All Episodes
Aug. 11, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
40:55
Peter Brimelow: "The Trump Tsunami and the Future of the American Nation" (2016)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is a naturalized U.S. citizen and therefore, unfortunately, ineligible to run for the presidency.
He is, however, one of the very rare recent citizens that fits the original 1790 criteria for naturalization, namely a free white person of good character.
Now, I'm giving him the doubt about the character.
Of course, I'm speaking of Peter Brimelow.
The presiding genius of vdare.com.
Before he started vdare, Peter Brimelow had a brilliant career as a financial journalist.
But brilliance will not save you if you start speaking the truth.
Of course, National Review's loss has been very much our game because Mr. Brimelow has built his site up into an indispensable voice of sanity.
An indispensable voice of sanity that, of course, the SPLC calls a hate site.
Well, the SPSC is wrong, and I can prove it.
The Brimelow family was at home, and a country music song came on over the radio.
And one of the little girls piped up and said,"What's this song about, Mommy?" And Mommy explained,"Well, the singer is sad because she loves a man who doesn't love him." Well then, the littlest girl, she said,"Daddy will love her.
Daddy loves everyone." Hate sight, indeed.
Well, today, Mr. Brimelow will speak to us about the Trump tsunami and the future of the historic American nation.
Please welcome Peter Brimelow.
Thank you, Jared, and congratulations on this triumph here.
As Jared says, I have children more or less the same age as Jim Edwards, five, three, and one.
And I worry what's going to happen to them after I'm gone.
When I spoke here last year, I made a bold and radical assertion that nobody believed.
And it turned out to be wrong.
I predicted that Jared Taylor would run for Congress in his home, 10th District of Virginia, against the useless Rubio-endorsing rhino Barbara Comstock.
Do you realize, Jared, that she's returned Trump's $3,000 that he gave as a campaign contribution in March?
She's just returned them.
You could tell that this had the evil party scared, despite the SPOC had here, and whoever it is maybe sits next to you, ladies and gentlemen, a very nasty thing to say about my talk, The spy was afraid to mention the impending,
the threatened Taylor tsunami.
Well, Jared didn't run.
One of his reasons was legitimate, actually, sort of.
Getting on the ballot in Virginia turns out to be a real bureaucratic hassle.
A case study of how the managerial state represses dissent.
And he actually owes me an article on that, which I'm waiting for as soon as he's gotten through with this conference.
But the main reason was that he was entirely focused on getting out this year's edition of The Color of Crime.
I assume The Color of Crime is available somewhere at the back.
It's a great work on who actually commits crime in America and is well worth buying.
So you can see the urgency.
I mean, The Color of Crime might change.
He might always be wasted.
Now, it really infures when people don't do what I say.
And as revenge on Jared, I'm going to review one of his most shameful family secrets.
As you all know, he's very proud of his Confederate ancestors.
Well, I have to tell you that on his mother's side, he's directly descended from General George B. McClellan.
That's an in-joke for those of you who haven't been bitten by the Civil War bug.
By the way, James, as you know, Patrick Cleveland was a British immigrant.
That's true, he was.
And he served in the British Army.
Well, anyway, I did make another assertion that turned out a bit better.
To put this in context, this was mid-April, the conference last year of 2015.
It wasn't completely clear that the Congressional Republicans were going to cave in on their campaign promise to reverse Obama's executive amnesty.
But it was fairly clear.
And that was very bad because it meant there'd be no longer any conceivable chance of stopping the left's drive to elect a new people.
Somewhere in the decade after 2040, federal immigration policy would reduce American whites, that is to say, the people before the 1965 Immigration Act were actually known as Americans, into a minority.
And America won't survive without them, which is why I'm worried about the future of my children.
My talk last year was called Immigration: The Breaking Point.
And most of it was devoted to what I call Plan B. What the historic American nation, the American nation as it evolved by 1965, should do if the breaking point broke the wrong way, if they found they lost control of their polity of their nation state.
And there are a lot of things, things like subdividing states to represent actual ethnic realities, that I think will have to be done eventually.
And I was speaking, of course, before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president, June 16, 2015.
Incredibly, still not a year.
At vdare.com, we'd actually just posted an article by one of our writers, Matthew Riker, predicting that Trump would run, that he would run on the immigration issue.
I edited this article, we posted it, but I can't say I really believed it.
I've been writing about immigration for nearly a quarter of a century.
My cover story, National Review on Immigration, came out in 1992.
That eventually grew into my immigration book, Alienation.
We've seen a lot of false storms.
So, I'm going to take the liberty of reading out what I said last April to give you the argument that lay behind my assertion.
To quote me, I said, I want to say, to emphasize, I've not given up on the idea of patriotic immigration reform.
We call it patriotic immigration reform to distinguish from the other kind of immigration reform that seems to have hijacked what we used to call amnesty, of immigration being cut off.
All it would take to get this issue into politics is one speech.
I said, in Britain, and the British people in the audience will testify to this, the impact of Enoch Powell's 1968 so-called Rivers of Blood speech was absolutely enormous.
And it did stave off mass immigration for a generation.
He was denounced, of course, but at the same time, politicians were too frightened to increase immigration, really, until Tony Blair was elected in 1997, nearly 30 years later.
That's when the floodgates were really opened in Britain.
Similarly, in the U.S., the issue is of communist subversion.
And it was a real issue, although nobody under 30 has ever heard of it.
It really exploded after Joe McCarthy's speech in 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia.
You should note, in both cases, in Powell's case and McCarthy's case, the preconditions were already forming.
Quite a number of people have been talking about immigration in Britain for a long time before Powell.
They just weren't as prominent.
In McCarthy's case, people forget that Alger Hiss was already in jail for perjury related to his testimony about his activities as a Soviet agent before McCarthy spoke.
It's just that sometimes one spark will start the conflagration.
And I said, this could still happen in the U.S. All it needs is one spark.
All it needs is one ambitious politician.
I said, for example, I was very impressed by the fact that Scott Walker had said that he changed his mind in amnesty and that he was also now critical of legal immigration.
He vacillated on it a bit, but he did say it.
It's at least the homage that a vice pays to virtue.
He can see that this is a good issue to get around Jeb Bush with.
Does anybody remember Jeb Bush?
He was the inevitable nominee this time last year.
So I think it's possible that in this presidential election, someone, Walker, Rick Santorum, will decide to drop the bomb on the immigration issue.
And in that case, the breaking point in immigration that we're talking about could be optimistic.
I don't want to rule that out.
Unquote. Well, this is why I'm rich and famous.
In fact, it didn't even take a speech.
It just took a soundbite, a few sentences, in Trump's declaration announcement.
Is anybody here from Washington State?
Right. Well, you know particularly that there are reports right now that there are so-called earthquake swarms gathering around Mount Hood in Washington State.
And that's another eruption that may be imminent.
Another eruption may be imminent.
It gets everybody's attention because of the huge mess that the 1980 eruption caused.
Well, there have been earthquake swarms around the immigration issue in the U.S. Dating back to more than 20 years.
Jared and I and others have been saying for more than 20 years that the American political order is built above an increasingly stressed seismic fault.
But the political elite, left and right, just went on building.
Now they've got Trump.
They deserve him.
The moral of this story, by the way, is listen to the alt-right, to all the distant right, as John Derbyshire calls it.
Trump didn't say much in that soundbar.
He hasn't said much, actually, about immigration.
He doesn't have to.
And he often fails to bring the issue up in speeches and debates.
In Wisconsin, for example, Senator Ted Cruz, who really came a very long way on the issue during the campaigns.
Campaigns are very educational.
Elections are very educational.
He actually gave better answers on immigration during the debate.
He talked about the labor market impact on immigration, and he talked about the possible substitution of labor-saving mechanization, you know, for devices for cheap labor.
But we can't judge Trump.
Like a normal politician.
I guess that's obvious.
How many of you have actually been to a Trump rally?
I'd say about at least a quarter of the audience.
Well, as you know, it's a phenomenon.
He doesn't give written speeches.
He just gets up and talks.
He extemporizes.
He sometimes forgets his lines.
Sometimes he gets excited, and the crowd gets excited, and he decides things have gone far enough, so he stops and gets on his plane and goes home.
Sometimes he gets just flat out bored.
When asked, for example, when he's asked the 35th question of what he feels about David Duke, they have to ask about his feelings because nobody's ever realized any connection between him and David Duke.
Bohor, by the way, and this is ominous, he simply will not prepare for debates.
Specifically from our point of view, Vida's point of view, that means that he often fails to point out the immigration dimension of the various problems he's facing, questions he's been asked about, like the minimum wage.
I do think this lack of preparation could be a problem for him in the general election.
But what do I know?
What does anybody know about Trump?
What Trump does do, though, in compensation, is that he will periodically put down a hard formal marker on issues he really wants to claim.
So on August 15th last year, he issued a policy statement on immigration prepared with Jeff Sessions that was simply stunning.
Stunning. I've been in this business for 25 years.
It was amazing.
He wants to end birthright citizenship.
He wants to pause legal immigration.
He wants to title the labor markets.
He wants to have E-verify the whole thing.
Jared and I actually did a podcast about it.
Here's what Ann Coulter, and I have immense respect for Ann, don't be deceived by a bimbo image, said about this immigration statement.
She said, it's the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.
And I don't care if Donald Trump wants to perform abortions in the White House after this policy paper.
I would say that was qualified support.
Ann is pro-life, of course.
Now, for reasons that bear analysis, you still don't often see the immigration issue mentioned in mainstream media analyses of Trump's triumph.
The blogger Mickey Kaus, who's a very fine fellow, has even started running what he calls the Immerta Olympics, listing who's the MSM thumb suckers on Trump that don't mention immigration.
But Trump knows the immigration issue is working for him because he hears his crowd spontaneously start chanting"build the wall." It's one of the features of the Trump rallies.
And recently, I've seen the role of the immigration issue surfacing even in the mainstream media.
For example, this week in Vanity Fair, the writer T.A. Frank published an interesting article which I recommend to you called"The One Issue That Could Destroy Hillary Clinton." And he used the 538 policy wonk sites, a device called a swing-o-matic, which allows you to make various assumptions about the election.
And he concluded, fundamentally then, a small percentage of white voters hating Clinton's stance on immigration could outweigh a large percentage of Hispanic voters liking it.
That's because, in spite of all the hype, there are many more white voters, like about ten times more than there are Hispanic voters, six or seven times more.
Of course, we like this particularly because at Vida.com we did exactly the same calculation using the same feature back in December.
People should listen to the alt-right.
So, what now?
I'm going to ask four questions.
Firstly, can he win?
Secondly, can he be trusted if he wins?
Thirdly, if he can be trusted, can he actually do anything?
And fourthly, what happens if he loses?
First, can he win?
Well, as I said when I appeared on James' political cesspool back in September, in this crazy system, of course Trump can win.
The big GOP problem, and I mean here not the party of Paul Ryan, but what we at Videre.com sometimes call the GAP, not the GOP, the GAP, the generic American party, the default more political expression of white Americans,
of the historic American nation.
It's low white share and low white turnout.
It's not absence of minority outreach.
White turnout actually fell in the last two presidential elections.
It fell.
Overall, the GOP generally gets somewhere between 50% and 60% of the white vote.
In 2010 and in 2014 congressional elections, they got about 60%.
But there are enormous sectional variations.
For example, Romney actually lost the white vote in Iowa.
He lost the white vote in Iowa.
Extraordinary. So what the GOP basically needs to do, It's to southernize the white vote.
They want to have everybody in the country voting the way southern whites vote.
You know, as you all know, there's a lot of lamentations about how California is unwinnable for the GOP right now.
Well, the demographics of California are really not much different from the demographics in Texas.
It's just that in Texas, the whites vote almost 70% for the GOP.
They all vote together.
And that's not high by southern standards.
The GOP or the GAP, it needs the white vote to tip, like residential neighborhoods, if minorities reach a certain point, whites leave.
And that's actually happening at the state and local level.
I mean, the GOP is very strong at the state and local level.
It controls a historical high share of state governments.
Not that it's done anything to deserve it, it's just happening automatically.
Now, the Democrats cannot rile up their base very easily by screaming about white racism.
And that's what all these mainstream media campaigns about Black Lives Matter and Ferguson and Trayvon Martin are all about, rallying up the minority base.
The GOP has not been able to figure out a way to rally up theirs really since, I would say, since'88, since George Bush won against Dukakis when they used the Pledge of Allegiance issue and so on.
They've got to figure it out.
Now, I think actually in this year Hillary's going to solve the problem because quite unnoticed by the mainstream media, which doesn't report this kind of thing, she's moved very far to the left on immigration, on the immigration issue.
I'll come back to this.
Now, of course, the big news in the last week is that the gap between Trump and Clinton has been closing very dramatically.
Rasmussen and Fox have shown him actually ahead.
But these polls, interestingly enough, they don't show that he's got all that high, historically high.
He's certainly still in the historic range of the white share, and he's not even particularly high in that.
He actually seems to be doing better than Romney did among minorities, which is a reason why some of the people on the left don't believe the poll.
What this says to me is that if he does start to move the white vote into these historic high levels, even like 60% or so, we're looking at a landslide.
There's a possible landslide coming.
But anyway, for Mrs. Thatcher, for the Republican Party, as Mrs. Thatcher used to say, you know, there is no alternative than going for the white vote.
They can never outpander the Democrats in going for the minority.
So they have no alternative.
I think it's important to note that even if Trump loses, he's already shown that immigration and economic nationalism, the whole concept of America first, works electorally.
There are some elections where losing candidates blaze trail for the future.
The obvious examples being Gowater in'64 and McGovern in'72.
They transformed the party and showed the party new ways to move forward.
Generally speaking with campaign consultants, you can talk to them all you want and show them all kinds of numbers and so on, but you can't get through to them until they actually see an election where that's worked.
And Trump, of course, in these primaries has shown that it does work.
Well, the second question, of course, is can we trust Trump?
And the answer is, absolutely not.
He can't trust any of these characters.
It's entirely possible that he could be another Schwarzenegger, that he could be content to reign rather than to rule.
So we don't really know what he's going to do when he gets into the White House, but we did know what Jeb Bush was going to do.
And we did know what Marco Rubio was going to do, even though he had the grace to lie about it in the campaign.
You know, I was very struck by a National Review comment thread comment.
I wrote an article saying that Trump was a wrecking ball because it comes to this guy.
He said, in those days, NR used to allow comments.
They were 100% hostile to NR and National Review's lines, so they had to cut them down.
This guy said, after 30 years of duplicity by the media and cultural elite and the corrupt governing class, we have seized upon, quite consciously, a wrecking ball.
That's what it is, a wrecking ball.
On the bright side, I think we can take some comfort in Trump's personality.
He doesn't seem particularly drawn to the quiet life.
And facing the...
Facing the Beltway establishment, forcing the Beltway establishment to face the immigration issue after all these years, that's a pretty good way of not having a quiet life.
And you know, he does like building things.
I think we can count on the wall.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, the third question is, if he wins and if he can be trusted, what could he actually do?
Now, here I want to offer a word of comfort to the left.
People are getting very apocalyptic about the prospect of Trump in the White House.
But, you know, the fact is that the American presidency is actually a very weak office.
It's much less powerful than the prime minister in the parliamentary system, who by definition controls the legislature, and certainly can count on his own party.
Trump's own party will be utterly shell-shocked if he wins, and quite possibly hostile.
Unless there's a landslide.
Unless he's shown the landslide.
As I say, I think that's possible.
So Donald Trump could be like King Kong in the old movie.
The curtain goes up.
He's on the stage.
He's got this metal thing going up to his waist that holds him down.
And he's roaring a lot.
But he can't move.
You can picture that, can't you?
Particularly the roaring.
But you know, King Kong got free.
King Kong got free.
Even without Congress, there's a lot that Trump could do.
Notoriously, the presidency is a bully pulpit.
Supposing Trump started showing up at the funerals of the victims of illegal aliens, like Obama's done to try and publicize the Black Lives Matter scam.
He could take a lot of executive actions.
The CIS Center for Immigration Studies listed over 70 different executive actions, legitimate executive actions, that would tighten up enforcement.
And then you get attrition through enforcement, what Romney called self-deportation.
The legal stock will steadily start to diminish.
At VDI.com, we're very fond of what we call strategic deportation.
That is to say, you arrest, it's like a broken windows theory, you arrest and deport visible illegal aliens, and they're not in the shadows.
So in the next time there's a big illegal alien demonstration, round them up and ship them out.
Send a message.
Thank you.
And I think that would start at Avalanche.
You know, last time there was a great illegal immigration crisis, Operation Wetback.
President Eisenhower solved it in just a few months after he came into office.
But they actually only deported a couple hundred thousand people.
Over a million people just upped and left.
And that's what would happen now.
And then there is legislation.
Unlike Richard, where's Richard Spencer in the audience?
People under 30, I take Reagan very seriously, and I think Reagan should point the way for Trump what to do.
He didn't do, he focused on only a small number of things.
Star Wars, tax cuts, and that kind of thing.
So I would say Trump should focus on a small number of things.
My favorite is things that would reduce the political impact of immigration, and that allow us to do more things in the future.
My favorite is abolishing birthright citizenship.
It means that it removes right away the incentive for people to immigrate illegally because the children won't be citizens.
And it removes the Democrats' incentive to encourage illegal immigration.
The great prize, of course, is an immigration moratorium, a cut-off of all legal immigration.
But I would also be interested in an English language amendment, because I think it's immensely popular.
It sends a very important symbolic message.
There's a report this week, you know, of some poor Milwaukee custard shop owner who's been hassled because he ordered his staff to talk to the customers in English.
And he was immediately threatened with federal legislation.
He's violating some federal labor code or something.
And he had to back down.
Well, imagine if the federal labor code was working the other way.
Supposedly it said you can't insist on hiring people who speak Spanish.
Which is what is common now in large parts of the country, which in effect discriminates in favour of immigrants against native-born Americans.
That's what the Quebecists did.
And it worked for them.
They got control of Quebec.
They made it illegal to specify that they wanted to hire bilingual people.
So the fourth question I need to look at is, what if he loses?
What if he loses?
Anne Colter gave a very affecting interview.
On BBC a day or so ago and she said,"We won't have a home.
We'll be homeless." I think that if Hillary wins, there's a very real danger of a Merkel-type immigration surge.
You know, there have been several immigration surges to executive action right now.
I mean, Obama's encouraged a lot of central Asians to come in.
He's encouraging right now a lot of Cubans.
Essentially, he seems to have dismantled border control in his last two years.
But I'm talking about a large legislated surge.
The executive editor of National Review, Rehan Salam, is a very interesting figure, and I'm going to get him into trouble here, because I think that he's one of these Conservative Inc.
operatives who actually gets the message about immigration, but doesn't want to say so out loud very much.
There's a lot of these people out there.
Salam, for example, has written very discreetly about the need to abolish birthright citizenship.
Now, he wrote an article just recently.
Called Trump's Immigration Disaster.
He blamed everything on Trump, of course, and that's why they allowed him to publish it, I guess.
But if you read it closely, he was actually saying that Democrats moved very far to the left on immigration as a culmination of protests that have been going on for years, long before Trump.
And now they've completely gone overboard.
They're against enforcement of all types.
Hillary's making it very clear that if anybody can get into this country, they can stay.
And, of course, they want to expand immigration in various ways.
So Salam said this.
He said, if Hillary is our next president, an outcome...
Excuse me.
That is all but ordained if Trump is the Republican nominee.
We'll see about that.
It's a safe bet that her first big legislative push will be on immigration.
She will characterize her victory over Trump as a repudiation of the restrictionist cause and a mandate for immigration legislation more permissive than the comprehensive immigration reform bill backed by President Obama.
Unlike Obama and George W. Bush, who felt obligated to make their pathways to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, she uses the term unauthorized immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
They're very politically correct over there at National Review.
Illegal aliens.
Clinton has made it clear that she intends to make her pathway to citizenship as cheap and easy as possible.
He goes on, so far, conservatives haven't given much thought to Hillary Clinton's immigration agenda.
To the extent that her views have been addressed at all, they've been treated as little more than campaign bluster.
That's a mistake.
Donald Trump's success has made it far more likely that she'll be our next president, and we need to start thinking very hard about what that means.
Now, by conservatives, of course, Salam means National View-type conservatives who are, of course, actually doing their best to get Hillary elected right now and have all these awful things happen.
So I think Salam is subtly undercutting them.
But the fact is that Trump is capable of using Hillary's extremism against her.
Romney, Jeb Bush couldn't do it.
What we're looking at here is the climax of a mortal struggle between what we call, in vdare.com, America and anti-America.
There's the historic American nation, on the one hand, the nation that emerged at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act, basically white, versus the so-called emerging America, which is basically a minority, and very heavily post-1965 immigration stock.
With a veneer of various types of renegade whites.
Hillary wants to deliver the death blow in that struggle.
As I was packing to track out here from Connecticut, my I found article, May 19th article, in a New York magazine by Jonathan Chait.
Chait, C-H-A-I-T.
He's a real no-goodnik.
And he was basically...
It twisted Rich Lowry's tale because Lowry was whining about how Donald Trump had hijacked the Tea Party movement.
And Lowry said the animating concern of the Tea Party movement was limited government and constitutionalism.
Probably enterprise zones.
And Chase said this is totally untrue.
It says there's polling data on what the...
On what the Tea Party thought, people thought about things.
And he said, quote,"The Tea Party was an ethno-nationalist revolt against Obama, rooted in fear of social change.
Conservative leaders, by which he means coxervative leaders, in other words, the conservative mink people, who aren't really conservatives, pretended this revolt was a demand for their agenda.
But the dissatisfaction of the base implies that the conservative agenda was never the thing that motivated it." Trump hasn't hijacked the Tea Party.
He's unhijacked it.
Now, I particularly like this because I said the same thing in 2009.
This is why I keep saying, I may have said this before, that you should listen to the alternative rhyme.
I wrote a piece about the attacks on the Tea Party for being racist.
And I said, yes, it is about race.
Quite right, too.
These people were not raced in the sense that they were hostile to other races.
They didn't even have, they were not even proposing anything that had anything to do with the race, or even immigration.
What showed it was the deep polling.
People had deep polling attitudes.
You could see these overwhelmingly white people, and they were very concerned about the way America was going.
So Chate and I agree.
The difference is just that I think an American white ethno-nationalist revolt is a good thing.
I think American whites have rights.
As Trump said in his foreign policy speech, quote, the nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony, unquote.
I think America deserves one.
That foreign policy speech, by the way, was written by one of his Jewish aides.
You know, he's completely surrounded by Jews, and his attempt to smear him as anti-Semitic is weird.
Well, as I said a year ago, it will only take one speech.
My prediction this year is that it will only take one election, and then Mount America will really blow.
Thank you very much.
Jared says we have time for questions.
Wasn't that good of me, Jared?
Thank you.
28 minutes.
If Donald Trump does get elected, he's going to have to surround himself with people that will implement these policies.
What cabinet positions do you think are the most important that we should look to enforce these type of immigration policies?
I'm sorry, what position?
What type of cabinet positions?
Which of the cabinet positions should we look with hope to have in there to enforce these views?
Well, you know, I would like to see...
I would like him to make Chris Kobach, who is the Secretary of State in Kansas, his vice presidential nominee.
Kobach has been deeply involved in the immigration show on a national level, and he's litigated it nationally at the Supreme Court and so on for 10 years, and he's really up to speed on the issue.
He has tremendous academic qualifications, which always impresses the mainstream media.
And he's two inches taller than Donald Trump, so he'd be very interested on the podium.
He could also make him head of the INS or Secretary of the Interior and so on.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I have a question.
In terms of immigration as a whole, one of the bigger challenges that I see is not necessarily immigration.
We can try to stop borders, put walls up.
We've forgotten who we are as a nation.
My oldest daughter was taught recently in school that we have no right to New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, or California.
I have no problem giving back California.
Well, I have a problem giving back California.
My son is in the Marines.
In Count Pendleton.
But as a whole, even if we deal with the issue of folks coming across the border, at what point in time do we take back our education system?
At what point in time are we able to get...
Teachers to stop teaching Howard Zinn and go back to what we are, who we are as a nation.
What those principles are, real history, and at what point in time do we have kids that are growing up understanding the dynamism that made the United States great.
I'd just like to have your thoughts.
Can I ask you what state you live in?
I live in Virginia.
My eldest daughter, unfortunately, is living in Connecticut.
Yep. Just like I am.
So which state was it where she was taught this?
Connecticut. Connecticut, yeah.
Figures, figures.
Yep. I think that in my speech last year, I discussed at some length what I thought people should do.
And one of the things is I think we're going to have to give up on public education.
Public education really only works.
I mean, socialism generally only really works where you have a homogenous society that agrees on things.
And if you want to rescue America from what's happened here, it's going to have to be allowed to form its own institutions.
I do think, however, that, as I say, a Trump administration is capable of doing all kinds of things that would change the tide.
I actually have written a lot about education over many years, and when I was at Fortune 82, I wrote a long cover story, which caused a big stir, actually, because what Reagan had done is he's appointed a completely no-good Secretary of Education,
whose name I can't remember, who maneuvered against...
Abortion the Department of Education, which should have been done.
But he did commission this report about the state of, I think it was called A Nation at Risk, about what was going on in America.
And that caused a huge uproar.
And it was a heavy blow to the teacher union, because they had been denying it.
It was basically focused on test scores.
So, you know, there's lots of stuff that can be done if you control the government.
You can send a lot of messages.
And a lot of people will fall into line.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My question is, if Mount America blows, so to speak, and regains control of its immigration policy and its destiny, what do you think that that will mean for our ancient historical homelands in Europe and Britain, as well as our colonies, such as New Zealand or Canada,
where I'm from?
You're from Canada?
Yes. Whereabouts?
British Columbia.
British Columbia, yes.
My first wife was a Canadian.
I lived in Canada for many years.
You can say, actually, that Canada invented awful modern political diseases.
When I was there in the 70s, they were really getting to work on multiculturalism, which is a way of displacing the historic Canadian majority from control of its state.
I think that America is the center of the world.
American politics is the greatest show on earth.
The entire world is watching.
If he wins this election, it's going to send an absolutely tremendous message everywhere.
And I think that a lot of politicians...
People will come out of the woodwork.
People will come out of the woodwork all over the world.
Because this stuff is not popular now.
Now, what this also means is there's going to be a hell of a fight here, because what Sam Francis used to call the evil party is determined to suppress this movement with whatever method it can, and that's why so many of you here today are here pseudonymously.
It'll be a hell of a fight, but if he wins, it will turn around quickly.
Well, thank you for your comments, and I certainly agree with you about public education.
I do object to the idea that I was taught since being a very young child to basically dislike my own people.
And I think everyone has the right to like themselves, and we should also try to like others as much as humanly possible.
But at the expense of ourselves, it's just not a fair bargain.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Brimlow.
A question for you.
Assuming just a hypothetical, that Donald Trump wins not only the election, but he then goes on to complete all of the...
Immigration policies in terms of wall, mass deportations, etc.
If all of those scenarios are met, how does that or what then can you do to reverse the demographic trends in terms of fertility rates?
And including, for example, if you say, well, we only deport all of the illegal migrants, how do you control the fertility rates or rebalance the fertility rates of ethnic minorities?
In the United States?
Or encourage the ethnic whites to have more children?
We've run a lot of numbers on this.
And, you know, even if there isn't an immigration moratorium, if the Republicans follow the course I suggest, or more accurately, if the generic American Party follows the course I suggest, and rallies the white base, because...
The electorate's going to remain disproportionately white long after the population's majority non-white.
It can keep control.
And it can do a lot of things.
And, you know, fertility rates are not set in stone.
Nobody really knows why fertility rates fluctuate.
There's some evidence that minority fertility...
Blacks, for example, are right down to replacement level.
All Americans are down to replacement level.
It's just immigrants who are pushing up.
The population growth, and it's possible that they may decline also as they become more culture-related.
But I think it's going to need a very self-conscious emphasis on defending the American nation and its cultural traditions.
I didn't mention the Confederate flag today, and Trump doesn't mention it, I think partly because he does think he's going to get black votes, and he figures he's annoyed quite enough people already.
But in the end, this idea that this component of the historic American nation can't fly its own flag.
It's the flag of the White South.
Get used to it.
That it can't fly its own...
That's going to have to be taken head on.
Well, first, I'm going to finish this one thing.
I was saying, you know, I had two Irish wives.
My first wife died.
So I had to go to a lot of St. Patrick's Day parades.
And they fly the Irish tricolor and have all kinds of nasty signs about the English.
And that trickler, that revolution, the Easter Rising was the height of the First World War when Britain was fighting for its life.
And the Irish nationalists or the Republicans actually tried to stab it in the back, even though there were vast numbers of Irish volunteers fighting and continuing to fight the British Empire.
I don't like that.
But I accept it because I understand Irish Americans are part of what makes up America.
And I think everybody's going to have to accept the White South.
Export Selection