It's A Saturday Morning Bonus Podcast For 05-17-25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show, Jeremy Carl has come to my attention.
He's described as an American author, commentator, policy expert whose
work spans energy policy, immigration, nationalism, and race relations. Okay,
you have my attention. He currently serves as a Senior
Fellow at the Fairmont I mean, at the Claremont Institute,

(00:21):
where his research focuses on multiculturalism, nationalism, and immigration in America. Previously,
Jeremy Carl was a research fellow at the Hoover Institution
at Stanford University, with which the Great Thomas Soul has
been associated for quite some time, concentrating there on energy
and environmental policy, with particular emphasis on energy security, climate policy,

(00:45):
and global fossil fuel markets. Don't panic, He's not one
of their guys. He's one of the few people who
focus on these things for the sole purpose of asking
a question, is this stuff real? And if not, what's
going to be done to stop it. In addition to
his academical he serves as served as Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Interior during the Trump administration Trump one point zero,

(01:09):
overseeing policy decisions at the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Park Service. Jeremy Carl is the author or
editor of several books, including Keeping the Lights On at
America's Nuclear Power Plants, which addresses the challenges facing the
US nuclear energy sector, and I would argue we need
more nuclear energy. His most recent book is called The

(01:33):
Unprotected Class, How Anti White Racism is tearing America Apart?
The Unprotected Class, How anti White Racism is tearing America Apart.
Some of you might feel uncomfortable with this discussion, but
it is a conversation that needs to be had, and

(01:56):
we will have it now. He gave a lecture at
Hillsdale College on the rise of anti white racism, and
I think this is worth listening to. By the way,
Hillsdale College does some fantastic work, fantastic work. If you
get an opportunity to support that institution, I encourage you
to do it.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
So what am I going to be talking about today?
There we go, I got it on my screen.

Speaker 3 (02:20):
Now.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
First, I'm going to give an overview of anti white
discrimination in America. I'm going to talk a little bit
about why it matters, and then I'm going to talk
a little bit about race in the twenty twenty four election.
And finally, I'm going to give a brief overview of
my book, which came out last year. Lots of great
endorsements everybody from Charlie Kirk to Victor Davis Hansen to

(02:44):
Hillsdale professor David Azarad.

Speaker 4 (02:45):
In fact, it's actually being used.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
In its first year as a textbook in a Hillsdale
class right now. So I've been very gratified by that.
And then I'm going to finally talk about what Hillsdale
and you and do. So first of all, I'm just
gonna make an observation. White people hate talking about whiteness
and white people. I have now been giving talks on

(03:08):
this for almost a year, and you know, it's just
a lot of folks, you know, maybe conservatives a little
bit bolder in some cases, would rather kind of crawl
in a hole than really have, I frank discussion on
these sorts of issues. The barchart I'm showing in front
of you is the percentage of Americans who think race
is an important element of their identity. And what you
see is white folks are like, way way lower than

(03:31):
everybody else. Now, there is sort of normal political science
reasons I've put on my political science hat why that
would be the case. You know, I think kind of
white Americans have sort of been the normative US identity,
but I think there's actually a lot of other things
kind of going on as well. But still, why can't

(03:51):
we avoid the issue? Why do we have to talk
about it? So I think a good goal in general
is obviously to have a colorblind society. The only way
to get there is to create painful consequences for those
who discriminate. Otherwise we're going to go through basically what
we've gone through a lot in US politics over the
last several decades, which is sometimes we'll say, hey, well

(04:12):
you're being racist and you know, and they kind of say, well,
so what, and then we don't do.

Speaker 4 (04:17):
Anything and nothing happens. So that's not going to work.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
And colorblind ultimately also can't mean not noticing actual discrimination
and racism. We can't solve racial problems ultimately that we're
afraid to talk about. And how do we get to Madison?
So what do I mean by that? That's James Madison
on the right there. So James Madison, I quote this
in my book. He talks about equal laws protecting equal rights.

(04:44):
I think that's really the kind of key goal that
we want to have in America, and he says they're
found as they ought to be, presumed as the best
guarantee of loyalty and love of country, as well as
calculated to cherish that mutual respect and goodwill among citizens
which is necessary to SA social harmony. So I think
that should be our goal. And again, I think the
only way we get to that goal is equal laws

(05:06):
protecting equal rights for everybody, and that's not really what
we've been doing. So a few upfront disclaimers before I
really kind of get into the meat here. Obviously, historically,
anti white discrimination is not the most damaging historical form
of discrimination in America. I'm not pretending otherwise. It's not

(05:26):
the only form of racial discrimination or racism today, but
I do argue in my book that it's the most
pervasive and politically salient form of racism today. And ultimately,
the solution for anti white identity politics is not white
identity politics. I'm happy to get into more detail on
why that is, but I just wanted to be very
explicit about that. And we don't need a new victim class, okay,

(05:49):
but we do need to fix the system, and we're
actually beginning to finally get a little bit toward that,
which is sort of exciting. So Hillsdale has a unique record. Normally,
I've talked about this book at Harvard, Notre Dame, in
a bunch of other places, and normally I just have
to tell them how terrible their school is doing this.
But Hillsdale, like, it's very nice because I get to
like write about all the good things that Hillsdale's done

(06:11):
in this regard. So, as many of you may know,
Hillsdale's original eighteen fifty charter was the first in the
United States to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
or religion. And they've been consistent about that in the
many years since. In nineteen seventy one, Hillsdale refused to
report data on race to the US government. This sort

(06:33):
of began the Hillsdale separation from anything to do with
the government. And then I'm going to quote here from
President arn and a Wall Street Journal op ed, and
he's quoting President Coolidge himself, which he acknowledges. He says,
if all men are created equal, that is final. If
they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. No advance,
no progress can be made beyond these propositions. And I

(06:56):
think that's obviously a very strong statement, both individually and
for the institution. Hillsdale has always sort of gone after
a better kind of glory. This is a picture of
Hillsdale's nineteen fifty six football team that was undefeated. They
were invited to the Tangerine Bowl down in Florida, but
they were told that they were going to have to
leave their black players at home, and they declined. They

(07:18):
declined to do it, so they didn't play. And some
Hillsdale students just a yeah, I think so in Some
Hillsdale students just a few years ago did a documentary
on this team, which I'd encourage you guys to check out.
So again, you know, Hillsdale's record, unlike just about everybody
else in higher education right now, has been really exemplary.

Speaker 4 (07:40):
Here oh sorry, and.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
Again I'm gonna quote from President arn Sam Wall Street
Journal editorial, but this is his own words. Here he says,
the pressure to count by race used to come from
the forces in favor of slavery and discrimination. Today it
is justified in the name of diversity. No matter it's
sour as hills will continue to resist this pernicious ideology
and judge our applicants on their individual merits, so very

(08:06):
well said from President are in there. So America right
now is in the middle of a vast demographic transformation,
and this is another reason that we have.

Speaker 4 (08:16):
To talk about this issue.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
So what you're looking at here is a graph of
US minorities by race and ethnicity, and the first one,
the blue bar there, is from nineteen sixty. This was
the last census before the Heart Cellar Immigration Act, which
totally transformed America's immigration system.

Speaker 4 (08:33):
And what you see is you have about I think.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
Four and a half million Hispanics, eighty percent of those
are US born, so they're pretty well integrated into the
American mainstream, and you have barely measurable numbers of Asian Americans,
the black immigrant population.

Speaker 4 (08:48):
There.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
It's not that I forgot to put the bar in,
it's just so small you can't even see it. In
nineteen sixty Today we've got about sixty two million Hispanics,
twenty five million or so Asian Americans, four and a
half million African American immigrants, right. So it's a total
demographic transformation that have happened in the lifetimes of many
of the folks in this room, right so it's it's

(09:09):
you know, it's an area that we've got to discuss again.
Just to give a sense, in nineteen sixty twenty one,
of the forty eight continental United States, we're more than
ninety five percent white, fourteen percent states were more than
ninety eight percent white.

Speaker 4 (09:23):
Today there's like, I don't think.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Maybe main is over ninety percent, but that's it, right,
So we've just we're in a much more diverse America
and we have to talk about that, and ultimately, the
decision we make about how we're going to handle that
demographic transformation will determine our success as a multi ethnic country.

Speaker 4 (09:43):
So I'm going to skip through a little bit here.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
This is just similar things showing you nineteen fifty basically
everybody's black or white.

Speaker 4 (09:49):
That's the headline.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
Twenty twenty four, what does that same bar chart look
our pie chart look like. So white non Hispanics are
now fifty nine percent of America, and you've got a
panoply of other groups kind of making up Hispanics, obviously
being the most notable rise. But then it's even more
instructive to look at the under eighteen demographics. So the
average Hillsdale freshman, you know, Cohort, we are now a

(10:15):
majority minority country in the under eighteen folks, and so
that's why we have to, you know, pay attention to
this stuff. And again I think it's great, by the way,
for Hillsdale, because we're trying to aspire to something higher, right,
to not fixate on these numbers. But then beyond that,
there's politics where we have to be aware that these

(10:35):
sorts of things are going on and that they're going
to create political demands that are associated with them. And
we see those political demands already today. So the interesting thing,
I mean, normally you kind of do these sorts of
presentations and you've got your you've got your sort of stick, and.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
You kind of give it.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
And I mean you're actually seeing a brand new presentation
today for many reasons.

Speaker 4 (10:56):
But you know, normally I do that.

Speaker 2 (10:58):
But what Trump has done in the last I would
have kind of had to tear up half of my
presentation anyway, because he really has changed the game on
a lot of this stuff. And I'll just give you
an couple few examples. So, first of all, we've seen
the firing of federal DEI officials were really they're trying
to remove DEI from every aspect of government. They revoked

(11:20):
lbj's Affirmative Action executive order. This came up last night
in the conversation with Charlie Kirk. It's incredibly important, something
any Republican president could have done, but only Trump had
the guts to actually do it. We've had a crackdown
on illegal migration, and all six of the core recommendations
in my book were adopted in the first week by

(11:42):
the Trump administration. Now I'm gonna I don't want to
sort of claim too much for me here or to
break any confidences, but I'll just leave it to say
that's not entirely a coincidence. So that's kind of gratifying,
and you know, a salute to President Trump and his

(12:05):
team for really being incredibly bold there. And then Elon
and other core members of the Trump team get it.
I've got like, you know, forty five fifty thousand followers
on Twitter, Elon as like two hundred and twenty nine million,
and he follows only a few hundred people of whom
I am one, and it's because of this book, and
I'm one of the smaller accounts he follows. Because he

(12:27):
understands this sort of issue, you know, very intently, is
very focused on it. So I think that again is
just sort of speaking to the fact that at the
highest levels of the Trump White House and associated folks,
now people are paying attention over here's the problem with
even just relying on the law here. So this is
kind of a couple of confusing charts, and I'll apologize

(12:48):
for putting up confusing charts, but they are important.

Speaker 4 (12:52):
Even a Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (12:53):
Ruling is not going to stop most universities from discriminating
by race. So what we have here is in twenty
twenty three, there was aive action allowed in universities. We
then had a case called Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard.
Affirmative action was reversed by the Supreme Court in universities
and they said you can't discriminate on race. So what
this chart here does, and it's taken from the failing

(13:16):
New York Times, but I have to give them credit,
they did a good job with these charts is a
show what the percentage of African American and Hispanic students
share change between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four.
And the green dots that are above the line show
an increase, and the red dots that are below the
line show a decrease. And the kind of headline that

(13:36):
you see there is you see a small decrease on
the order of about ten percent for each of those populations.
Now and then the second thing you see is, of course,
is that it's totally heterogeneous. It's not like everybody falls
summer rising. Okay, there was evidence introduced in the Students
for Fair Admissions case at Harvard about, Okay, this is

(13:57):
what Harvard would look like if we weren't discriminating by
race functionally.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
This is what it said, and if you did that.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
I mean again, I'm over simplifying thousands of pieces of
evidence here. So people who've read over the case, please
don't yell at me, but you know, you would have
seen like a fifty percent drop give or take conservatively
among Hispanic students, seventy five percent drop in African American students.

Speaker 4 (14:18):
We don't see anything like that here.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
So what basically is happening is universities are thumbing their
nose at the Supreme Court. They're thumbing their nose at
the federal government. They're saying, yeah, we're just we don't
care what they're ruling is we're just going to ignore
it pretty much, or we'll you know, we'll fake a
little bit like we're paying attention to it.

Speaker 4 (14:36):
So the question is, like, what are we going to
do about that? And I hope we'll do something.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
I think the Trump administration again is I'm sure looking
at this, but I think this is something you're going
to look out for going forward. So racing the twenty
twenty four election, I think this is kind of again
important to just for the political salience of why we
should fight anti white racism and discrimination the same way
we would fight anti African American or anti Asian American
or any other type of discrimination. So Trump see's historic

(15:03):
gains among minorities. The orange bar is what he did
in twenty sixteen, the blue bar is what he did
in twenty twenty.

Speaker 4 (15:10):
These are pretty much all modern day records.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
Maybe not quite Asian Americans, but pretty close to it,
certainly among Hispanics, which is the biggest group for minority votes.

Speaker 4 (15:20):
So you see not just a huge gain.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
That Trump had over eight years, but kind of record
numbers overall objectively, And that's great, you know, we should
all be thrilled about that. But with all that Trump's
popular vote win was relatively marginal. It was on the
order of a point and a half, though obviously stronger
in the electoral college. And I'm going to sort of
walk through a little bit why that is. I think

(15:43):
also it's important to say Trump's coalition I think is
probably fairly unique to him. I don't think it's fully replicable.
I mean, I love jd Vance, I love Marco Rubio,
I love a number of the other folks who might
be twenty twenty eight contenders. I think they could put
forth a powerful coalition, but I don't think that anybody
is going to be able to put together quite the
Trump coalition that we just saw, So that I think

(16:05):
is also important. Interestingly, Trump lost ground between twenty and
twenty four and this was really really marginal, but I mean,
it was less than a point in each case. But
given that his entire vote, you know, shifted several points
to him, it's notable only among whites over forty five,
white male college grads, white urban voters, and those with
postgrad degrees. This is out of like seventy five demographic categories.

(16:29):
So you had no improvement for Trump's performance among whites
in twenty twenty four. Basically from twenty sixteen and twenty
twenty he's still, by the way, taking a huge majority whites.
Of Republicans have won the white vote with the exception
of Barry Goldwater, in every election since Harry Truman, so
this has been going back aways. But you know, his

(16:50):
numbers were really not particularly sterling. White college graduates have
traditionally been a GOP constituency. The orange bar you're looking
at there at the top is a number of overall
white white college graduates f wating for the GP. The
green bar is all voters. But notably, this only goes

(17:10):
through twenty sixteen, and if you were to look at
this in twenty twenty four, you would now see the
bar Kamala Harris won white college graduates and by.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
By I think six or seven points.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
So this has been an area, particularly among white elites,
where we've really struggled. And here this is another way
of seeing the same data. But you see Trump doing
best with those who've never attended college, and then basically
once you get to advanced degrees, Harris is really dominating.
And I think this has a lot to do with
the indoctrination that we've had in the university system over

(17:46):
many years now, right, So I'm just you know, I'm
not trying to yild the lily here, right, Like this
is these are the numbers, and we need to deal
with those. So what would Trump's victory have been like
under different demographic scenarios? And why I say this is
what I'm essentially implicitly asking is if Trump really put
an effort as we're seeing him do on addressing anti

(18:09):
white discrimination in a way that would be appealing to
more white voters, Like, what might we see.

Speaker 4 (18:14):
In terms of votes? So first, here's what he actually took.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
This bar in twenty twenty four just shy of fifty
is forty nine point eight, very close. Now, let's imagine
a scenario in which Trump takes a majority of the
Hispanic and Asian American vote.

Speaker 4 (18:31):
White votes says the same.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
It goes up just a tiny bit, okay, and these
would be of course historically this never happened, but let's
just pretend that it did. It goes up to I
think fifty point seven in my chart. Now, let's assume
that he takes a majority of the Hispanic and Asian
American vote and twenty five percent of the African American vote. Again,
this would be completely unprecedented for a GOP candidate, and

(18:55):
we get up to you know, fifty two percent, which
is great, you know, and that would be enough to win,
So like, wonderful. Now, let's just assume Trump goes back
to whatever he did in twenty twenty four with minorities,
but he just took Romney's share of the vote among
college graduate whites. And then you see he's at about

(19:16):
fifty two point seven percent, so it's actually higher than
with any of these other scenarios. And now let's just
assume for this last one, a scenario in which his
minority numbers stayed the same, but he took the same
percentage of white college graduates that Ronald Reagan took. You know,
like yeah, right, you know, it's dramatic, right, So we

(19:38):
get a lot of and again I don't want to
say this in.

Speaker 4 (19:40):
Any sort of discouraging way.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
We should absolutely be reaching out to every single demographic
group in the country. And I think it's incredible that
Trump has put together the multi ethnic coalition that he has.
But it's just to say we are still undervaluing and
where the huge opportunity for the gop is is given
the the Democratic Party is like institutionally anti white. Our

(20:04):
performance with white voters is really lacking, and I think
part of that has been that we are often scared
to talk.

Speaker 4 (20:11):
About these issues.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
So I just want to show from a vote perspective
what it looks like, you know, if we were really
to speak to more of these voters. So some ways
that the left discriminates against whites. Again, I'll go through
these really quickly. So Biden judges. This was something I
did that ended up going pretty viral and getting a
lot of attention. In his first two years, Joe Biden

(20:35):
appointed twenty two black women as judges and five white men.
If you just run through, like any objective categorization of
professional or academic achievement, I mean, this is off by
orders of magnitude from what a merit based approach to
judging would look like. And again, nobody said anything about this.
You know, they saided like some random think tank NERD

(20:57):
in Montana made a big deal about this, but none
of our politicians were, like, out there are very few,
I shouldn't say none.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
There's some good eggs out there, but very few.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
Here's an amazing one I've bet very few people raise
your hand if you actually know this one. There was
zero white Protestants in Joe Biden's cabinet. Yeah see right,
like you didn't even know like like talk about the
you know, a total replacement right out of twenty five people.

Speaker 4 (21:23):
Okay, I have to cave up this a little bit.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
Pete Boudhage Edge is a convert from Catholicism because of
the homosexuality issue, to some form of Episcopalianism. So you've
got maybe a half there, but like, no, no born
white Protestants in Biden's entire cabinet, and nobody like white
Protestants ran for better or for worse the entire United

(21:47):
States for the first three hundred plus years, right that
I'm kinding from not independence obviously, but from the original colonization.

Speaker 4 (21:56):
Like this is, people didn't even talk about it.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
They sort of pretended that Joe Biden did some based
approach that just happened to have zero.

Speaker 4 (22:03):
White Protestants, right.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Like again, I mean I've mentioned this, and like you
can find one or two other mentions of it on
the internet.

Speaker 4 (22:10):
That's it seems kind of interesting to me.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Reparations Democrats are still introducing reparations bills right now. Okay,
this is going on affirmative action. We've talked about DEI.
We've talked a little bit about race based scholarships. Again,
not something you'll see at Hillsdale. Disparate impact, this is
a huge one. Again, this is something this is one
of the few things that Trump could actually probably change

(22:34):
by executive order.

Speaker 4 (22:35):
He hasn't done it yet.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
I actually expect we'll see movement that's not based on
any inside knowledge, but it's just based on my Disparate
impact is a complicated way, but don't have time to
get into it here, but it's a huge way that
we discriminate against white Americans. Based on a case called
Griggs versus Duke Power from nineteen seventy one in the
Supreme Court. There's small business loans still only for non whites.

(22:59):
Racial quotas at the Academy awards again, something probably very
few of you guys know about. You know, you now
have to check all these racial diversity boxes to even
be eligible for an Academy award.

Speaker 4 (23:08):
So things like that going on.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
So a lot of white Americans have Stockholm syndrome, meaning
that they've kind of fallen in love with their captors.

Speaker 4 (23:17):
So I took this.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
This is from Congress with Jasmine Crockett saying the only
people crying.

Speaker 4 (23:22):
Are mediocre white boys.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
This was on the repeal of DEI Now, fine, okay,
I mean Jasmine Crockett, she's a real piece of work.
She's a relatively new congresswoman. You know, I could just
quote her and say, ah, well, okay, this is just
the crazy person out of context. This was highlighted on
the official Democrat Party Rapid Response Twitter feed. Okay, so,
like institutionally people in the Democrat parties seem fine with that,

(23:45):
I'm not fine with it. I'm just gonna give a
brief overview with my book. You can go get it
on Amazon. I've actually got some copies here if people
want to buy one. Enlighten my Luggage. But you know,
got very good reviews from lots of different corners. So
first I should just sort of explain what a protected

(24:06):
class is in a civil rights law, because that's the
origin of the title. Race, age, disability, religion, sex, sexual orientation.
Those are all protected classes, which means you can't be
discriminated against them against because of them. Now, in reality,
whites who should be in theory, a protected class have
been an unprotected class, and until Trump's executive orders, I

(24:29):
would have just made that as a declarative statement and
said there's no exception. Now we're beginning to finally see.
Like Stephen Miller, by the way, it was really terrific
about this when he ran this America First Legal outfit,
which is another great and they were literally picking up
you know, they say there's never the twenty dollar bill
lying on the ground, but this really was it.

Speaker 4 (24:46):
I mean, there were just blatant.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Violations of the law happening all over the place, where
there were scholarships, jobs, whatever that whites were not allowed
to get, which is against the law, but nobody was
doing anything about it. And America First Legal seed these
guys in many different context invariably they fold up shop
because they know they actually don't have a legal case
to present. So civil rights, this is actually one where

(25:10):
I'm a little bit more moderate than a couple other
people who've written on similar subjects. I don't think it's
actually particularly useful to re litigate the Civil Rights Act.
I think it responded to real problems that we had
in society. It was sort of a blunt instrument for
doing so. But you know, I can understand, like why
we wound up in the place that we did. But

(25:30):
I'd say there's as much time between the Civil Rights
Act and today as between the Civil Rights Act and
the Right Brothers. Okay, so we're just in a different
environment now, we have a totally different set of problems,
and we need to reform our civil rights laws to
reflect that.

Speaker 4 (25:48):
So crime, I talk a.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Lot about hate crime, hoaxes and real crime statistics, go
through some of those sort of more notorious cases where
this has kind of come in, and then I talk
a little bit about the hunt for the Great White Defendant.
Those of you have read Tom Wolfe maybe recognized that
as a quote from Bonfire the Vanities or a nineteen
eighties book that really I think prefigured a lot of
these social trends around race that we're talking about even

(26:13):
today real estate. So this is actually probably one of
the most provocative claims of the book. For whatever reason,
the liberal media has not picked up on it too much.
But I basically argue that white flight was the only
form of ethnic cleansing in which the victims were really blamed.
And what I do is I talk about the riots
and violence that drove out the white and eventually the

(26:35):
minority middle classes from.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
A lot of these areas.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
And then I talk about Joe Biden's history with bussing,
which is very interesting, ended up being less relevant now
that he's no longer president, but he originally kind of
rose to prominence as an anti forced bussing advocate, and
that history has sort of been.

Speaker 4 (26:51):
Memory hold history.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
So we're tearing down again, more than one hundred and
forty monuments down since twenty twenty Columbus and Jefferson statues, removed,
Lincoln statues to face.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
You could go on again.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
I imagine some of you guys have seen things like this
one on the right there is New York City Hall.

Speaker 4 (27:10):
We've had the attacks on.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Jefferson and Madison in their historic homes. If you kind
of go there now, it's like a woke parade of
sort of attacking them on the basis of slavery, which
you know, again, it's twenty twenty five. Nobody needs to
be reminded that slavery was bad, nor does anybody object
to having it producted presented in context.

Speaker 4 (27:33):
Interestingly, as I kind of document in the book, one of.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
The best people kind of pushing back on this narrative
is a descendant of an African American slave of James Madison,
who's just talking about how this is complete woke nonsense,
and you know how like lots of people had slaves,
but James Madison had a few other contributions that might
be a little bit more notable to acknowledge. Right, So

(27:57):
we've had also an erasure of America's historic European identity.
And it's not even not a value judgment, it's just
a fact judgment. To go back with the demographic slides
that I presented earlier in the entertainment space, this was
actually so most of writing this book. I mean, I've
been thinking about doing it for years. You kind of know,
like what you've got, but you just have to organize it.

(28:18):
This was actually something new I discovered in writing the book.
There's the Ninburgh School of Communications actually does these very
detailed demographic looks as at usc of kind of how
people are portrayed in media. And interestingly, minorities have been
portrayed more positively than whites in Hollywood since the nineteen sixties,
I mean, and that on average has gotten more extreme

(28:41):
as Hollywood has gotten more woke, and so you have things.
There's an entire site called white White People, white Men
are Stupid in Commercials that you can go to if
you're on Twitter.

Speaker 4 (28:51):
I recommend you checking it out. And all it is.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
It's like so much that it's like a trope within
the ad industry of like every commercial has to feature
a stupid white guy who is eased out of their
stupidity by some more enlightened minority. We have colored conscious
casting and racist oscar requirements, and we have anti whiteness.

(29:14):
And I look at this in a couple of major
areas of the movie Black Panther, which is one of
the ten biggest box office films of all time, and
musicals such as Hamilton, which, by the way, I mean,
I think both of these are actually quite good artistically,
but they do have a kind of racial agenda that
needs to be called out. So here's big tech. Some
of you may remember this a little bit. This was

(29:36):
when Google Gemini artificial intelligence was asked to generate an
image of a pope. Google Gemini was so woke their
original artificial intelligence system that they ended up having to
take it down because people were creating black Nazis, and
all the founding.

Speaker 4 (29:52):
Fathers were not white and et cetera.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
But it was just all Google AI was responding to
was the people programming it who were all, you know,
completely woke. And so you sort of get things that
are I mean, obviously the gentleman on the left that
could happen, but abbs in a large change in Catholic doctrine.
We're not going to have the other scenario anytime soon.
But this is the sort of absurdity that you get.

(30:16):
So you have anti white discrimination at Google, not just
in their algorithms, but in their hiring practices, massive big
tech payoffs to black lives matter that I document a
white flight from Silicon Valley as well. In the healthcare field,
again this was another area where I sort of learned
a little bit more while I was writing the book.

Speaker 4 (30:34):
Lots of racist prioritization of the COVID vaccine.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
People are not I mean, regardless what you think about
it or not, we shouldn't be prioritizing it based on race.
But in many states we were, even in some states
with Republican governors, we had major journals essentially forbidding whites
to write on minority health matters. Even the Tuskegee Civilist Experiment,
which is kind of considered the most notoriously racist experiment

(30:59):
in modern medical history, turns out and again I go
through this a lot in the book to have a
very different I mean, it had a lot of problems
as it was, it certainly violated our modern notions of
informed consent, but its origins were very likely not racist
at all. Right, But like this is constantly people are
beaten over the head about how racist that experiment was.

(31:21):
And finally we had the disappearance of MCAT and medical
school admission standards. So the same sort of thing I
was talking about before, just trying to advantage non white
groups by getting rid of objective standards for admission military,
same thing. People have no idea unless you are in
the military, or maybe you have a kid in the military,

(31:42):
how bad things have been. Disaster of equity and diversity
in military promotions. And as a result, you've had a
crumbling of white recruitment. So you had a twenty five
percent drop in white recruits while everybody else basically stayed
even over the past past few years. Well, obviously it
wouldn't be good to have a drop in any group

(32:04):
of recruits. But what was particularly worse is we were
losing capability at the tip of the spear because these
were the groups of young men traditionally who were the
most likely to be special forces, kind of like the
sort of highest skill, toughest, most demanding, most combat forward
sorts of positions, and we are telling them that.

Speaker 4 (32:24):
They're not welcome, right.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
And I don't think it's a coincidence, by the way,
that December and January of twenty twenty four and twenty
twenty five were the best recruiting years for the US
military in fifteen years, so about months in fifteen years.
So the cavalry is coming. One of my Claremont colleagues
has been particularly involved in this fight internally in DD

(32:48):
and we're bringing in some good people. But again, that's
that's sort of where we were, right. So my six
core recommendations I sort of talked about this. I'll just
go through these really quickly, but you know, these are
basically what I call for in the book. And Trump's
batting a thousand. He's at least addressed them all in
some form or fashion, and some of them he's just

(33:10):
like de I bureaucracies and affirmative action. He's just taken
care of completely. So that's great, that's what we want. That,
by the way, fight not over, because as we saw
with the Supreme Court judgment, that's really only the first
step because the left, until they are punished, will fly
out the law.

Speaker 4 (33:28):
Okay, I have no doubt about that.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
But we now need to bring the hammer of enforcement
down on people who are discriminating against white Americans in
the same way that we would do for if they're
discriminating against any other group of Americans.

Speaker 4 (33:42):
So finally, like, what can Hillsdale do? What can you do?
I'll just offer a few thoughts.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
So, Hillsdale's already a leader in non discrimination, and your
support's obviously really critical in making that continue to happen. Again,
when Hillsdale opted out of federal funding, they had to
fund all of their scholarship privately, and they've managed to
do that and keep the college quite affordable compared to
its peer institutions.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
And that's because of folks like you.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
So thank you very much for all the things that
you've done. Intellectual leadership again, obviously they have that again.
Kevin Slack is using this right now in his course.
I'm not aware of any other professors at more Woke
institutions who are using this as a textbook the year
it came out.

Speaker 4 (34:26):
But that's great, you know that we have stuff like
that going on.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
David Asrad, another faculty member, was an endorser of this
book early on. This gets into policy, and I punt
this entirely to Hillsdale's administration who might be there. But
there are some important cases that I document here Grove cityv.
Bell and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of nineteen eighty
seven that I believe should be overturned, both of them.

(34:53):
The Civil Rights Act of it, nineteen eighty seven restoration
was in one of nine dolls that passed over Reagan's
veto what this functionally did again, the kind of short
version of it is, they made it so that schools
like Hillsdale that said we're not going to give a
bunch of racial data or discriminated on the basis of race,
they could no longer get direct or indirect federal funding. Okay,

(35:14):
like even not even like Hillsdale couldn't get paid. But
like if you came in on a pell grant, you
couldn't go be a student at Hillsdale. I would encourage
us to attempt to challenge that and overturn that. Whether
Hillsdale would then choose to opt back into federal funding,
which would be certainly financially beneficial, but might you know,

(35:36):
cut against some other institutional prerogatives. I'll leave up to
Hillsdale's administration, but I think regardless, these would be great
things to get rid of. And then you know, again,
I imagine there's some folks here are significant donors or
who are politically quite active. Use your influence to stiffen
some spines in Congress. Again, I've been talking about this.
In fact, I've talked about it to three different groups

(35:59):
in Congress, and I have a standing invite to talk
to from the president of the freshman class.

Speaker 4 (36:03):
To talk about it before all the GP freshmen.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
So there is appetite now for this, like once somebody
actually got up and said something. You know, people are receptive,
but if they hear from you, they'll be more receptive, right,
And that's just sort of how things go.

Speaker 5 (36:19):
You know.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
I wanted to remove the taboo about talking about this
because I thought it was a really important discussion for
us to be having, so to the extent that you
can be part of that.

Speaker 4 (36:28):
I think that would be really useful.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
And then finally, personnelis policy, and that is just as
true a Hillsdale. It's also true in the administration. I
was in Trump one, I may well be in Trump
two at some point, and they're not incredibly just in
the future though I don't want to pre announce anything there,
but you know, it really does matter who we are
bringing in, you know, and whether they have the appetite

(36:53):
for the fight. And I think the big change that
we're seeing between Trump one and Trump two is that
they're just picking fighters. They're picking in people who are
not afraid to take out take a controversial stance to
push the bureaucracy to do things the bureaucy does not
want to do. That's the only way that we're going
to make that happen. And that is just as true

(37:14):
at the local level, at the state level, whatever level
that you're interacting with government, you know, figure out who
the fighters are just in general, because it's much easier
to convince a fighter somebody who's like temperamentally got that
willingness to go against the grain that this might be
an issue that they should fight about than it is
to kind of get a coward to not be a coward.
That's just been my that's been my experience in working

(37:38):
on this sort of thing. So sorry, I mean I
kind of quote finally from Cicero. This was something Marc
Andreesen brought up in a podcast, but I really thought
it was wonderful. He sort of talked about that the others,
you know, without my telling you, they are such fools
that they seem to think that though the Republic has

(37:58):
lost their fish ponds will be safe. And what he
meant by that was at the late Woman in Republic
when he's writing this, like a lot of the people
just looked at the corruption that was going on in
the Capitol and they just retreated. And look, I live
in Montana, so I'm not casting stones here, right, I'd
lived in California, right, I was in the thick of it.
And what Cisa is basically saying here, which I think

(38:21):
is a call to all of us moderns, is no,
you can't just hang out by your fishpond. You've got
to get involved in the fight, you know. And he
was frustrated that he couldn't get his team to kind
of get out there and on the battlefield.

Speaker 4 (38:35):
So to speak.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
And then finally, this is from a quote. This is
Frederick Douglas's statue at Hillsdale. Some of you may recognize
it if you've been on campus. The speech of the
text of the first of two TOXI give it Hillsdale's
is not fully recorded, unfortunately, but we do have this
kind of great quote from him, as I think a guidepost.
He says, there's no such thing as new truth. Error

(38:58):
might be old or new, but truth was as old
as the universe. And that's really what we need to do.
We need to live in truth, as the late great
check dissident playwright turn prime minister Vakov Hovel once said.
And I think if we do that and we talk
about these difficult issues, we're going to wind up winning
and continuing to win. And so I'm very excited about

(39:20):
the possibilities for the future. I'm excited and thankful that
all of you guys came out to hear me speak today,
and I'd be grateful and happy to take questions.

Speaker 6 (39:30):
Thank you, Thank you, mister Carl. We have time for
a Q and A. If you have a question, please
raise your hand and wait for a microphone.

Speaker 7 (39:53):
We know that brave scision has existed for years, but
I think that much of they blame for racism comes
from behavior of select groups who happen to be a
different race, and so it's a blank denial of that,

(40:14):
and if their behavior was not the where it is,
we wouldn't have the racism.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
What we do right, well, I think what we've got
to do is just hold people accountable, regardless of race,
for the same level of behavior, right, without getting into
like you know X group is doing why Right, The
point is, if you commit a crime, you go to
jail equally, regardless of whether you're white, Black, Asian, or whatever.

(40:40):
And what the regime, media and our academic institutions and
everybody else has been trying to enforce is that we
should in fact not do what you're saying, but hold
people to a different standard. Or if we have a
statistical disparity, then we have to somehow erase that.

Speaker 4 (40:58):
That was disparate impact.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
I didn't get into the details of that, but that's
basically what disparate impact says is what you just described,
which is, when you go through, for example, an employment process,
if you wind up with a reference population that's particularly
different from a kind of population you select that's different
from the reference population. What you're doing is considered presumptively illegal,
and so you're automatically guilty of discrimination. Right So I

(41:23):
think that is the sort of problem, and that's what
we were just trying to get out of.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
Thank you for your talk.

Speaker 8 (41:33):
I have a question in regards to what it's called
adjacent white I just last week heard about PwC holding
a job there in Los Angeles in which they were
very clear that neither whites nor adjacent whites meaning Asians, Yeah,

(41:56):
they apply. How pervasive is that? And thinking about PwC,
which is a international organization, how do they get away
with that?

Speaker 4 (42:07):
Right?

Speaker 2 (42:07):
Well, this is the problem, right they have been, And
in fact, it's interesting I'll maybe send that over to
some folks I know in the administration, because.

Speaker 4 (42:14):
They can't they really they can't.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Mean there may be some very very narrowly tailored ways
that they might be able to, but probably not so. Yes,
And in fact, this is one of the things I
talk about in the book, is that a lot of
the anti white racism that we're seeing is actually directed
at whites.

Speaker 4 (42:31):
That's actually, frankly most of it.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
But there's also a not insignificant amount, and college admissions
or jobs are a kind of classic example of this,
where whites are kind of caught up incidentally in a
process that attempts to measure for objective merit and whites
or Asian Americans or some other group might do better,
and so they all get swept up. And of course

(42:52):
then we have to have a theory about this group
being white adjacent because they're doing well.

Speaker 4 (42:58):
Now.

Speaker 2 (42:58):
Again, as I document in the book book, actually Asian
Americans are doing better than white Americans on virtually every
metric that you could use to discuss flourishing in twenty
first century America, despite the fact that many of them
are many to most of them are first or second
generation Americans. But yeah, this sort of pernicious white adjacent

(43:19):
type language, it's completely toxic.

Speaker 4 (43:23):
And also the thing you're describing is.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
Almost certainly illegal. Bit intel Trump, nobody was doing anything
about it.

Speaker 3 (43:30):
Hi, I have a question about all the demographics, particularly
in a place like Arizona where we have a lot
of mail in ballots. How do we get all these
demographics about race and education and age, etc.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
Yeah, so great question, and I should preface or I
should at least give an appendage to everything. I just
point out this sort of stuff does get very very contested.
Polsters try to measure this as accurately as they can
with exit polls. Than there are sort of things that
I've actually quoted that are slightly better than exit polls
that come out where different groups are working with thousands

(44:15):
of people who they've kind of validated and verified, and
then they follow them from election to election and they're
able to observe changes in behavior that way. So that's
how we do it as best we can. But none
of this is perfect, and you certainly shouldn't like one
or two points in either direction. Even more of that
sometimes for subgroups, you shouldn't necessarily take it as gospel,

(44:36):
just take it as indicative.

Speaker 4 (44:38):
But a good question, Hi, I.

Speaker 9 (44:42):
Just have a how do you address the fact that
some individuals might have parents in different of those classes
but they're only allowed to check one box?

Speaker 4 (44:55):
Sure? Well, right, absolutely, I mean, but this is the absurdity.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
And this is why it's so great that Hillsdale has
decided not to play this game, and that Trump is
trying to get the Feds out of this game. Right,
we have as again, I was throwing, I was going
through things really quickly. But multiracial Americans are now something
like six percent self identified in the census, which.

Speaker 4 (45:14):
Is a huge number and huge growth.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
And what's happening right now is you kind of identify,
especially if it's like a job application for whatever one
you think is going to get the most benefit, which
is a really dumb way to do it. And in fact,
I talk about this in the context of the book,
and that I show that since nineteen seventy we've had
a ten x number of people self identifying as Native American. Okay,

(45:40):
this is not due to a Native American population explosion, right,
It's due to the fact that people are not stupid, right, Like,
it's not just Elizabeth Warren, although by the way, it
is Elizabeth Warren, to be clear, right, Like that's the
media has sort of given her a pass on that,
but it's really clear that she used being a fake
chair key to get ahead in the academic world. But

(46:04):
you know, we're encouraging that. And the way to stop
doing that is to, you know, stop encouraging the sorts
of behavior that are going to give preference to one
race or another. And people will, you know, I think
increasingly in America. Just given the demographics I showed, a
lot of them will identify as multiracial. And that's fine, right, Like,
there's no problem with that.

Speaker 5 (46:24):
Michael Collin, thanks for being here. I'm glad you brought
up Native Americans. My question is more about, First of all,
they never appear in any of these conversations except for
our senator from Massachusetts. But the monopoly on gambling and
the special privileges in hunting and fishing, and the sovereignty

(46:47):
and the whole gamish there is really odd.

Speaker 4 (46:51):
Yeah, it is.

Speaker 2 (46:52):
I mean, it's that's beyond the scope of anything I
touched on in the book, but you know, it's right,
and it's I mean, this is one of these things
where our historic relationship as a country with Native Americans
has been you know, it's been fraud it's also been
embraced at times. I mean, it has a million different dimensions,
but one of the historical elements that it has had
is that we've given tribes sovereignty as a sort of

(47:15):
sub nations in various ways. And you can debate whether
or not that was the right thing to do at
the time, or whether it's even if it was the
right thing to do at the time whether it's still
the right thing to do now, but.

Speaker 4 (47:25):
That is our legal regime.

Speaker 10 (47:27):
Now.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
I should say this is not just an academic question.

Speaker 4 (47:29):
To me.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
I live in Montana, which is if you took out
Native Americans, we would be certainly the whitest state in America.
But we do have a very sizable Native minority that
lives on a number of tribal reservations. And you know,
my wife has worked in areas adjacent to that as
a physician. You know, you see some of the many,
many problems they're having on these reservations, and you wonder

(47:51):
whether we couldn't go through things in a better way.
But again, having worked at the Interior Department, which manages
those sorts of things, that's an incredibly politically fraud issue
and one that's kind of like beyond the scope of
anything I'm going to casually appine on in this talk.

Speaker 11 (48:10):
Hello, when I look around this room, I see lots
of white, lots of why it's a couple of Asians,
few don't see blacks at all. What can we do
to change that?

Speaker 4 (48:24):
Well?

Speaker 2 (48:24):
I think I think one of the encouraging things, right,
is that part of the reason why Hillsdale. I mean,
I think there's a variety of reasons why why Hillsdale's
you know, had less diversity in that realm, but one
of it is that Hillsdale's not giving special treatment to anybody,
and so you know, people are going to go to
places typically where they might be getting better treatment. Once
we're back on a level playing field, my hope would

(48:46):
be that you're going to get more diversity. And then
there's obviously, I mean, there's things you can do. Again,
I don't want to speak for Hillsdale institutionally, but there's
obviously things that you can do to recruit in a
way that is race blind but still trying to, you know,
bring different perspectives and different types of diversity to your campus.

Speaker 4 (49:06):
And you know, this is.

Speaker 2 (49:08):
It's really sensitive because it's really easy to step on
a land mine where then you do give an affirmative
action in quotas. But there are ways that Hillsdale and
other schools can address it. And by the way, I
mean when you see these numbers, these blatantly illegal numbers
from the universities, what they're doing now, they are playing
these sorts of things as games. So what they've done

(49:29):
is they've basically tweaked their admission, you know, priorities and
categorizations such that they can have a merit based thing
that really gets them to the racial outcome they want.
But the problem is that's just a If you're using
that as a proxy for racial balancing, then that's illegal, right.
So I think I think this affirmative action thing, over

(49:52):
the long run, will encourage more diversity, at least by
race at Hillsdale. But again, I think Hillsdale has has
always prided itself on, you know, not being focused on that,
but on people who are looking for something else. And
I think over time, you know, hopefully more and more
people will come to embrace that vision and what that
looks like.

Speaker 12 (50:14):
Hi, I've never watched CNN on purpose good, but on
Newsmax and Fox, I've seen clips of journalists, if you
want to call them that on just clips of people
from CNNs that are blacks, that say horrible things about

(50:35):
whites and many untrue things about whites. Why since there's
such an obvious group, why isn't anyone going against them
to take care of that?

Speaker 10 (50:46):
Well?

Speaker 4 (50:46):
I mean, you know, this is again, this is what
my book is trying to do. This is not. You know,
it's not some abstruse work of high theory.

Speaker 2 (50:53):
It's really a group a work of documentation trying to
show how pervasive the sorts of things that you have
are in society. The reality is I think that the
simple answer to your question is people are scared of
being called racists, and I'm trying to tell people to
just get over it because we are not. They're not
going to stop calling you racist no matter what I promise.

(51:15):
If you do something that is useful, they're going to
call you a racist. Like if they stopped calling me
a racist, I'd be really nervous. I'd be like, what
am I doing wrong?

Speaker 4 (51:25):
You know.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
On the other hand, having said that, I mean, I
have talked about this book to interviewers from every single
demographic background you could imagine, and many people, and in
fact it is this is going to be my follow
up book, which is on how crazy the white left is.
By far, the white left is more crazy when you
talk to them about this than minorities.

Speaker 4 (51:44):
Okay, I've had a lot of really good I mean.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
I appeared on an African American talk show with three
different you know, African American hosts. Only one of whom
was even a Republican. You know, we had a really
good conversation about it. I've talked to Hispan occasion, you
name it, like, very good upfront conversations. Like woke leftists
have no interest in talking to me about my book.
So I think it's it's just really we have to

(52:09):
sort of start calling those guys to account. And again
you do not like if you've got truth on your side,
you shouldn't be afraid.

Speaker 4 (52:17):
That's just my view. We now have time for one
more question.

Speaker 10 (52:23):
Well it's not really a question, but I have a comment.
If I go anywhere and I have to fill in
an application, if they want to know, check this box
why whatever, Asian or whatever, I checked nothing and I
write in American.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
Yeah, yeah, that's great, And I would just actually observe.
I mean again, I think that is a good form
of civil disobedience against all this sort of stuff. And
I will actually share there there is actually something real
by the way that you've hit on that's deeper, which
is if you look at the census, there are a

(53:00):
lot of people who will check American as their ethnicity
and do you know who the disproportionately where you will
see that by far the most is in the sorts
of places that jade Vans grew up. It's poor whites
in Appalachia who just view themselves as Americans. You know,
they're not viewing themselves by race. That's you know, that's

(53:21):
the sort of people, the kind of you know, the
people who sort of were part of their ancestors, sort
of founded this country. And you know, that's how they
view themselves. And I think that's how we should. We
should all try to view ourselves and things will will
go a lot better once we do.

Speaker 4 (53:36):
So, thank you very much for your time. I really
appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
If you like The Michael Berry Show and Podcast, please
tell one friend, and if you're so inclined, write a
nice review of our podcast. Comments, suggestions, questions, and interest
in being a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated
directly to the show at our email address us Michael

(54:01):
at Michael Berryshow dot com, or simply by clicking on
our website Michael Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show
and Podcast is produced by Ramon Roeblis, the King of Ding.
Executive producer is Chad Knakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director.

(54:26):
Voices Jingles, Tomfoolery and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLean.
Director of Research is Sandy Peterson. Emily Bull is our
assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often incorporated
into our production. Where possible, we give credit, where not,

(54:49):
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh. Long live Elvis, be a simple
man like Leonard Skinner told you, and God bless America. Finally,
if you know a veteran suffering from PTSD, call Camp
Hope at eight seven seven seven one seven PTSD and

(55:14):
a combat veteran will answer the phone to provide free counseling.