too, that a couple of the younger people said that, well, you know, we just came because friends asked us to come and we don't really went up prepared to talk about the issues or anything.
So it was pretty clear that they don't know why they're there.
They're there to silence our speech, to put on a bigger show than we were putting on, to distract attention from what we were doing so people didn't know what our message was.
And her husband did come over and he said that, you know, after we talked a while, he said, I really think that I'm probably on the wrong side of the street.
And then he, you know, it was a pretty hot day, and he asked us if we wanted any drinks, and there was a 7-Eleven across the way, and he went over, and he brought back drinks for us.
That was really winning the day, and he bought you a drink as well.
So that's, I guess, a good example.
Well, Bill.
I was just going to say, and pardon the interruption, Bill.
I was just going to say it's really, I think, quite typical.
If someone is level-headed enough and reasonable enough to listen to what we're trying to say, and it can be on any given message that we're advocating as paleoconservatives, if you want to use the term, then I think it's very likely that they would be brought over.
And it's also very typical that the opposition would turn to hysterical tactics rather than substance to get their point across.
Yeah, it's very typical of how they do things.
You guys were talking a little bit about that earlier in the show.
They really do seem to be terrified that we would be able to get our word out because we are on the side of justice.
We're right.
Our arguments are the right arguments, and theirs are wrong.
So they can't allow us to speak because as soon as people hear what we have to say, they turn away from them.
Well, Bill, before you continue on, we have a caller, Ken from Connecticut.
And we hadn't even really officially opened up the phone lines tonight.
But Ken, you're on the air.
Hi.
Yeah, Russell.
My name's Ken.
I'm from Connecticut.
I'm interested in this Northeast White Pride.
What do you guys offer to regular people like me if I were to join up with Northeast White Pride?
I'm just curious.
That's a good question, Ken.
What we're trying to do with Northeast White Pride is organize local people in the New England area to, to, one, be aware of what the issues are and to understand that the policymakers are not doing us any favors.
They're harming our group interests and to further take that knowledge and help to organize them in order to be active in the streets, so to speak, against the, for lack of a better word, the tyranny that's happening against us.
Well, Ken, I want to thank you for the call.
And to continue on, Russell, perhaps elaborate on Ken's question, because I want to make sure he gets a good answer here.
Let's just say that there are people like Ken out there listening tonight who perhaps want to be involved with an organization or a group that you might be starting.
Where can they get more information?
And obviously, time is of the essence here on radio tonight.
Where would they be able to contact you to ask more questions?
Yeah, if they're interested in what we're doing, the best way to contact us is at Northeast White Pride, which is at N-E-W-P.org, nuke.org.
I give that website out one more time so they're clear.
That's Northeast White Pride, N-E-W-P.org.
Okay, check it out, folks, and see if it's something that you think you should be a part of.
And we thank Ken from Connecticut for calling in.
And apparently, Russell displaying his approval of what he's heard so far.
Bill, with that, I want to turn it back over to you.
I know you have done a little more research than myself here on this subject.
And we've got about eight more minutes with Russell.
I want to make good use of that.
Well, I noticed that Russell said something.
Again, it's on his website, the account of the protest.
And he brought up, I think, one of a fascinating argument against this woman who said something about believing in equal choice.
And Russell, you told her, well, if you're for equal choice, then what about a man getting what I think you called it an abort a paper abortion, which would say that if you have the right to choose whether to have a child or not, I should have the right to choose whether I support that child or not.
How did you come up with that idea?
That that's something I've actually been thinking about for a while.
So many of the arguments that that the feminists make are they're just they're atrocious.
They're they're they're clearly not trying to achieve gender equity or or uh procreative justice or whatever terms they use.
They're clearly female supremacists.
They every time they get a clear advantage in every area, they never stop advocating for more and more and more.
For instance, at the universities today, 57 roughly 57% of all undergraduates are women.
And that's been true for at least the last 20 years, probably 30 years.
But yet if you mention that to them and say, hey, you know, maybe we should stop affirmative action for women.
It's no longer necessary.
They're a large majority now.
There's 33% more women in the colleges than men.
And they don't want to hear that.
Oh, no, no, we've got to keep we have to keep doing it.
So I got thinking about some of the other areas that they're not really fair in.
And I thought of a few, basically the procreative rights issue.
If a woman can have an abortion, an abortion is really just a woman saying, well, I don't think that I'm prepared to, like a lot more than this, obviously, but the feminist argument is that I don't think that I'm prepared to take care of a child for the next 18 years.
I'm not ready to do that, so I'm going to abort.
So why can't a man do the same thing?
Why can't he say, well, I don't think that I'm prepared to do it, so I'm not going to force the woman to do anything with her body.
It's her body.
But I want an abortion in law, so to speak.
I want a, you know, a legal right to abort the child and to say that I will have no claim on this child and I have no responsibility for this child.
And I asked her a few other questions along that line.
Like, you know, because she kept saying, well, yeah, if a man gets pregnant, sure, if a man gets pregnant, she kept playing that game.
And I said, well, what if it doesn't have anything to do with her body at all?
What if, for instance, in some places in America, they have what they call a safe haven law.
Like Los Angeles County had one when I lived out there.
I don't know if they still do, but they did a few years ago.
And a girl even, a woman or a girl even can take her child down to a police station or a fire station or a hospital within three days of its birth and simply hand it over, no questions asked.
So I asked her, you know, should a man have that same right?
You know, if he says, you know, hey, baby, I want to get an abortion, and she says no, and doesn't get the abortion, but he doesn't feel like he can support that child for 18 years, and he obviously can't get a paper abortion, so why can't he just, you know, say, hey, let me hold my son or my daughter or whatever, walk down to the other end of the hospital and hand it over, no questions asked, you know?
Again, it's it's gone forever.
These women do not have to inform the father that they're doing it.
They don't have to inform anybody.
They don't have to tell anybody they were even pregnant.
So why shouldn't a man have the same right?
She didn't like that idea.
She said, no, I don't agree that a man should have that option.
And I said, well, how about, you know, today a woman doesn't even have to name a father on the birth certificate.
She never even has to tell the man that she's pregnant or that she had the child.
Yet if she wants to, when the kid's five years old, she can sue for child support and probably back child support for all I know.
I said, but at any point, she can then go ahead and give that child up for adoption.
I said, so does a man have the same right?
You know, if he's if he's trying to, you know, support two households and he can't afford to do so, can he just take, say, his four-year-old child from his his you know, his first relationship or whatever you want to call that and just take that child down to an adoption agency and say, hey, I want to adopt my kid out.
And she, of course, said, no, he he shouldn't have that right at all.
Well, uh, Russell, I want to say this.
You've got me absolutely pumping my fist over here.
Because, I mean, that's the kind of stuff, that's the kind of well-reasoned logic, that hypothetical question that you posed to the feminist that absolutely makes them incensed because they hate to have something that makes so much sense brought to their attention.
They want everybody to be, I guess, brainless lemmings like they are and go along with the politically correct vibe.
Bill, we have less than a half a minute left before the break.
Do you think we should keep Russell over for another segment?
Well, that's up to Russell.
Russell, you willing to say I'm from Plum.
Absolutely.
It was a rhetorical question, of course, Russell, but if you don't mind, I would like to have you to stay over for just one more segment so we can be sure to give you the opportunity to plug your contact information one more time and, well, actually, give folks a good reason to stay over through the national news burst and stay tuned into the third hour.
So when we come back, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be rejoined by our guest, Russell James.
He's making a lot of sense tonight, bringing up some very good points.
It's certainly the kind of commentary we are known for in this radio program, and he is doing a damn fine job of bringing it to your attention this evening.
So James Edwards, Bill Rowland, Russell James, back with us right after this.