I, Khalif Muhammad,Ph.d , aka Syn-Q", the writer of this blog, am, like billions of others, a Victim of, and a servant to Racism (White Supremacy) in all areas of people activity. My Ultimate Objective is to use my experiences, and observations, about what Racism (White Supremacy) is and How it works, to promote the use of The United Independent Compensatory Code by Neely Fuller as motivation for other Victims towards the elimination of Racism.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
It gets interesting when two White persons debate Racism /White Supremacy
Transcript of Radio Debate between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise The Infidel Guy Show May 11, 2005 HOST: Greetings everyone and welcome once again to another episode of Live with the Infidel Guy. I am your host Reggie Finley and I'll tell you what, we're going to have a very interesting program tonight. I'm a little nervous, actually, about this program because I have no idea how this is going to end up. But this is a topic of course that a lot of people don't like to talk about too much, except behind closed doors, maybe at drunken bars, who knows. But, we have two very interesting guests with us tonight to talk about the merits of racial diversity in society. Now, if you go the webpage there at InfidelGuy.com, you'll see we have a write up about both of our guests, but that'll take ten minutes to go over so I'll just do a quick intro. Jared Taylor and Tim Wise appear on the program to discuss the merits of racial and cultural diversity in our society. Now this is discussion/debate, and it will be extensive and rigorous. We're going to talk about of course whether or not racial and cultural diversity is a positive thing for society. Now Tim Wise will argue that it is a positive and should be encouraged and embraced while Jared Taylor will oppose him. Welcome to the program gentlemen. JARED TAYLOR: Thank you. TIM WISE: Thank you. HOST: Okay, well I guess we'll start with Jared Taylor here. You think that racial diversity is a negative thing for "society." Why is that? TAYLOR: Because racial diversity, just like linguistic diversity or religious diversity is a source of tension and conflict. If you look all around the world, you'll see that those places where people are killing each other the most diligently are diverse places where people who differ in some important way, be it tribal, racial, ethnic, religious, don't like living with each other. That's a universal phenomenon. You don't find, really, any exceptions that I know of. For that reason, it is not a source of strength, it's a source of tension and conflict. HOST: Okay. And Tim, why do you think that diversity is a good thing, racial diversity is a good thing? TIM: Well, I'll give you an answer to it, let me also start out by saying though that I want to make real clear that my position is principally that any society, regardless of its existing levels of diversity should practice equity, true equity of opportunity and access for all. I'd rather that we speak about those issues of equity/inequity, ongoing discrimination, et cetera. But, to the extent you've put the question as you have, I would suggest that I don't disagree with Jared that globally speaking, diversity of culture, religion, and "race," and I put race in quote marks because I don't believe it to be a biological or scientific category that is particularly valid, but that there is conflict on the basis of that. I would simply suggest that to assume that that is therefore natural just because that is what we see is to assume something that can't be proven. The source of that conflict could just as easily be the systems of inequality that are put in place by the dominant group that comes to dominate a particular geographic space, a particular nation-state. It does not mean that it is the natural state of affairs, and so I think that when we look at diverse communities we can see conflict, we can also determine, however, that it is possible to reorient folks' thinking away from that kind of conflict and to create different types of in-group bonding. We see this all the time with athletic teams, we see it with different ways of orienting peoples' affinity groups so that we can take them from having one particular affinity group, put them in a different town with a different ball team, and all of a sudden they're rooting for an entirely different team. The idea that somehow our natural cleavages are racial or religious or ethnic or whatever else seems to me to fly in the face of a lot of experience that we have. So yes there's conflict; I don't think we can say that that conflict is natural or the result of natural racial differences. HOST: Go ahead, respond to that, go ahead. JARED: Well, when something is universal, I think the most parsimonious assumption is that it probably is part of our nature. We evolved as a species in small groups, small bands, and we very naturally have a tribal sense, and we are quick to notice differences between ourselves and others. I might point out that a UN study of the years between 1989 and 1992 found eighty-two conflicts just in those three years that resulted in one thousand or more deaths, and of this number no fewer than seventy-nine involved ethnic or religious antagonisms within the borders of a single nation. Seventy-nine out of eighty-two of these conflicts resulted in a thousand or more deaths. I think that to ignore this, to pretend that we can build a society that ignores something that has been a constant throughout history, and something that is constant with us today, is to base a society on a kind of a folly. TIM: The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fact...Let's look at Europeans, just as one group, which I guess Jared and many folks in his movement would like to collectively refer to as "whites" under the banner of a white nationalist movement of sorts. The problem with that is that for the better part of, good Lord, the history of European nations, those of us who are of European descent spent the vast majority of that time killing each other even though we were of "one race" to hear these folks tell it, to hear white nationalists tell it. So we spent all of that time conquering one another, fighting one another, slaughtering one another, even though "racially" we were the same. In other words, yes it is definitely true, I think evolutionary biology certainly tells us that we developed in-groups and out-groups as a matter of evolution, I don't doubt that for a second. But what I doubt is the idea that race is the natural delineator or the natural dividing line. So for example, if you were thinking of it in evolutionary terms, it would actually make a lot more sense for us to divide in-group and out-group on the basis of speed, or height, or strength, things that actually matter in catching prey, in surviving in the wilderness, in surviving in sort of the pre-civilization era, not something as silly as skin color. We also know, that if you look at the history of this country [United States], look at the colonial period, before the country, before the Revolution, and you'll notice an awful lot of cross-"racial" bonding between European indentured servants, who were virtually slaves, and African-descended slaves who were owned as chattel property because they realized in spite of a difference in skin color and so-called race, which term wasn't even being used yet, they realized that they had common economic and class interests. So yes, in-groups and out-groups may be natural, but how we divide them, how we say "you're in and you're out," is a social concept, and to look at a UN study that looked at the years '89 or whatever it was to '92, hundreds of years after systems of colonialism and systems of nation-states and systems of domination and depression had already been put in place, is to assume something post-facto that you simply can't assume was there at the beginning. HOST: Jared Taylor, how do you respond to that, what about the infighting, what about the civil wars among people of the same race or things of that nature. There's a lot of infighting there, how do you explain that? JARED: Of course, of course, they differed in terms of nationality, they differed in terms of language, they differed in terms of religion, they had all sorts of cleavages across which they did battle. But, if as Mr. Wise suggests, that it would make more sense to divide according to say speed or height or strength, why is it that no one ever does that? I don't know of any society in which the fast runners somehow ganged up against the slow runners or vice versa. That would be an utterly unnatural reason to make a division in society and today, in the United States, where we have real cleavage, real tension, in high schools for example, people beat each other up on the basis of race, not on the basis of who's taller or who's shorter. In the Los Angeles school system for example, on Cinco de Mayo, May 5th, fifty thousand students stayed home because there was a rumor that Hispanics and the blacks were going to start beating up on each other and people didn't want to get in the way. That is the natural significant cleavage in today's American society. HOST: Yea, I'd stay home. Tim: Except for one thing, and that is that the vast majority of violence in the schools and the vast majority of violence in the country is between people of the same so-called race. The LA example is not at all typical of what goes on in schools around this country. Violence in schools overall... JARED: It's entirely typical... CROSSTALK TIM: Violence in schools overall has actually dropped 45% since the late 1980s, contrary to popular belief, and it's dropped by about 55% in urban school systems. If you look at the National Center for Education statistics or the Department of Education data, you'll find, for example, that rates of both criminal, violent and criminal property victimization in suburban schools that are overwhelmingly white has been equal to, if not slightly higher, than the rates of violence in schools that are in the inner city and heavily black and brown. And in all cases that violence tends to not be inter-ethnic or interracial, it tends to be white-on-white, it tends to be black-on-black, it tends to be Latino-on-Latino. In other words, violence, whether we're talking about in schools or in the larger society or in eighty nations around the globe, is still principally, and in this country in particular, is principally going to be intra-, and not inter-ethnic, meaning once again you simply can't assume the sort of natural tendency for in-group/out-group on a racial level. HOST: Jared? JARED: If in fact school violence has been decreasing, it has been decreasing in tandem with increased school segregation. The people who are always championing integration for its own sake are all wringing their hands because now that the Supreme Court has said that you don't have to force people of different races to go to schools together, people are naturally sorting themselves out along racial lines and you have less racial contact than you did before. I would furthermore be very, very surprised at any statistics that suggest that there is just as much violence in white suburban schools as there is in urban black schools. In any case, why is it that in practically every school in the United States, when people are left to their own devices, when it's playing together at recess or eating together in the lunchroom, the blacks, the whites, the Hispanics, the Asians, they all separate themselves out? TIM: Jared's right only when you get to the high school and beyond level. If you look at elementary, middle school and even, what, junior high I guess, some states still call it that, you don't find that kind of separation. That is all the more evidence that this kind of racial separatism is not natural. I have two small children, and if you put those two small children in a room with kids who are of every possible skin shade under the sun, they are going to notice difference, the studies suggest that kids can notice skin color differences as early as three, but they do not ascribe any social meaning to that until we as a society teach it to them. They do not naturally repel from a black child, my children being white, the way they would from a leopard. They do not naturally repel from a person of color and cleave to another white person out of fear or out of anxiety. That is a socially-taught phenomenon. In those earlier grades that separatism does not happen in that way, it happens later, which suggests that it's not a species instinct, it's not a natural process, it's something which folks are picking up. Whites pick it up, blacks pick it up, Latinos, Asians, pick it up. That doesn't mean it's somehow hard-wired into us. HOST: Let's comment on that really quick. Quickly, Jared Taylor. JARED: It happens in practically every grade school in the country. In fact, one...there are some grade schools in fact where they get seating assignments by race in the lunchroom, precisely to overcome this natural tendency to separate. I think if it's something you find everywhere, in all ages, in all societies...And you find this say in Singapore for example, where the Chinese and the Malays, they separate from a very early age. To say that they're somehow taught by society, well, if it's taught by society, it's taught by every society unerringly, and that suggests it's something that's part of our own nature. HOST: I remember when I was three years old, I was living predominantly [sic] in a black neighborhood. I remember in my preschool, there was one white girl, I'll never forget her name, her name was Angela Petty. She had the exact same birthday as I did, May 27. I found her fascinating. I wasn't afraid, we conversed, and I talked to her, I wanted to get to know her and be her friend. Do you think maybe, Jared, that this is something I picked up on television because of all this equality talk? Is that just something maybe I picked up because of something I have seen or something like that? Why do you think I would not be afraid and why would I not try to divide myself from this little girl? JARED: It's not a question of being afraid. It's a question of noticing differences and being comfortable around people who are similar to yourself. In my own case, I spent the first sixteen years of my life in Japan. I was the only little white kid in a Japanese school. It was that case through age twelve. Now when there is just one odd, particular creature, there is a certain amount of interest in getting to know this odd creature. However, if you have, once you reach a certain, critical mass of numbers, I suspect that if there had been, say, half Americans and half Japanese in the school, there would have been a distinctive cleavage. In my case I was the only little round-eye. If I didn't have Japanese friends, I wouldn't have friends at all. There can be a certain amount of assimilation when you have very small numbers, but once there is enough of a social framework for people to form groups, that is what they invariably and naturally do. TIM: I went to integrated public schools all of my life, K-12, and during that period the schools that I attended were probably, I'm going to guess, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% black and probably 68% white with maybe 2% at that point Latino and Asian here in Nashville. And there was absolutely no correlation between race and the friendship ties that people formed, in the first seven or eight years of school. Now after that I absolutely agree, there was increasing social cleavage that I think took place for a number of reasons that had very little to do with anything natural. But in those earlier grades, even though there was certainly a critical mass of blacks and a more than critical mass of whites in that particular school system, the friendships, both mine and for pretty much every other white person I knew, ran the gamut of racial type. The fact that those friendships did not last or persist in most cases, which is absolutely true and which I find very regrettable in fact, was more the result, at least in my experience, and I'll only try to speak for mine though I've met with literally thousands of folks who talk about similar experiences, is that after six or seven or perhaps eight years of that school system treating us fundamentally differently, though of us who were white, even if we weren't very good students, seem to always be in the advanced or honors or accelerated track, and those kids who were black, even when they were extremely bright and tested very well and got very good grades, seem to almost invariably remain in the remedial or the standard level track. After six or seven or eight years of that inequality, even the best friendships are going to have a hard time being maintained because you're going to have two kids or twenty kids with such fundamentally different contexts, fundamentally different experience, that yes, they're not going to have a lot in common anymore. So I guess what I would suggest is that when I see those friendships...I've gone into elementary schools all around this country, I've done training with elementary and middle school teachers who report to me that my interpretation of non-racial separatism is in fact the norm at least for them. Jared may see it elsewhere, but I'm telling you what I've seen, and yet I'm sure that after six, seven, eight years of tracking and fundamentally...institutional separation of these kids in many cases, that you will indeed begin to see cleavages appear. Once again, though, I would call into question to what extent that was a natural process. JARED: I think the idea that elementary school teachers all across the country are doing their best somehow to divide people on the basis of race, to deliberately sort them on the basis of race, is completely wrong. In fact, it's now the great required effort on the part of teachers to pretend that race doesn't matter, to try very, very hard to treat them equally, to try to mix them up as much as possible. In fact, parents, many parents do the same thing. They say they want their children to have multiracial friendships. If anything, social pressures are for people to make friendships across racial lines. That's what the media is telling us, movies are showing us this. That is the way in which society is trying to force people, and it's my view that the natural separatist tendency in human beings comes out despite that kind of suggestion and propaganda. HOST: Now, my question to you Jared would be, earlier we talked about a humanistic or naturalistic tendencies to want to separate ourselves and all these things. But where do you draw the line? I mentioned earlier, I talked to you about people engaged in civil war and stuff like that and even though they're the same race they still are divided politically, religiously, demographically, whatever. Where do you draw the line? So should they be separated as well, so okay, so we should separate ourselves with Christians, white Christians should have their own continent, black Christians should have their own, even if they're the same race, a Jew and Christian even though they're the same race have their own place, how exactly does that...where do you draw the line? JARED: The lines tend to draw themselves more or less naturally. In Iceland for example, Iceland wants Iceland to be Icelandic, and they don't really encourage immigration from anywhere. And if that's their choice, I say God bless them. For the Japanese, it's the same. You could argue that Japanese could let in a certain number of Chinese, and there are a certain number of Koreans who live there already, and that they would all assimilate just fine. The Japanese don't see it that way. The Japanese prefer that Japan remain exclusively homogenously Japanese. That is entirely their right. If there is a group of whites that really does want to live with Haitians and Guatemalans and Mexicans all mixed up in equal number, that's fine for them too. Different people will have different choices, and my view is that when you have sufficiently large numbers of people who make similar choices, they should have the opportunity to establish a society that is convenient to their own tastesãnot to be forced into the company of people in whose company they don't wish to be. TIM: Well here's what's fascinating about this whole idea of the naturalness of racial separatism: if indeed it were so natural for folks to do this on their own and that it would just shake out this way in a society, then why in the world would it be necessary to encourage whites to do this or to form a group like Jared's group American Renaissance to push that notion? Indeed if it were natural, it would be impossible to sort of move whites or any other group from that natural species instinct. We wouldn't have needed segregation laws to force separation, we wouldn't have needed anti-miscegenation laws to require separation. Those laws were passed for the very reason that white people in particular weren't so sure that we weren't prepared to stray, weren't so sure that indeed it was natural to separate. I would also point out that if it were natural even in our own country, you would see that tendency toward separatism playing out pretty equally between all groups and yet you don't. So for example, black folks say that they prefer to live in neighborhoods that are mixed as much as 50% black and 50% non-black and they often seek out mixed neighborhoods in which to live only to be steered, according to the studies on housing discrimination, to majority black areas in spite of their own desires. People of color, Asians, Latinos, have very high rates of intermarriage, higher than any other groups. So indeed you do not see this tendency for separation playing out equally, which suggests to me it can't very well be a natural, biological or species instinct. It has to be something which is much more common for the dominant group as a way to maintain its dominance and historic hegemony, which in this country would mean it's much more common for whites. That does not make it a biological urge, it makes it a social urge related to social power. HOST: My wife and I, we wanted to move to a mixed neighborhood ourselves. Go ahead, respond, Jared. JARED: Well, in fact, there is very clear evidence that as soon as a white neighborhood gets a certain number of Mexicans or Hispanics and in some cases blacks or even Asians, whites move out. That is excellent demonstration of they very process I am describing. We even have a phrase to describe it. It's called "White Flight." It's such a dependable phenomenon that we know it by that term. HOST: That's true. JARED: It reflects a movement of all people, all people would like... TIM: White flight is indeed a real phenomenon but it does not demonstrate a biological or natural instinct for separation. It could just as easily demonstrate, and I'm not suggesting I've done the research to prove this either, but I'm saying it is an equally valid counter-hypothesis, that it merely demonstrates the effectiveness of several hundred years of racial propaganda saying that black people are going to be criminal, they're going to rob you, they don't make good neighbors, et cetera et cetera, or that Latinos are criminal. In other words if you have years and generations of people picking up those kinds of messages, and they do pick them up, from several different sources. If you talk to white folks who have never even been around black folks, who have never even around Latinos, who have never been around Asians, and I do this all around the country, they will come forth with many of these negative stereotypes in spite of no first-hand experience. They're getting it from somewhere not from their own experiential reality. I would suggest that when they then flee a neighborhood, that doesn't demonstrate a species instinct or a natural instinct for separatism. It demonstrates socially constructed realities and perceptions and interpretations of race. That's just as valid a possible interpretation. JARED: You find this, you find this, in places like the United Kingdom, which have had large numbers of blacks only since about the late 1940s. You find this in Canada, which has had large numbers of blacks only since about the 1950s and 60s. You find this wherever you have mixtures of ethnicity, of race. You find it in the Balkans. You find it in the Middle East. Why are the Kurds so determined to separate from the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in Iraq? This is something that is absolutely universal. Why is the Tamils and the Sinhalese don't get along in Ceylon? Why is it that people separate, on religion, tribe, why is it the Hutu and the Tutsi want to slaughter each other? If this is... CROSSTALK JARED: Hold on, let me finish Mr. Wise. If this is something that is socially construed which you would like to say, it's something we find everywhere in the world, and that kind of socially construed phenomenon, just like say sex roles for example, some people have argued that sex roles are unnatural and do not reflect biology. If that's the case, why do we find them everywhere, in every period in history, in every society in the world? No, it's just whistling in the dark, it's whistling past the graveyard to pretend that a phenomenon that we find everywhere is somehow a socially construed thing. TIM: Well you're conflating concepts. In the last diatribe you conflated ethnicity, race, religion and gender, or sex, and those are not the same things, nor do they have the same biological imperatives or evidence to support them. The idea of the Hutu and the Tutsi for example. First of all, their conflict was stoked by several generations of colonialism directly, which had an awful lot to do with that and in fact that conflict is not racial. These are not two separate races with distinct biology. They are not fundamentally different physiologically. One group is slightly taller on average than the other and that's about it. In these other conflicts, you can look at conflicts in India, for example, in the caste system there. You can look at the conflicts in Japan, where I know you lived for a long time, between the dominant Japanese and the Burakumin or the ethnic Koreans there who are at the bottom of the caste structure. These are not people with fundamentally different racial phenotype or genotype, these are not people with fundamentally different DNA, and in many cases not even that different a cultural heritage. They are people who are members of slightly different, and often times the difference is very slight, ethnic groups or particular origin groups. Then, in the process of coming together and having interaction with one another, having contact with one another, various conflicts arise and then are socially played upon. In this country that is what has happened with race. If you go back to the 1600s you do not see white people fleeing from blacks. In the 1600s in the colonies you see white indentured servants and African-descended slaves working often side by side. Even in the early 1900s in New Orleans where I lived for ten years, not in the early 1900s obviously, but at that time the Italians, who had just recently come to the United States and did not understand what whiteness meant, they didn't have this concept of pan-European unity. They lived around blacks in New Orleans, they worked around blacks, they miscegenated with blacks, they recreated with blacks, and it was only when the elite in New Orleans said "Absolutely not, that is a transgression against this club" and they beat the Italians into submission, they lynched them from light-posts as also happened in New York and various places in this country, to demonstrate to them that they had to get with the program. Had it been natural, the Italians would never have wanted to live around blacks. They would have run from them. They would have fled from them and that's not what happened until it was socially beaten into their skulls, literally. JARED: I've never said that race is the only salient social dividing line. It's only the most salient. In most of human history, the races have not attempted to share the same territory. For that reason, racial conflict has not been something that is millennial the way tribal, religious or other kinds of conflicts are. But in any society, when you try to mix races, those are the kind of cleavages that become the most pronounced. As I said before, in a place like Britain, or in a place like Canada, which only recently has become multiracial, you don't find neighborhoods that separate very much on the basis of religion for example, or political view. You find neighborhoods, schools, institutions, that separate on a basis of race. It's because it is biological, it's because it can be seen instantly, and our tribal nature immediately grasps these differences and wishes to make something of them. You can say that it's something you don't like, you can say that society should try to fight against it, but something that we find everywhere is something that should be recognized and dealt with rather than trying to sweep it under the rug. HOST: We have a question coming from the chat room directed to you Jared Taylor from [unintelligible]. It says, "Reggie, Mr. Taylor seems to be arguing that because racism is supposedly natural we should condone it. But he is committing the naturalistic fallacy, i.e., confusing an "is" for an "ought." JARED: Let me put it this way. Is it natural for parents to be more concerned about and love their own children more than they love the children of strangers? I think it is obvious that they do. You could try to build a society on the assumption that human beings could be trained to care for the children of strangers as much as they cared about their own children. Such a society would fail because it runs in the face of instinct. What I'm saying is, we have to build a society on the basis of things that are real, things that are factual. One of the things that is factual is that people care more about their own children than they care about the children of strangers. We accommodate that fact, we adjust to that fact. We build our society in accordance with that fact. We would have a much more successful society if we also recognize that people have a tribal sense that makes them more attracted to people who are like themselves, not just linguistically, not just religiously but also racially. I'm just saying that it is folly to try to build a society that flies in the face of everything we know about history and everything we know about human nature. TIM: Here's the problem. And, Jared, when he and I debated at Vanderbilt about a year and a half ago made this argument about loving your own family more than other families and he proceeded to say then though he didn't it now, I'm sure he still believes it, that in a sense whites are each other's extended family of sorts, or that one's race is one's extended family. I would just say this is all the proof you need of the fallacy of the white nationalist position for four reasons. Number one, since when have whites been one big family? Again, I would argue historically, that the concept of whiteness was artificially created for the purpose of collectively benefiting Europeans, who had previously hated one another, putting us all one the same team so as to subordinate others. So it's a false analogy. Secondly, this notion of family is fascinating because family is also socially constructed. It's not a matter of blood. That's what adoption proves, first of all. It's what extended family networks prove. It's what marriage proves. After all, we don't marry people, at least I don't, who are in my own bloodline. They're not members of our family until we wed them, then they become family. I love my wife, for example, more than anyone on earth, but we're not blood relatives. My children, who are blood relatives, I love them I suppose equally with my wife, but not more because they are blood relatives. So even the concept of family on the micro level is a socially constructed thing. I've never met an adoptive parent for example who loved their adopted children less than their biological children, because they have created them as family. They have brought them into the family. Third, it's a false analogy because even if I prefer my family, and I do frankly to anyone else's, that doesn't mean that I only want to be around my family members, which is what white nationalism ultimately proposes. Finally, I would ask Jared why in the world I as a white person should be quicker to consider the Croatian or other central European immigrant maybe has come to the US in the last couple of years, why should I consider them more family to me than black folks here in the South where I live and have always lived, who I have shared a common nation and a culture with, or my people have for hundreds of years? It just doesn't make sense. JARED: Why don't I go through all of these in turn. The notion that whiteness is some sort of recent invention, well, people have been conscious of race ever since classical times. The Arab traders in Africa for example, they were very conscious of racial differences. Likewise the Romans were conscious of them, the ancient Egyptiansãthey depicted them quite differently in their tomb paintings. And in fact the pharaoh Seth-Trosis III, nineteenth-century B.C., he even set up a stone marker, a stone marker at one of the headwaters of the Nile, saying no blacks were to come past that point because he was conscious of racial differences and he wanted blacks out of Egypt. Race is a biological fact that people would be fools not to notice. It would be amazing if an Mbutu pygmy were to go to Denmark and not be conscious of the physical differences. It is true that when whites had no experience of other races, when they were strictly within the European continent and the only people they saw were white, there were all sorts of conflicts based on religion, based on nationality and language, as I said previously. But in the larger scheme of things, when whites move to the same place, as they did in the United States, they do assimilate in a way that people from other races do not. Whites have come from all countries in Europe and after a few generations they are essentially indistinguishable in terms of education, in terms of income, and likewise in terms of who they're likely to marry. People who are from other races, they remain distinct in all sorts of ways, generation after generation. Now in terms of adoption, and that somehow proving that family is meaningless, I think the notion that a family is an artificial construct inflicted on us by society, that's a silly one. And it's obviously the case, the statistics will bear me out, that adopted children are far more likely to be killed by their parents than natural children. Step-parents are more likely to kill their step-children rather than their own children. There's a clear biological tie... HOST: That's true. I think there probably is evidence for that. I gotta agree. We hear stories all the time about this happening. TIM: But it still happens very rarely, I mean, to think that something happens even three, four, five times more often, if it's three, four or five times a small number, that is still a small number and it does not deny the fact that who we decide to make a part of our family is a choice that we make. And the larger point once again is when I chose to marry my wife, she was not a blood relative and is not today a blood relative and yet I love her more than anyone on the planet. That was a choice that I made and I don't love her any less than my biological children. I'm not saying family is an artificial construct imposed on us. I'm saying who we choose to make part of our family, just like who we choose to make part of our team, our club, our community or whatever else, these are choices that we make, and to think that they are simply biologically hard-wired is to deny free will number one and it's also to deny any kind of volitional thought or critical thought process. Let me also respond to one thing Jared just said about when Europeans come, they tend to demonstrate roughly or over a period of time, they tend to assimilate to a very similar norm and therefore all become relatively successful in relation to one another, whatever it was he was trying to imply. Actually, that's untrue. When you look at the different rates of educational success between different European subgroups, you see a wide variety of accomplishment. The reason that I want to point this out is that it goes to the heart of this argument that white IQ or that white intelligence is somehow hard-wired. So for example, if you look at Census data, the completion rates, college completion rates, for various white groups, range from a low end of 21.3% of Irish-Americans with college degrees up to 51% of Russian Americans with college degrees. In between that you've got Swedes at 27.5, English at 28.6, Scottish at 33.4, Germans at 22.1. In other words you have a pretty broad spread of difference. The reason I bring that out is that, why is it that people who claim that race is some biologically hard-wired thing and that success is related to IQ which is related to biology and race: if that's true, then I guess one would have to conclude that based on the rank ordering of Europeans that Russian-Americans are the most intelligent and biologically superior, followed by Scots, followed by English, followed by Swedes, followed by Poles, followed by Germans, followed by the Irish, who would be sort of the bottom-feeders of the European community. And of course they never make this argument. They do like to compare the educational success rates of whites writ large, with blacks writ large, with Latinos writ large, with Asians writ large. They never want to disaggregate the white totals because that would demonstrate a wide variety, and that might call into question their racial taxonomy which is so rigid. HOST: Interesting. JARED: If the numbers that Mr. Wise has just quoted are true, they are probably true for first generation immigrants. And clearly, the first generation immigrants that come from different nations, they come under different circumstances, under different periods, with different aspirations, with different expectations. But to return to this issue of how we choose our families: Mr. Wise is claiming that he loves his wife more than anyone on earth and perhaps doesn't love his children more than he loves his wife. There is an obvious contradiction to that view in the statistics on divorce we see around us. Half of marriages end in divorce. In other words, the people who thought they were making themselves a new piece of their families, they end up separating from their spouse, they end up in many cases hating their spouses, but they still are very, very much attached to their children because they are biologically part of their children in a way that they are not biologically part of their wives or their husbands. Once again, proof of the importance of genetic connectedness rather than some sort of... TIM: No, it proves that they're legally obligated to their children in many cases, and there's an awful high rate of child neglect both among divorced couples, one or both parents, or even couples that stay together. So the idea that the connection that remains between the divorced parents and their kids is the result of a blood tie as opposed to in many cases a legal obligation simply doesn't make any sense. I think it's just as likely to be the latter of those as it is to be the former of those. Once again, I was only speaking for myself and then trying to suggest what that might suggest about this notion of family, again the point being that family is something that we choose, it's not something which is hard-wired. We do not even have an incest desire, which if everything about family were species-hard-wired, we would want to get together with people who were from our direct bloodline. And yet we know that's not a very smart thing to do biologically, it's not a species-functional or biologically-functional thing to do, and it's also just something that we if anything have a taboo against, not only because of the biological dysfunction that comes incest but just because it's considered in pretty much every society to be something that is taboo and shouldn't be engaged in. If indeed family were merely a blood relationship, merely a biological or species instinct, that wouldn't likely be the case. HOST: It's interesting because Vince in the chat room made a statement, he said that, "there are societies," he didn't say which ones, but maybe a little bit of research can dig this up, "there are societies that care for other children as much as they care for their own." JARED: Well let's name them. HOST: I don't know. CROSSTALK HOST: We do hear about this a lot with African societies, some tribes and villages we hear about, the village raising the children and stuff like that. JARED: Well in some African societies, because there is so much promiscuity and so much uncertainty about parenthood, that men tend to look after the children of their sisters more than they look after the children of anyone else, because they know that they are genetically related to them. They don't really know whether or not the children of the women that they may have slept with are necessarily their own. So they pay much more attention to the children of their sisters because they know that they and their sisters came from the same woman, and any child of their sisters is genetically related to them. Once again, proof of the importance of genetics, if of course you're uncertain about parenthood. HOST: Quickly, let me give out this 800 number because I know people want to call in here. 888-503-0802. You guys can start calling in here if you have any questions for Mr. Jared Taylor and Tim Wise. And of course don't forget the topic is on the merits of racial diversity. [UINTELLIGIBLE] right here at InfidelGuy.com. So yes, we are ready to call in, so go ahead and pick up that phone and start calling here. Okay, well, Jared, do you consider yourself a Christian, or what is your religious belief? Some people might think that some of your beliefs about interracial societies may be due to some, maybe something biblical. Do you have any biblical reasons why you think that interracial relationships are wrong or anything like that? JARED: First of all, I think religion is a private matter and I don't discuss that publicly. As far as my view on interracial relations or miscegenation, I think that is an individual matter. I would not try to pass laws to prevent it or try to keep people apart. What I believe in is complete freedom of association and I think that given freedom of association, people will make good, normal, natural, healthy choices, by and large, to be with people who are like themselves. Now, having said this, and having recognized that even as Mr. Wise recognizes, that even if he thinks that it's purely a social construct, even if it's a purely social construct that one recognizes all around the world, why not accept it rather than keep constantly fighting this losing battle against it? TIM: Well I think that the things which are socially constructed can be, particularly if they are destructive to social wellbeing, can be socially deconstructed. I do believe that racial conflict, racism, and inequality, which again at the outset I was hoping that we would get to speak a little bit about, which is still far too persistent in this country. It's not merely that folks are separated from one another, it's that people of color, according to federal and private estimates, suffer from between two and three million instances of housing discrimination a year in spite of the laws against housing discrimination. It's the fact that, according to a study from the University of Chicago and MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] economics departments two years ago, when equally qualified in terms of education and work experience and in every other regard, blacks and whites apply for jobs with companies in three large metropolitan areas around the country, that persons with "black"-sounding names are considerably less likely to be called back for a job interview than those with white-sounding names, even when they're equally qualified. Several studies have found the same thing to be true. My problem is not so much that it has been socially constructed but that I think that that social construction is destructive to equal opportunity and that so long as we share a space, which in this country we do, we have to figure out ways to live with one another for the simple reason that on a practical matter, Jared can say that separation is voluntary and that given their own devices that's what people would do, and yet we don't see significant numbers of whites flocking to the white nationalist movement. We do not see significant numbers of whites, anywhere near a majority or even plurality, seeking to set up intentional white communities far removed from black and brown communities. Fleeing to the suburbs is not the same as wanting to set up a white nation for example. And although Jared always insists that he only believes in separation on a voluntary basis, there is this little problem with that that we talked about a bit in our previous debate at Vanderbilt, which is the way that you operationalize that. What if, for example, the white nationalist movement gained strength, which I'm sure Jared would much like to see happen, and then decides, "Ok, we would like to have, as a matter of free association, a sub-nation within the continental US, and this will be the white nation. Now we're not imposing it, this is going to be voluntary, and then there will be a voluntary black nation, maybe a voluntary Latino nation, maybe a voluntary mixed nation where everyone who wanted to live around each other could live"ãthat's the kind of vision he seems to support. The problem being, what if the white nationalists decide to set up their nation in a place where people of color already live and they don't feel like moving? What then happens? At that point you have to force them out, you have to use some type of violence in order to uproot them. An awful lot of people in the white nationalist movement, I'm not saying Jared, but an awful lot of people in that movement, are actually not at all shy about stating that quite publicly, whether we're talking about Don Black, the folks at Stormfront who I know are listening to this show, that's the kind of thing they support and that they articulate very openly. JARED: You're talking about some kind of fantasy here. Presumably, your view is, we should make race completely an imaginary construct and then we miscegenate, and in that case whites, who are perhaps 7% of the population of the world now, will disappear in a flood of miscegenation, is that what you would like to see happen? TIM: I'm not advocating miscegenation or non-miscegenation. CROSSTALK TIM: I'm really not. I don't have happen to think for example, I mean I know there are some liberals, and I've met them and I've talked to them, who say, "well, the answer to racism is we should just all miscegenate," and I think that's silly because I don't think that's the answer to dealing with racism, which is a systemic and structural problem. JARED: Why isn't it the answer? TIM: I think that the issue is dealing with laws and policies that guarantee true equity of opportunity in any country. And by the way, I would advocate that same kind of thing if I were in Japan right now, I think the Burakumin in Japan deserve to be treated equally and not ghettoized and ostracized as an underclass as they are, and that ethnic Koreans, the same way in Japan, and the Dalits [outcastes, formerly known as untouchables] in India, the same way. So the notion of equity is really to me is more important than diversity. I think that diversity can help to generate equity, but I think equity is really the much more important thing. What we do not have in this country is anything even approaching equity of opportunity in any institutional setting. JARED: Let's imagine that you are correct, and all of the anti-racists are correct, and that American society is just seething with anti-black or anti-Hispanic racism, that there are barriers set up everywhere blacks or Hispanics turn. Let's assume that that's true. Once again, this suggests that despite decades and decades of every institution in America preaching against this, militating against this, advocating against it, it's something that persists. Why don't we then recognize that if it is something that is so durable, so deeply engrained in the wicked white man's mind or brain, why don't we just let him go away? CROSSTALK TIM: Well because that's not actually what I said. I didn't actually say that the racism is held deeply in the mind and the heart of whites. I happen to think for example... JARED: Why does it persist? TIM: I don't happen to think that white people are evil. I don't happen to think that white people are all inveterate racists. I don't happen to think that most white people in fact even give a second thought to discriminating against people of color or even think very much about the issue until it's brought up to them in a conversation like this or whatnot. But what I do believe is that the institutions of our society have been set up in such a way as to generate and replicate, from generation to generation, inequality. Many of the people I meet, who in fact I think perpetuate racism in the institutional sense, in the sense of inequality between people within an institutional setting, are people who themselves I would not call racist in the sense of being ideologically predisposed to racism. So for example, I'm talking about people in the business world, about 85% of all the jobs in the United States, according to the National Center for Career Strategies, are never advertised. They're mainly filled by word of mouth and networks. Now, that doesn't mean that the people in those networks who principally know other white people, because they themselves are white, are intentionally and deliberately, with malice in their heart, keeping blacks and Latinos and Asians and indigenous people out of those particular jobs. It means that those networks have been racially constructed, their neighborhoods historically have been racially constructed, and so even if they aren't bigots, even if they are not bigots, they will continue to perpetuate racism in the sense of exclusion. I don't think that it's a matter of individual, hardcore prejudice. I think it's a matter of institutional patterns and practices and policies which bring about racially inequitable results. JARED: Well see, you are now describing something that would be even more difficult to change. You're saying people don't even have to have any kind of racial consciousness, they don't have to have any racial ill will, they just have to be cruising along without even thinking about race, blindly perpetuating racism. You're talking about a situation which you are trying to change a society in which individuals aren't even guilty. You want to blow up the institutions of the society despite the fact that the individuals in it have done no wrong. CROSSTALK JARED: Hold on. That is an even greater Sisyphean [the labors of Sisyphus, a legendary king of Corinth condemned eternally to repeat the cycle of rolling a heavy rock up a hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top] impossible task, than trying to change individual minds. You might as well give up. TIM: It's actually quite a bit easier. In the South, where I've lived all of my life, you'll notice that... HOST: After this by the way Tim we're going to take some calls after this okay? TIM: Yea absolutely. Integration in the South for example was imposed on the region at a time when it's very clear that the vast majority of white Southerners did not want it. And yet what you'll find is that despite the fact that the attitudes were quite rigid against it on the part of white Southerners, that after twenty, twenty-five, thirty years, and even today, after roughly thirty-four years of actual desegregation in the South, that the attitudes toward integrated schooling among whites in the South are actually better than the attitude toward integrated schooling elsewhere. Meaning that when you do change laws, when you do change institutions, even if the hearts and minds have not changed, that often times, the institutional change, the policy change does in fact bring people individually along much faster than trying to change the individual hearts and minds first, hoping that that will change the institutions. So indeed I don't think that it's more difficult to change institutional structures. In some ways it's easier because if I go to a corporation or if I go to a police department, or if I go to a school and I talk to the people there about the structural things that they do which perpetuate inequality, every single time I do it the folks in that room are amazed, they never thought about it, they never gave it any thought, and they are usually more than willing to correct those things because they didn't even realize they were doing them. Had they actually done it intentionally, it would have been very hard for me to make them care because they would have said "well to hell with that, I don't care, I don't like black people," and that isn't what they were saying. They were often unaware that the policies, practices and procedures that they were enforcing were creating inequality. And once they learned it, they're often horrified by it. HOST: Interesting. I'm sorry Jared, we've got somebody waiting on the phone forever, we only have like ten minutes left, if you guys want to go over a little bit, we can, so we can take these calls here. 888-503-0802, you're listening to the InfidelGuy Show. Wow, we're talking about on the merits of racial diversity. We got somebody on the line, hello you're on the air. CALLER: I have a question for Mr. Wise. TIM: Sure. CALLER: You seem to be saying that institutions, white institutions, are responsible for racial inequality. For example, blacks make less money or are more likely to be in jail or score lower on SATs because whites have set up racist institutions to kind of empower, have white supremacy. Yet Asians are a non-white group and they make more money than whites, commit less crimes than whites, do better on SATs, have lower illegitimacy rates. If white racism is so strong, why is it not holding this non-white group out? Why are Asians outperforming white people? TIM: The interesting thing when you look at Asian performance, for example the issue of Asians out-earning whites, that data is all, I mean every last piece of it, household or family data, not per capita individual data. The reason that's important is because Asian families in the United States on average have one to two more people per family and one to two more earners per family in the workforce, which means that you have Asians having to work more hours with more people in the workforce to earn barely more than whites collectively. On a per capita basis, when you adjust and only look at individuals, you actually find whites out-earning Asians in spite of the fact that the Asian/Pacific-American community writ large is about two thirds more likely to have a college degree than whites. So actually market theory would tell you that Asians should be earning more per capita than whites and yet they are not. They are earning less per capita, only earning more in terms of family because of having larger families. If you actually look at whites and Asians in the same community it also makes a huge difference. Asians, about half of all Asians in the United States live in just five cities: Honolulu, San Francisco, LA, Chicago and New York. Those are very high-wage areas, they're also very high-cost-of-living areas. When you look, whereas whites are spread out all across the country. If you disaggregate the data and you control for geography, which I do in my book, you can look at the data in that context, you actually find that Asians in those areas where Asians are prevalent, are twice as likely to be poor as whites, their children are three times as likely to be poor as whites, they're almost twice as likely to be out of work, and that there are several Asian subgroups, southeast Asians in particular, who have unbelievable extraordinarily high rates of poverty, higher rates of poverty even when they have college degrees. Lao, Thai, Cambodian and Hmong and Vietnamese immigrants for example, well over 40% of all of those groups with college degrees are still in poverty. So indeed, this notion that Asians are all doing really well flies in the face of the evidence. What the evidence suggests is that even though Asians on average are more likely to have a college degree in part because a large number of Asians came to this country already having a degree or working on their degree at the time of their immigration, they should be earning more. On a per capita basis, they are not, which actually suggests that Asians continue to face obstacles and continue to face barriers in the US which really can't be attributed to merit or lack of talent, but can only be attributed to some form of structural inequalities. As far as the IQ or academic performance, that also is varied across Asian groups and when you control for economic status, when you control for family structure, when you control for a wide array of demographic background and other economic environmental background factors, there is no statistically significant difference between Asian IQ, white IQ, black IQ, Latino IQ, according to studies of the last thirty years. HOST: Jared? JARED: That's a funny one. Let's talk about Asians. Mr. Wise has said nothing about illegitimacy rates or crime rates. The important disaggregation here is not by where Asians live but which Asians we're talking about. North Asians, that is to say Koreans, Japanese, north Chinese, they are very different from as you suggested perhaps southern Asians, Laotians, Hmong, or Filipinos for that matter. When you're talking about North Asians, it doesn't make any difference where they were born in Asia or whether they were born in the United States. Their illegitimacy rates are lower, their crime rates are lower than whites, their likelihood to graduate from high school, graduate from college, all these indices they outperform whites. And this has to do with abilities that have been calibrated not just among Asians here in the United States but in Asians in Asia. The evidence suggests quite powerfully it has nothing whatsoever to do with social status or environmental elements that Mr. Wise is talking about. It has to do with race. Japanese in Japan have slightly higher IQs than whites in the United States or in Europe. Japanese in the United States likewise do. The same for Chinese, Koreans. This is something that is a racial difference and it's not something that has anything to do with their social environment. The more intelligent people, of course, the more intelligent races, have built social environments that are more conducive to success. But that social environment is something that can be attributed to their genetic endowment and not the other way around. These things tend to go together. TIM: What is the difference in the genetic makeup, and please explain to me with detail, the genomic difference between the Burakumin in Japan and the dominant Japanese, or the ethnic Koreans in Japan, who in Korea do very well and in the United States do very well but in Japan are at the bottom of the caste structure? If this were all about biology and not the fact that the Japanese have oppressed these groups for generations, and many of the Koreans there now of course are the children and descendants of forced labor when Japan occupied Korea. If it weren't for social imposition, if it weren't related to environment and social domination, then why would you see such a disparity between the dominant Japanese and the ethnic Koreans or the Burakumin? JARED: Well I think in some cases you have outright discrimination that prevents them from getting ahead. My only point is that if you're talking about Asians as a groupãif society, if environment, if that's the thing, or the key element, or whether or not they were working on a degree when they came to the United States, you would not find aggregate differences in IQ of Japanese in Japan as opposed to whites in the United States. And in fact you find the same IQ differences if you're talking about the Japanese in the United States as opposed to Japanese in Japan. You have an average IQ of 103, 104, as opposed to the average white that's 100. You see these differences reflected in the different fields in which they choose to be occupied. TIM: Except that a three to four point IQ difference is considered statistically insignificant by those who do IQ testing. I'd also point out that if we're going to talk about IQ, because it seems to me the main argument that's made by white nationalists regarding IQ is that not the difference between Asians and whites, which they will usually argue are there but are quite small, the difference between whites and blacks. Yet what's fascinating is that a few years ago after "The Bell Curve" came out, which was this very mainstream, bestselling book, supposedly mainstream, it certainly did well, which argued the same point, that there was, that IQ was very substantial in terms of likely economic livelihood and success and education and jobs and income and everything and argued that IQ was very much related to biology and race in particular. What's fascinating is that two years after, three years after the book came out, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis, using the very same longitudinal database that Murray and Herrnstein used for their research, which had demonstrated this persistent IQ gap between whites and blacks, looked at the same data and were able to take what Murray and Herrnstein didn't mention in their book from the data, which was that when African Americans in the US go to college, they raise their IQ four times faster than whites who go to college and in the process close the average IQ gap between whites and blacks in half in just four years. That would not be possible if IQ was fundamentally related to biology and yet it is exactly what the very database that Murray and Herrnstein used, actually demonstrated the average gap, which used to be back in the old studies, fifteen points between whites and blacks. Some evidence now suggests the average prior to college is only ten points. The college experience in four years cuts it down to half, or about five points, which, again, is statistically insignificant and which demonstrates the importance of access, opportunity, and environment on IQ scores. That could not happen, and it did, that could not happen, if IQ was fundamentally a biological concept. HOST: Jared? JARED: I've never heard of IQ scores suddenly rising between the age of say 17 and 20, which is the period people spend in university. That sounds like a very unusual, unreplicable kind of finding. TIM: Well I'll be happy to forward the footnotes to anyone who requests them from me, it's not a problem. JARED: As far as the difference in the average IQ of North Asians and Caucasians being a difference of say three or four, that is not an insignificant difference if it is something that is found repeatedly in studies that have large numbers of populations as subjects for the tests. If you consistently find this kind of three to six point difference, you're talking about a real difference. CROSSTALK JARED: Hold on. If you're talking about a person taking the same test twice, a three point difference doesn't make much difference, if you're talking about two individuals, a three point difference might not make much difference. But, over and over if you take tests with large numbers of subjects and you get three point, six point difference, that is significant, and that is of course why societies like Korea, Japan are as successful as they are. They're put together by people with great intelligence who are able to find technologies of their own and to adopt technologies that were not invented by them. In fact, all around the world, when you have North Asians you find a certain kind of successfulness, when you find blacks, wherever they are, whether they are homogenously black societies or mixed societies, you find that blacks live in a particular way that clearly reflects their underlying abilities. HOST: We got a call on the line, hello, you're on the air CALLER: Yea, I was just going to make the comment that this sounds really similar to the nature/nurture debate and discussion, as far as the social sciences are concerned. It's never really an either/or, it's really a combination of the two. So for instance, do you think that maybe you guys are arguing two polar oppositions, two extremes, that there really is a mediation here to, which I guess could be considered [UNINTELLIGIBLE], where one has a genetic predisposition and if in a salient(?) environment it will elicit that predisposition. Or if you take the reciprocal gene interaction model, you have a genetic predisposition which causes you in fact to seek out a certain salient environment. These are very sound scientific theories and also testable at the same time. Do you think that there could be some moderation here and realize that it's not such extremes here, that it is a combination of nature and nurture, it's in fact both, it's not either/or. TIM: Oh, I don't doubt that for a second. I think it's true for any human trait. It's one of the reasons, for example, that you have, there is some evidence, that there may be genetic predisposition among certain indigenous American communities, American Indian communities, toward hypertension, high blood pressure, et cetera, and yet that gene frequency or that gene tendency, which was not true for all nations within the indigenous Americas but were some, would never have probably been effectively triggered had it not been for the introduction of certain foods into the indigenous diet which they had not ingested before the period of colonialism and conquest. So there's always an interaction, that's true for most any trait. Even those traits which are almost entirely genetic, phenylketonuria for example, as a condition, a metabolic disorder that some kids inherit, it is completely inherited, it is completely the result of having one parent who carries the recessive gene for it and yet you can moderate the effects of phenylketonuria by having a diet that is low in phenylalanine. So there's no question that any trait can by affected by either. The point I would simply make is that that's true for individuals. There is no, however, inherent reason to believe that those tendencies cluster on the basis of "race" for the simple reason that the racial designations that we currently use are principally based on three characteristics. They are facial structure, skin color, and hair texture. Those are things that are controlled by six genes out of thirty thousand genes in the human genome and those genes have never been shown by any geneticist on the planet, any biologist on the planet, to be connected, or what geneticists call "concordant," with any other trait known as intelligence or known as temperament or behavior or ethics or morality or any of those kinds of things. So even though individuals absolutely have certain genetic predispositions towards everything from certain diseases to the ability to sing, to play music, to jump high, to run fast, there's no reason to believe that those things would cluster on the basis of this thing that we now call race. It's the reason why you'll find African Americans in the NBA but you won't find many West Africans, who are certainly "blacker" and according to the racist theorist, athleticism and blackness somehow run together, you would expect West Africans to dominate the NBA and African teams to dominate international basketball competitions, and they don't because these things are not concordant on the basis of race. They do not cluster on the basis of so-called racial categories, because these categories are highly artificial and they are not anything where you can actually...even IQ testing, when I sit down to take an IQ test they simply take for granted that I'm white because I identify as white. But there's no way to tell whether a third of my lineage could be black. If I look white and I self-identify as white, I'm white. Similarly if someone who's black, 85% of all blacks in the US have European ancestry. Someone who comes in but who identifies as black or who is seen by the test-givers as black will be classified as black. You don't know what percentage of their lineage is European or vice versa. So these categories have never been delineated in scientific terms where you can say, "This is Asian, this is black, this is white, and then you compare the scores." Until that can be done, to sit here and have this conversation about nature/nurture or to have a conversation about racial difference as opposed to individual difference, which I'm in total agreement with the caller on that, is I think an artificial debate. HOST: Jared? JARED: There are so many fallacies here one doesn't know where to begin. If Mr. Wise agrees that there are genetic differences in ability, say in intelligence for individuals within races, I assume he has agreed on that. Then for the same sorts of genetic distribution there is absolutely no reason why you could not have differences on average from race to race. For the races to be absolutely identical genetically from a predisposition point of view towards intelligence, you would have to assume that in the aggregate the blacks are the equivalent of identical twins of whites separated at birth. We all know that when you take identical twins separated at birth, they are astonishingly similar not only in their intelligence but the hobbies that they choose, their predispositions, their habits, and you would have to assume that blacks and whites in the aggregate are essentially identical twins and that blacks have been reared in such a terrifying, horrible environment that we now have this one standard deviation difference in ability. That's really a very, very difficult thing to imagine. Does anyone really believe that in the aggregate blacks and whites are identical twins? I don't think anyone would believe that. Furthermore, the notion that race is some sort of an arbitrary distinction based on, what did you say, six genes? The fact is, you can do a DNA analysis of individuals, and recently at Stanford this was done, for thousands of different individuals. You do a DNA analysis and you can find almost 100% match between what the DNA analysis has done and the kind of results you get in terms of racial typology and the way people identify themselves. People have no ambiguity, generally, about what race they are, unless they are some immediate hybrid. The United States has no difficulty when it comes to affirmative action in determining who is black and who is not. Most of the time, unless you've got some person who has recent mix of ancestors, there's no difficulty at all in distinguishing between races because they are biological fact that go back fifty, a hundred thousand years when the lineages separated. Of course, you have hybrids which complicate things, but people in Africa are clearly African and people in Asia are clearly Asian. To suggest that this is some sort of arbitrary typology just flies in the face of the obvious. TIM: Africans are one thing, Asians are another thing and Europeans are another thing, but when we start talking about whites, which becomes a group that involves people from all kinds of different places, many of the European, both north and central and southern European, it also involved folks from Australia or New Zealand, it involves Canadians, it involves folks in the US who are quite a mixed group racially. There comes a problem with trying to group all of these. I agree, there are definitely population groupings and the differences in populations can be real, even between one village and another. Though I will point out, the genetic differences between these so-called populations or so-called races are still about one tenth the size of any other subspecies on the planet. In other words, generally biologists or geneticists argue, this is the generally accepted science, that in order for two groups or any multiple of groups to be considered subspecies or races or breeds of the same species, they must differ, or they usually will differ, in fact they always will, there will be more difference between the breeds, between the subspecies, between the so-called races, than there will be within the so-called breed, within the so-called subspecies or within the so-called race. In humans, that is not the case. On average, humans will vary by eight to nine times more within a population group than between a population group so that I as a European-descended person will be eight to nine times more different from another European person genetically than I would be from someone who is not at all European, who was Asian, or who was African. CROSSTALK HOST: That's evolution for you. TIM: That is not true for any other species on the planet. The other species tend to differ by five times, ten times, twenty times more between groups than within the groups. So we do not meet the test as human beings for subspecies or for races. Yes, there are population groupings, they relate to the primary point of origin or dispersal or development. But they do not break down as black, white, Asian, mestizo or indigenous American or whatever categories we might want to construct. Those categories change over time. If it were a biological concept, how would it have been possible for one in Alabama under segregation to be black if you had one eighth black blood but in Mississippi one drop of black blood and in South Carolina one quarter black blood? How could it be biological if we could not even and still cannot agree on what it is that makes you black, what it is that makes you white, what it is that makes you Asian? How much black blood does it take to cancel out all the white blood? How much white blood does it take to cancel out all the Asian blood and make you white? Whether we know how to self-identify, of course we do. We live in a society where race has been given meaning, but I'm not in touch with my genotype. I am not in touch with my DNA. I don't converse with it on a daily basis to know that I'm being instructed by the proteins in my system and the genetic coding on my chromosomes to consider myself white. I consider myself white because I'm accepted and received and treated as white. Therefore I experience myself as white. It's a social distinction. HOST: Jared. JARED: Were you suggesting earlier that whites can be more similar to people of different races than they are to each other? Is that what you were suggesting earlier? TIM: I'm not suggesting it, that's what science says. JARED: No, no, no, no white people are more similar to blacks, say genetically, than they are to other whites. TIM: Of course we are. JARED: That's completely false. CROSSTALK TIM: It is not false. JARED: It's completely false. In fact, now, would you agree, that there are different subspecies of dogs? TIM: Yes there are. JARED: Well, and do you think the genetic differences between subspecies of dogs are greater or less than genetic differences than say between Australian Aborigines and Japanese? Are they greater or less? TIM: Well the differences between the breeds, the differences between, let's say, German Shepherds, and a, I don't know, cockapoo or something, that's even a pure breed, a poodle, those differences would absolutely be, I think they're on the order of ten times the difference between... JARED: Wrong. TIM: I think they are actually, but... JARED: No, no. They are vanishingly small. The genetic differences between different sub-breeds of dogs are so difficult to detect that scientists have a very, very hard time looking at dog DNA and telling you, "this is a poodle, and this is a St. Bernard." CROSSTALK JARED: That completely undercuts your argument. TIM: The study that you mentioned, out of Stanford, was able to detect, and yes they ended up classifying that this person is black, this person is white. What they're actually finding are DNA markers for population groups coming from particular continents, but that is not the same as race because West Africans, for example, and East Africans, have very different biological and genetic makeup. For example, you look at East Africans... JARED: You think those are indetectable genetically? TIM: Some of the differences are detectable, but they're not racial. In other words, you can't just say," this is a black race," because East Africans have very different lung capacity than West Africans because of altitude, because of topography, because of geography, because of climate, and so... CROSSTALK TIM: These are geographic, these are geographic and population differences, not what biologists or geneticists consider racial difference. If you want to make that racial difference, you have to say that there were literally dozens if not hundreds of races within Africa. You could not say "blacks this, or blacks that, whites this or whites that." You would have to then subdivide to the point of infinity where it would become absolutely preposterous, this notion of race, because the differences, I mean, first of all, human beings evolved in Africa for seventy thousand years before they ever left, according to the most recent anthropological evidence. So if the first seventy thousand years of human evolution, from 120,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago took place in Africa, what that means is that the human species or those who remain in Africa will be more genetically distinct than any other people on the planet because they will have evolved all the different characteristics for all the different folks who then left Africa. It's almost like an umbrella group under which all other groups ultimately and from which other groups evolve and from which they come, which means you cannot call this bright line, especially with regard to blacks, maybe more so than any other group because they will have dozens, dozens, dozens, of differences between those in the south, those in the north, those in the west, versus those in the east, even when they all have very dark skin, and in this country would be called black. HOST: Can I say something here gentlemen? Okay hold on. We're running out of time here, and couple issues, we have somebody on the phone waiting, and then we got some issues in the chat room, and then I had a few comments too, so I'll run through them very quickly then I'll get to you in a minute, caller, so stand by, thank you. There was something on Discovery Channel about the, they were trying to find, what were the calling it, the Eve, or the last Eve, or something, can't remember what they called it, but they pretty much determined that humans evolved out of a particular part of Africa, just by looking at the DNA, so I find that very interesting. But Tim Wise is saying kinda matches up they're saying, but I think just look at the DNA, even though you have, when you look at a continent you look at people in Africa, they're all Africans, but yet... JARED: No, no. HOST: Hold on, let me finish, but you can look at the DNA and still know exactly what part of Africa they're from, even though they're still all Africans. Second, someone in the chat room, I'm not quite sure of his scientific background, but he mentioned here that actually, he says that dog breeds range from a difference of 5-10%. I thought that was interesting. TIM: Right. That's the data that I've seen. JARED: I don't believe that's true. CROSSTALK HOST: Okay, we know you don't believe it. Yes, I've heard that but I think that makes more Tim Wise's point. TIM: Fruit flies look exactly alike, and they differ by twenty times the average rate of humans. You couldn't tell a fruit fly from a fruit fly with a microscope. That's sort of the point. HOST: And it doesn't take that many genes to make one up, so okay now, let's go to the caller. I think both of you guys have pretty much said your point on that particular issue. Let's take this last caller. Hello, you're on the air, thank you for being so patient. CALLER: Thanks Reggie, it's [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. HOST: Hi. CALLER: My question is, for both fellas, what do you see as the future here in America as it regards [sic] to race? A hundred years from now, in the year 2105, what will America in your various opinions look like? Will it look, or more like Central America, South America, Europe, what do you think? TIM: Do you want to go first Jared? JARED: Sure. That depends ultimately on what white people decide to do. If white people don't change, if they are perfectly pleased to be dispossessed by people who are unlike themselves, then there will continue to be immigration from the Third World and the United States will become increasingly a Third World country with a Third World population, a Third World culture... HOST: Jeez. JARED: and all the problems that the Third World has. If white people wake up and realize that their biological group and their culture are under threat, then they will put a stop to this and they will maintain Western Civilization in North America. It's really a choice that's up to white people. HOST: I'm confused by what you mean about culture. JARED: Hold on. Left to themselves, non-whites from every failed society will continue to come into this country and they will continue to remake it in their own image and the United States will be, as you say, more like South America or Central America. It will become increasingly like Guatemala or Haiti or some other place where Americans living here today would not wish to live, and if you were to put it to them rationally they wouldn't want their grandchildren living in such a country either. But unless they wake up and do something about it, that is what will happen. TIM: And here's what's fascinating about all of that. If indeed racial separatism and racial nationalism were inherent and were biological, then white people would not need to be told by Jared or anyone else to wake up. They would already be, in large part, organizing to do exactly the things Jared says they should do and apparently aren't doing in sufficient numbers. Unless white people are extraordinarily weak-willed or have some type of genetic predisposition to cultural and racial suicide, or are just plain inferior, which I know he and his followers don't believe, then what in the world could explain the willingness to be, as he says, "dispossessed." It seems to me that undercuts the entire basis for the naturalistic nature of racial bonding. Having said that, I will agree with Jared on one point, if nothing else tonight, that the future of the country does indeed depend in large part in terms of racial amity of enmity, on what white folks do, because white folks holding roughly 90% of the Gross Domestic Product, holding control of virtually every institution in the United States, if not every single one, certainly hold the cards and will determine whether or not people of color will be accepted and treated as equals, whether they will face or not face discrimination, and whether or not we will seek to build a multiracial, multicultural democracy, small-d democratic republic or whether we won't. That is the question. I don't know, and I don't proclaim to know how that is going to play out. I'm certainly committed, and I think there are a lot of whites who are committed to working as allies with people of color to create that kind of multiracial democracy, sufficient and clear in our mind that the institutions of American democracy are quite strong enough and quite resilient enough and quite influenced already by the contributions of those white folks, so-called people from all these different European nations, and also peoples of color, to sustain and to be maintained under whatever demographic change that we may see coming up around the bend. HOST: Do you have anything else for us, caller? CALLER: Just one more question. As a professional educator, I can honestly say that we do indeed try to get students to recognize that there are various small differences amongst the groups of people, but honestly, from the data that I've seen, and I'm a chemist, and I can tell you, from the data that I've seen on the topic of racial disparity or racial variation within species, there is not as much difference between an average white person and an average black person as to be imperceptible. I don't know of any data out there that says that there is [sic] clear genetic markers that make one that different or radically different than the other. If you have any of that data I would love to see a website that actually points us to it. HOST: I think it's a good point. We might as well discriminate against eye color. I mean, because that's really what we're saying here, I mean, it's pretty ridiculous I think Thank you very much for the call. Bye. JARED: Just on the point of why whites are permitting themselves to be dispossessed: this is in fact a very recent phenomenon. Until 1965, the United States had laws that were designed to keep the country majority white. It is very, very recently that we have tried this experiment pretending that race doesn't matter. And I think the institutions in this society have intimidated and brainwashed a great number of whites into ignoring what is obviously in their cultural and genetic interest. In other words, persuaded them that it's somehow virtuous to step aside and let their society, their culture, their birthright be displaced by others. This will not go on, I don't think, for much longer. Either whites will be completely displaced or they will recognize the crisis that they face and that they will reawaken and try to take back a country in which they can have their culture, their own destiny, free from the embrace of people that they don't wish to be with. HOST: A quick question. What do you mean by culture? Why culture? JARED: Well, how has Europe contributed to the world? CROSSTALK TIM: Europe has contributed plenty, but this notion that we can imbibe some or imply some pan-European whiteness is again a very recent construct. The European cultures, I think there's nothing wrong with people of European descent being proud of their specific ethnic and national heritage. I'm certainly proud of my lineage, which includes folks from Scotland, folks from Ireland, folks from England, folks from Russia, I think all of that is fine. I'll tell you what's sad to me as a so-called white person in this society. To me, those very rich cultures, the traditions of Scotland and Ireland and England and the Russian Jews on my father's side, are traditions that in many respects, and I think this is true not just for me but for an awful lot of European-descended folk in this country, have actually been sublimated and lost, or at least significantly diminished in the name of this pan-European unity called whiteness. I would far prefer that we celebrate the actual heritages from which we come, which I think are rich and are meaningful, than to celebrate this ridiculous notion of whiteness, which nobody can actually explain what white culture is, because white culture as such has only existed as a concept for maybe three hundred years. I'm afraid that the Russian cultures, Irish cultures, Scottish cultures, Italian, all of those, have been sublimated to whiteness and I feel that the languages, the history, the customs have been lost to such an extent that we're not grasping at straws. That may be why white folks feel deculturated, that my be white folks respond negatively to multiculturalism, is that we have been to some extent culturally denuded, but not by liberalism and not by the Left and not by any other sort of pernicious progressive force. We have been denuded and deculturated by whiteness, and that is what I think as a white person of European descent is most disturbing and distressing about white nationalism. ÝJARED: Believe me, any kind of Italian or German or Russian heritage is going to be completely wiped out if the United States becomes majority Third World. There will be not the slightest remnant of any of that... HOST: Why do you think that? JARED: If we end living in a kind of Afro-Caribbean society. If the United States becomes the equivalent of Haiti, for example, or if it becomes the equivalent of Peru, there's not going to be a trace of Russian or British... CROSSTALK HOST: Why do you think that's going to happen? TIM: Even the most outlying projection suggests that whites may become half or roughly maybe 48% of the nation's population by the latter part of the twenty-first century. The idea that whites will be able to have no influence on the culture, that European-descended folks will be completely deculturated even when they are the plurality. They would still be the largest single group by far of any group in the United States. This idea that we can't hang on at 45-50% when these other groups have managed to survive and thrive at 4% in the case of Asians in this country, 12% in the case of blacks, 12% in the case of Latinos, their cultures are doing quite well at being manifested and celebrated, and the idea that whites can't do that at 45%, I mean, we must be an incredibly weak-willed or genetically defective or culturally retarded group of people if we can't maintain our own influence at 45%, that just seems preposterous. JARED: I'm talking about the long term here. At what point will whites wake up and realize that they have a culture to defend? In the year 2050, when whites become a minority, by that time, in the school populations they will be a tiny minority. Already, I believe, in the state of California or Texas, for example, the school populations are only about 30% white whereas the state as a whole is maybe 49% or 50% white. When these, when this time comes, when whites are reduced to that kind of minority, either they will have to have a very, very vivid sense of racial and cultural unity that they do not now have, or they will be headed for oblivion. If what you describe, you're describing whites as a minority hanging on to their culture, they will have to have a mentality and a state of mind radically different from that which they have now, and it's a state of mind which if they did have now, they would [not] prevent the kind of dispossession that's going on now. TIM: The only problem being that much of that real cultural heritage, the Russian, the Irish, the Scottish, the Germanic, etc, has been lost for a hundred years, so much so that when you talk to current-day Irish Americans, when you talk to current-day Italian Americans, two generations back this may not be the case, but modern day, they know very little about Ireland and Irish culture, they know very little about Italy and Italian culture. It's not multiculturalism that's done that to them, it is the fact that the price of their ticket, as James Baldwin famously said, the price of the European's ticket for coming to this country was the requirement that they sublimate their actual cultural, ethnic, and national heritage and language and customs to this thing called whiteness. In other words, the idea that we can place the blame for that cultural deracination or deculturation on peoples of color, on mestizos, on indigenous peoples of the Americas, on Latinos, on Asians or whoever else, is preposterous. Whiteness began that process. If we want to recapture our actual ethnic and cultural heritage, which is not white but is the various European cultures from which we come, I don't think anyone would be bothered by that. I've never had a single person of color, for example, who says that they believe there's a problem with Irish folk being proud of their Irish heritage or Russian folk being proud of their Russian heritage. But the concept of whiteness is obviously problematic for people of color because it implies domination and subordination historically and contemporaneously in the eyes of those persons. HOST: I must say something here quickly as well. I have experienced the same thing within the black community. It's very interesting what you're saying, Tim, because I see this quite often. They want, if you're brown at all, if you're brown and have any black, "black" in you, African in you, you must identify with your black heritage. As a result, a lot of what I am, a lot of my family history is, is becoming erased, or we forget about it, because they want to focus so much on that black aspect, blackness. That's the problem too, and you're right, if they were to allow blacks to focus on their other origins as well, it wouldn't be such a big issue. I have Indian in me as well as Irish, let's just say North American Indian as well as Irish. I have no idea though, how far that goes or who or what, I just don't know, and it's because of society, "black society," dictating to me that I must identify with my black identity, and that's the easiest way to make us, segregate us, make us dislike each other, and it's going to cause a lot of problems. Me personally, I'd rather be in a mixed neighborhood, because I can identify with a lot of different types of people because all of us are different. I hate it when some of the people who are racial separatists, I'm not saying that they all think this way, some develop this type of mentality where it seems that they think they were born from a flower, out of nowhere. They just came into being, on their own, completely, wholly white. That's not the issue. They are made up of a lot of different things. They talk about their culture? If you want to talk about your culture then you have to go back and look even further back, look at evolutionary history, anthropology. Talk about culture? You are made up of minorities, my friend. I don't understand why people cannot figure that out. TIM: Culture just doesn't spring from the human forehead. Culture is developed in every human society as a result of a number of things: material conditions, climatological conditions, geological conditions, all kinds of things, some of which we have control over, some of which we don't have control over. The best example of this can be comparing different Europeans who came to the United States. So for example, if you look at the Irish who came and the Italians who came in the 1800s and early 1900s, you noticed a real big difference between Irish women and Italian women in terms of where they worked. So for example, Irish women often worked as domestics in other peoples' homes, and Italian women very rarely did. Now, there were anthropologists at that time who said, "Aha. The Irish have a predisposition to do housework and the Italians are too proud for that." And this was actually a common anthropological belief. Of course, it was false. There was no cultural difference between Irish and Italian women in terms of the pride that they had or whether they were willing to do housework. The difference was that the Irish women, by and large, came to the United States first by themselves while the men were still back in the old country. Italian women usually almost exclusively immigrated in intact families where they would have a place to live and wouldn't have to go work for someone else and live in their home. So a lot of times we ascribe cultural difference to things that are actually the result of material conditions. And I think that has been the history of how we often view race, how we often view ethnicity. We look and we see differences and we assume that they're natural, either biological, genetic, or cultural, not recognizing that culture and to some extent genetic predisposition is going to be affected by environment, it's going to be affected material reality, it's going to be affected by climate and a whole lot of other factors, all of which tend, at least in my opinion, and I think in the bulk of modern scientific opinion, to cut against the notion of this concept of race as a natural, self-standing thing. JARED: Mr. Finley, you suggested earlier that blacks insist you identify as black rather than as anything else. HOST: Right. JARED: That is, really, I think that is a very general thing among blacks, clearly, because blacks have a very clear and distinct sense of their interests, their culture, and what they want out of society as blacks. HOST: Most of them don't even know what that is. Most don't even know what that is. We try to make one up. JARED: They may not be able to define it in terms that satisfy you... CROSSTALK JARED: They have a very real sense of solidarity that is racially based. That is likewise the same for Hispanics, less so for Asians. HOST: But I think you develop that. JARED: I beg your pardon? HOST: I think they developed that because of societal pressures... TIM: I think subordinated groups in any society will identify themselves on the basis of the thing that brought about the subordination. I'm Jewish, on my father's side, my people are Jewish, and certainly Jews have a history of having been oppressed as well, have identified themselves is group terms based on the history, the material conditions and of course the particularistic reading of scripture that Orthodox Jews believe in also. But the idea that somehow it's a natural thing for blacks to do that because of some species instinct ignores the fact that prior to coming to this country, African-descended peoples would not have viewed each other necessarily as racial brethren. They would have viewed each other the same way Europeans viewed each other, as very different. The only reason now that there is a significant bonding, let's say, on the basis of blackness is because the historical and material realities within this country have created the necessity and certainly the perception of necessity, and I would say the reality of necessity, that such persons bond together. It's perfectly logical and expected for subordinated groups. The difference is that when the dominant group does it, the group that has 90% of the GDP in its hands, half as likely to be unemployed, one third as likely to be poor, still running every major institution in this society, it becomes redundant, it becomes organizing on the basis of one's own domination, one's own hegemony, and it's highly unbecoming for the very same reason that it's always unbecoming for those who run the society to say, "We need to organize to protect our interests." The society is there already to protect those interests. CROSSTALK TIM: Whether we're talking about labor markets, housing, education, or elsewhere. It's doing a pretty good job of it. HOST: Speaking of domination, I think I'll let Jared Taylor, well what I'd like to do, I think [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Jared I'll give you a chance here, but Tim Wise, you've pretty much been dominating most of the show. So what I would like to do is, I want you to go ahead, and we're going to start, we're going to close, and I'd like you to wrap up your points, promote your book if you have one, and other resources that people can read to find out more about what we're talking about tonight, and then we'll turn it over to Jared. So Jared Taylor, you'll be allowed to end the program so to speak, and you can have your piece. TIM: Oh, great, okay. So you want me to go first? Okay great. Look, I think that the real issue here, and this is how I closed our debate at Vanderbilt a couple years ago too, is that the idea that white people have interests, people who are called white in this society, have some type of interest. I think that's true. I just think that the interests of so-called white people are not necessarily the ones that the white nationalist movement would have us believe. So for example, if you look at historically, I mean, you know, you had labor movement that was often harmed by the desire on the part of white workers to keep people of color out of the unions. Why? Because they thought that would lower the professionalism of their trade or their profession. So they basically said, "We are going to identify our interests as racial, as white interests, even at the expense of having a stronger, larger, more militant union that might have been more effective at getting higher wages and benefits for everybody. So where were the white interests? Were they racial, or were they more economic and more similar with the interests of people of color? I would suggest that has been the question all throughout history and often times the white bonding that Jared and others in the nationalist movement would have us subscribe to, is a bonding that actually comes at the expense of our economic interests. I'm from the south, a region where you had hundreds of thousands of landless, peasant, poor Europeans going and fighting to maintain the Confederacy and to maintain a system of white supremacy and chattel slavery which is what those who actually led secession said they were seceding for in every single one of their secession conventions. They went out and they fought to maintain the property of rich people even though slavery was undercutting the wage base of working class whites. So again, where were their interests? Were their interests with these other, wealthier white people who held black people in bondage, or were their interests with the economic interests of the average person of color? So I'm not saying that so-called white people have no interests worth discussing. I'm suggesting that we ought to re-conceptualize what those interests are in terms that are far more meaningful, at least to me. The only thing I would say, two more things real quick, if the folks want to sort of get a sense of some of the data that I have talked about tonight, some of the studies: I have two books out, one of which has all of that footnoted, Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White and also a memoir on the issue of racial privilege called White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son. I also want to say, because I was remiss at saying this at the outset, I want to thank you of course for putting the show together, I want to thank Jared for coming on, and I want to thank Brian Booth over at Purdue University for helping to set this thing up. I promised him I would thank him and I want to do that. And that's it. And Jared can go off and do his thing now and I appreciate it. HOST: All right. Thank you very much. TIM: Thanks. HOST: Jared? JARED: I think the most important aspect of the situation is that race is a biological fact, and it's a biological fact through which various groups are connected to each other. Race is also something that is reflected in different kinds of societies, different kinds of cultures. Wherever you find white people, you find certain patterns of behavior you find certain patterns of economics, and except for those places where it was hobbled by socialism, you found that whites have built very successful societies. You don't find the same kind of societies anywhere else. Therefore, I think it is entirely fair to conclude, and I think there are excellent anthropological and genetic reasons for this, that culture is very much tied to race. It's impossible to sever the two. Consequently, if the United States becomes a non-white country, it will change in ways that will mean that this society loses the cultural characteristics that whites have brought with them, wherever they have gone, wherever they go in the world. Whites have every right to wish to preserve their own societies and their own way of life. There's more to it even than culture. There's a kind of biological continuity here. You find some people saying, "Okay, I don't care if the United States even continues to be white so long as the people who are living on this continent continue to believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy, et cetera et cetera. I don't believe that way at all. If I were content with that, I would be perfectly happy for intelligent robots to be carrying out my culture. I don't want intelligent robots to be doing it. I want my descendants and the people I am related to, to be doing it. It's a kind of generational familiar thing. I think every group, every society has the right to preserve itself and preservation is both a biological and a cultural preservation. Unless whites wake up to the possibility of the extent to which they are being dispossessed, when they become reduced to a minority, they will no longer have their culture and their biological descendants will be marginalized. Whites, for that reason, in all countries around the world, face the worst crisis in their history as a people, because they're being dispossessed both physically and culturally and biologically. Unless they wake up to this crisis, as I say, they face oblivion. Now, as far as people being interested in learning more about this point of view, the American Renaissance, that's the publication of which I am editor, we have a webpage at www.AmRen.com, that I would suggest that people visit. They can subscribe to our magazine, they can come to our conferences and read our books. And I think that most whites will find that what I'm saying is very important and has a great deal of significance to the future of the country that they can expect to leave to their descendants. HOST: Okay. Thank you very much, both of you gentlemen, very intriguing, interesting dialogue. Very professional and mature and I really appreciate it. One of the better discussions I think I've probably had on this program in a long while. Thank you very much. JARED: Thanks very much for having us. HOST: Goodnight. JARED: Goodnight.
Posted by Khalif "SynQ" Muhammad at 13:09 No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)