All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 2, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:02:53
3772 The Ugly Truth About Immigration | Peter Brimelow and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody. It's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I'm here with Peter Brimelow.
He is the founder and editor of vdare.com and the author of several books, including, a little over 20 years ago now, I watched an old book talk that you did from 95, Alien Nation, Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster.
And the worm in the apple, how the teachers' unions are destroying American education.
His website is vdare.com, and you can follow Peter on Twitter at twitter.com forward slash Peter Brimler.
We'll put the links to all of that below.
Peter, thank you so much for taking the time today.
It's an honor to be with you, Stefan.
So... If you remember from back in the day, the idea of a multicultural, multi-racist society was that we would all end up moving beyond racial concerns.
the goal seems to become ever more illusory in that as we get a multiracial society, we seem to become ever more obsessed with the problems of race.
Now, I know that you have some theories behind that, but I wonder if you could give especially some of our younger listeners and viewers a sense of what has been going on in American immigration.
Because, of course, everyone thinks, oh, it's just immigrant wave after wave after wave nonstop all the time.
And there have been these significant pauses to allow for assimilation, and I think the argument is, we're kind of due for one right about now.
Right. I mean, the thing is, Stephanie, now that the US, America is not a nation of immigrants.
It's a nation of settlers, and for most of American history, a natural increase.
You know, the people having children was what drove population growth.
There have been waves of immigration.
But, you know, in the part of the US where I live, New England, after the great immigration of the 1620s, there was no immigration for another 200 years.
So New England grew enormously quickly, but it was through natural increase.
And that's why it was such a shock when the Irish arrived in the 1840s.
So what you see in American history is that for most, after the revolution, there was a long pause until the 1840s.
And then immigration fell away again in the 1850s and the 60s, and it started to surge in the 1880s.
And when that happened, the Americans started to get unhappy about it, and they proceeded to gradually cut it off.
And by the 1920s, they cut it off completely.
And right through the 1920s, from the 1920s to the 1960s, really, there was essentially no immigration.
In fact, there was net out of migration in the 1940s.
And then, of course, this was all reversed by the 1965 Immigration Act.
And as this triggered off, triggered a great influx, which is vastly larger and relative to the population, population growth, than has really been seen before.
And it will result, you know, in the 1960 census, I believe, white Americans were 90% of the population.
By 2040, which is not that long off, they will go into a minority because of public policy.
The government is literally dissolving the people and electing a new one, to use the famous joke that Bertolt Brecht used after the 54 Ritings in East Germany.
Right. And it is interesting because not a lot of people know how specifically America was founded for, you know, Protestants from sometimes even particular sections of England and that the idea was, of course, that the Founding Fathers had that that kind of cultural or ethnic composition was essential to maintain the freedoms and small government that they envisioned as the eternal future of the United States.
Right. I mean, I believe Jay specifically says in the Federalist Papers that we can make this federal experiment work because we're one people.
We're descended from one common source with one religion.
He didn't mean Christianity. He meant Protestantism.
And, of course, the 1790 Naturalization Act required it to be free and white.
The Americans were an ethnostate, and they never thought anything about it.
They just took it absolutely for granted.
There was, of course, a black population there, but they were mostly slaves.
They weren't part of the political nation.
So, I mean, this may be a good thing or maybe a bad thing, but it's a thing.
It's what actually happened. And you have to ask yourself, you know, how far can America stray from its historical foundations and still survive?
And the answer is, we're about to find out.
Well, we'll see where the future holds and how much that can be moved or shifted.
And there is something that's really quite fascinating when you look across the world, fascinating slash terrifying as these things tend to be, which is that if you look at the countries with the smallest governments, with the least corruption, with the...
Most respect for contract and property rights, the classical liberal or libertarian ideals, they tend to be higher IQ countries for sure, if you look at things like Japan and South Korea and so on.
But of course, a lot of them are white countries.
And it seems, you know, the causality is always very confusing and goes down a rabbit hole of culture and religion and genetics and in-group preferences and so on.
But why do you think that pattern seems to hold true across the world?
I can tell you why Milton Friedman thought it was.
You know, I used to do annual interviews with Milton Friedman, you know, the Nobel Prize winning economist, when I was at Forbes, and I have them up on vdare.com.
And I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism?
And he said, absolutely.
You know, for example, truthfulness, which is a cultural value.
And then he went on to say, even more remarkably, as far as he could see, Capitalism had never actually worked in the form which we understand it, except in the English-speaking world.
He said, I don't know why this is so, but the fact can't be denied.
And even, of course, when this idea was to supplant as part of the empire was mercantilist and greedy and, you know, color the map according to your state colors, but another part of it was considered to be sort of the white man's burden to try and say, hey, you know, we kind of lacked or came across these wonderful principles, you know, free market, small government, separation of church and state.
Let's sow these seeds around the world so that everyone can enjoy the fruits of liberty that we have through happenstance and coincidence and hard work developed.
And man, it took for a little while.
If you look at South Africa, it took for a little while.
But then when whites become a minority or when whites leave, there just seems to be this erosion and this backsliding to where they found it in the first place.
Yeah, and the British pretty well gave up mercantilism after the disaster of the American Revolution.
And by the 1840s, you know, they'd moved to a free trade empire.
Which was a paradox for them because, of course, they were confronted with protectionist powers like Germany and the U.S. The U.S. highly protectionist.
In fact, in some respects, that's what triggered the Civil War, the tremendous types that they were imposing on the South.
You're right. I think the roots of liberalism, classical liberalism, go back a lot further.
You know, I just happened to finish reading...
Churchill's biography of Marlborough, his great ancestor.
And it's really amazing to listen to, to read this thing.
I've listened to it, actually. You know, in the early part of the 18th century, British generals had to deal with the fact that Parliament was constantly rebelling and cutting things off and causing trouble, and the king did not control Parliament.
They actually had elections in the early 18th century, even though it was, at the very best, a form of aristocratic republic.
But this issue of having to deal with free institutions goes very far back in English history.
Yeah, and it doesn't seem, you know, the magic soil hypothesis that people come to a sort of Western country, their foot touches the ground and this weird libertarian electricity goes up their leg and rearranges their thought patterns and cultural history and religious preferences and so on.
That is strange to me because a lot of this idea of assimilation and integration and multiracial societies comes from the left.
And the left is notoriously intolerant towards ideas that go against their own view.
Like the left would never say, well, we can bring in people from Somalia and they'll be just like people who came from England.
But at the same time, they'd never say, well, we'll hire a bunch of Republicans and we'll just turn them into leftists.
You know, like they themselves understand the intransigence and intractability of human ideas.
And of course, political viewpoints do have a genetic basis to some degree.
So they understand how inflexible Republicans are, but they somehow think that someone from sub-Saharan Africa is going to change magically.
Well, of course, you know, actually, Stefan, as we both know, they don't think that at all.
What they actually think is they're going to bring in a lot of people who are going to outvote whites in the whole society.
And thus elect a permanent left-wing government.
That's what they think. They don't really intend to think that these people are going to operate like Americans or English or Irish.
I mean, the Irish situation is really bizarre.
I mean, they really are, to me, fascinated by Irish history.
To me, when you look at this long struggle for independence, they would turn around and throw it all away like they are doing.
On the one hand, submitting themselves to the European Union.
on the other hand, allowing this tremendous immigration.
It's just extraordinary.
Hard, very hard to explain.
We have a lot of Irish readers who are really annoyed about it on Vita.
Well, you've talked about this in many of your speeches, Peter, the extraordinary gap.
It's not even opposite sides of the canyon.
It's like opposite sides of reality or the universe.
The extraordinary gap between what the elites want, what the media, the academics and the politicians and so on, what they want and what the average person wants.
I can't think of a time outside of direct civil war when there has been as much of a pushback against elite agendas as there is currently in the West about immigration.
It's extraordinary, isn't it?
I agree with you. I can't think of a parallel.
You can see it related.
There are related issues.
For example, my son, as you'll see behind me, was in the Marine Corps.
For five years. And throughout that time, the Marines were resisting strongly the idea of putting women in the front line.
And they have all kinds of evidence as to why women can't do this.
They get sick, they break down, all this kind of thing.
And he said eventually they came to the conclusion that it didn't matter what they said, what evidence there was, the elite was just simply determined to impose this policy on them.
Of course, you have to wonder what the motives are.
It's obviously not going to work. They just want to destroy the Marines.
Yeah, we see this continually when leftists or social justice warriors move into an organization.
They say that they want to reform it and improve it, but they generally end up with leaving a smoking crater where the credibility and efficiency and effectiveness of that organization used to be.
It's amazing to me.
I'm old enough to remember the Cold War.
When I was first in journalism, being anti-communist was a big problem.
It was very close to being thought to be a racist now because all of these Media institutions were, in one way or another, influenced by the left.
And then Russia collapsed, and communism went away, but damn it, it just recurred.
Within a less short time, it just reinvented itself as cultural Marxism.
In the process of abandoning the working class, by the way.
No interest in the working class at all, actually.
And I don't think they ever did have.
It was always about power.
I think that's true.
Now it's about manipulating different groups.
You want to be able to appeal to people on the basis of their identity politics.
Now, one of the things I find fascinating about the question or the label of racism is that if you have unjust negative characterizations in your mind or your language of other groups, you know, clearly that's bigoted and that's negative.
However, if you identify objective and empirical differences between ethnicities or races, Prejudice is under the category of racism, which I have no problem with, but science, facts, objectivity, empirical data also seems to fall under the general umbrella called racism, which seems to me extraordinary.
It's like lumping fact and fiction under slander as the same category.
It makes no sense to me at all, other than it shuts white people up from talking about in-group preferences.
It seems to me that the term racism has to mean prejudice.
I don't see what else it can mean.
And there's a difference, as you say, between being prejudiced on the one hand and being blind to facts on the other.
And the issue of whether there are differences between racial groups in various ways is simply a question of science.
And obviously we can't totally blind ourselves to this.
In British English, when I was living in Britain, which I left in 1970, We're good to go.
And that's completely unsayable.
I mean, it's staggering to think that it's, I mean, the bell curve came out the year before alienation, 94.
And it's 23 years ago.
And we've made no progress in public debate at all.
It's been completely repressed.
Sorry to interrupt. There have been a few cracks that have shown up lately.
Charles Murray went on Sam Harris's podcast where they had a very civilized discussion about these things.
But to me, the paradox, of course, Peter, is that the left gets really angry at anyone who says there may be behavioral patterns among different races.
But then they seem to focus almost exclusively on bringing voting stock in from the third world.
And it's like, well, if there were no discernible differences, if people from the third world voted exactly the same as white people from European sort of historical – then so if the idea was correct that everybody is equal, then there would be no need to focus.
You could have a very wide net when it came to immigration.
But the fact that they're focusing, as you point out, on these 15 countries that bring in people who reliably vote 80-85% for the left means that their entire premise of immigration is based on the fact that ethnicities act differently, at least politically.
But then anyone points it out, it's like the worst thing ever.
It's like, but that's the entire basis of the policy.
I mean, it can only really be understood through George Orwell.
There's some type of double-think going on.
And my observation is that if you're dealing with ordinary sort of lump and leftists, they actually do successfully double-think this.
They genuinely do think that there's no difference between the races, while on the other hand behaving in a way that implies that they recognize it.
It's a very bizarre situation, and I We're headed for a hard landing here.
We're headed for a hard landing.
I don't see an easy way out of this.
It could have been done, you know, Stephanie.
Frankly, if anybody paid any attention to me when I wrote The Alien Nation in 1995, which flowed from a National Review article, incredibly, to think now, in 1992, a cover story I did on immigration.
We could have returned really substantively to America in the 1960s before the Act if we'd cut off at that point, immigration off at that point, but we didn't.
And there is something that I read recently about the Japanese government, who, like all governments, I guess, are being pressed to take in more refugees from Sub-Saharan Africa and other places, and they say, no, sorry, our primary responsibility is towards our own citizens.
Now, in America, a lot of people, and in Europe, of course, they will think about things like terrorism and so on, and while those issues are important to me, they fade in significance relative to the fact that immigration is fundamentally a class issue.
And it is the lower classes who suffer the most from these endless waves of low-skilled immigrants.
Because, you know, one of two things happen.
Either the immigrants work productively, in which case they're driving down wages for unskilled laborers, particularly blacks and Hispanics, or they don't work, in which case they're driving up taxes for everyone else because of the welfare state, which, you know, if they're raising taxes on the rich, that means fewer jobs for the poor.
If they're raising taxes on everyone, then the poor have even less money to get buy-in.
And the idea that A greater obligation is owed by the American government to people all over the world relative to their own citizens is an incomprehensible, it's not even a nullification of the idea of nationalism or in-group preference.
It's a complete reversal of it.
Right. And yet we're very close to having that written into the law by the American judiciary and their reaction to the travel ban.
Simply extraordinary. They seem to feel that these people have a right to come into the country.
And they're in the process of writing that into American law through the judicial legislation, which of course is one of the great curses of American politics.
Oh, yeah. Judicial activism and the overturning of the Constitution through precedent seems to be pretty much how the left advances its agenda, again, without putting things to the vote of the population.
And we can focus a little bit on the 1965 Immigration Act, which was such a pivotal change.
It was never submitted to the American public with any facts.
It was never submitted with any accurate...
It was supposed to be a minor, relatively cosmetic tweak that was not going to alter demographics.
So it was sold as a fraudulent bill of goods and has been escalated ever since and never put to the vote.
Right.
It was held up as a – represented to be a purely symbolic thing.
And of course, it wasn't at all.
The interesting question is, did they know that at the time?
And I think there are people who framed that legislation, knew perfectly well what it was going to do.
And they knew they couldn't go to American people and tell them that.
Well, which group would ever vote for demographic replacement?
I mean, it makes no sense whatsoever.
This is unprecedented in human history that outside of invasion, that a population has been subjected to this kind of replacement.
It is truly astonishing.
So, I wonder if you can help people understand what changed between 1964 and 1966 regarding immigration, and particularly the chain migration and the family issues.
Well, what they did was they...
They reoriented immigration.
First of all, prior to 1965, there were large parts of the country, the world, where you couldn't immigrate to the US from.
And that was all changed.
And they also introduced global quotas for every country across the world.
But they also allowed family unification became the key principle.
And the family unification is defined very broadly in the US. So that caused chain migration to happen because, of course, every remote relative could then sponsor his remote relatives.
And that swamped the country quotas.
And the total inflow was rapidly seized by just a relatively small number of countries from the third world.
It's very hard to immigrate to the US if you don't happen to come from one of these countries where they've got this enormous chain migration coming in from.
And the numbers, I wonder if you could help people get up to date, particularly the European listeners.
What kind of numbers are we talking about since 1965 into America?
Well, we're talking about about a million a year legal immigrants.
Of course, also at the time, in the late 60s, the borders collapsed.
They stopped enforcement law at the border.
So this caused a new surge of illegal immigration.
I say a new surge because there had been a very similar surge in the early 50s.
And Eisenhower cut it off in just a few months when he came into power with his Operation Wetback.
They moved about a million and a half people out of the country.
They didn't deport that many of them.
They deported about 200,000 to 300,000.
When they realized that they were being deported, the rest left.
And to some extent, we see that happening now, by the way.
There's evidence that there is a significant outflow of illegal immigrants from the U.S. at the moment because they believe what they read in the papers.
They actually believe the mainstream media.
They think Trump's going to be rounding them up and throwing them out.
In the first months of his administration, that was a very effective technique, and people did self-deport.
There's a dispute as to whether that's slowing now, but we'll see in the numbers as they come out in the next few months.
Well, and the influx is diminishing as well, because people, they don't want to know, or they don't know what's going to happen in terms of US policy.
And of course, yeah, the mainstream media is trumpeting all of this, you know, deportation forces and so on.
But at least, you know, the ICE officials are now being permitted in some situations to actually enforce the law and to earn their paycheck.
And so that, of course, is giving people this uncertainty.
Do we want to go in there because we don't know what's going to happen?
And that is changing, I think, some of that already.
Right. And we see on the H-1B visas, which is a type of a guest worker program, that the number of applications has fallen very dramatically.
It's still above the quota, but it has fallen quite a lot.
And that's presumed because they feel that they're less welcome and they're more subject to the law actually being enforced.
It's harder for them to change jobs and so on.
I mean, I should be more precise.
What looks like it might be slowing or more accurately increasing is that the influx seems to be creeping up again in the last couple of months.
It's nowhere near what it was, but it is creeping up a bit.
On the other hand, the exodus is still continuing, so the net is lower.
And, you know, the growth of the foreign-born population in the US has slowed quite significantly.
And, you know, you don't have to do a lot to get it to slow, because Well, we ran an article on vdare.com from somebody on the border, and he was one of the border patrol people.
And he was saying they're watching people go out.
They're waving them through.
They don't make any effort to check who they are.
And they're carrying all their consumer goods, you know, washing machines and stuff like this.
And you see, the reason is that they know it is extremely disruptive to have a family member deported.
And they may have to abandon their property and stuff like that, and they don't want to do that.
So they take it and go back to Mexico.
That's why self-deportation actually will work.
Well, I think that's true.
People respond to incentives and you don't have to grab everyone by the neck and throw them over the border if the incentives change.
I mean, if the law, which originally I think was the case, but has not been enforced for many years, that immigrants into America should not be able to receive welfare for five years.
I mean, I tell you, Peter, this was an astonishing time for me when I was looking into this stuff to begin with, because I generally read the law and thought that had something to do with the way things that work.
So, I remember thinking, oh gosh, it must be terrible, you know, living under bridges, skulking from place to place, working only in cash, and so on.
And then it's like, oh no, you can get welfare, you can put your kids in school, you can get healthcare, and so on.
I'm like, what?
How is that possible?
The only way you get, you know, four hearts and a heart by breaking the law elsewhere is to go to jail.
And the amount of access that illegal people, criminals have...
To taxpayer-funded social services and educational resources is truly astonishing to me.
It was when I first found out about it.
The key loophole is the birthright citizenship proviso, which argues is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
But for many years, the children of people in the US, anybody born in the US is treated Now, as a practical matter, that meant if you're an illegal immigrant here, you can't be deported because you have an American citizen child.
We call them anchor babies for that reason.
But it also meant they had access to all kinds of welfare that the American citizen child will be receiving, which you get spent.
And then, of course, there's the public education issue, you know.
I mean, that's a transfer of up to 10, depending where you are, but an average of about $10,000 a year from the taxpayer to the child.
And, you know, there's a real question as to whether illegal immigrants' children should be in school.
There was one of the more disastrous Supreme Court rulings in the 70s, Plala versus Doe, on that.
But it's never been fully litigated.
And it would probably be, it could well be reversed now, because the judgment was made on various empirical grounds, like there isn't going to be burdened on the taxpayer, and all that kind of thing.
Things that judges should not be concerning themselves with, but they of course do.
But in any case, the point is even that has been refuted now.
It is a burden on the taxpayer.
So it should be litigated.
I think the birthright citizenship thing is, I mean, if I had been Trump, it's the first thing I would have gone for.
Because what it does is it means that these people who were born here will not become citizens and therefore they can't vote.
And that's the key thing. In the end, it's not terrorism.
It's not the economic impact.
It's the fact that they're going to vote Americans out of their own country.
That's what is the really dangerous thing about immigration.
And it's particularly dangerous with legal immigration because they actually are here legally and they can become citizens very quickly.
And of course the Democrats are doing their best to make sure that happens.
American citizenship is one of the great prizes in the world.
And the idea that committing an illegal action by being in America and giving birth to a child confers upon the child legal citizenship is the idea that one should keep and profit eternally from the proceeds of a crime.
That to me is astonishing.
Like you steal the car, the car's returned to its owner and you go to jail.
You don't get free gas for the rest of your life and get to keep the car as well.
And more specifically, I mean, the children of burglars do not get to keep the goods that the burglars stole.
And that's why I think that this idea, this deferred action, the DACA thing, you know, is madness as policy.
The fact that you're not going to deport the children who are brought here, people who are brought here as small children or as babies and so on, that they somehow have a special category, strikes me as lunacy.
Particularly because, you know, I have children who are just out of college, you know.
It's very tough for these kids just out of college now, trying to find jobs.
And these DACA recipients are going to be competing with them directly.
What's the point of that?
You know, I mean, why make the labor market worse for college graduates than it already is?
But of course, this seems to be a real elite enthusiast.
They're basically trying to find a way of not having to deport these people.
And they think that's an easier way to say, well, they came here as children.
One of the funny things, too, is that there is this perception that that is going to be very enraging and upsetting to the Hispanic population who is in America illegally.
But I think that there's significant evidence to say that the Hispanic population who came to America legally, I assume, came to America because they didn't like Mexico as much.
And so the idea that Mexico is, you know, the giant sombreros coming up in the rear view and Mexico is going to kind of overtake what they escaped, to me, does scant justice to the people from Mexico who arrived legally and who went through all those hoops and paid all that money and then are going to look resentfully at the people who just wander across the border and get all of these rights.
Yeah, we have articles on vdio.com from Mexican immigrants who make exactly this point.
I mean, you know, we're always portrayed as white nationalists.
Me, there's a forum site.
I'll run anybody who's critical of immigration, no matter what their background or their other political beliefs are and so on.
And we regularly get articles and letters from immigrants and people of all races who aren't happy about the situation.
I mean, it's the Hispanics who really get it in the ear from this current immigration because they're in direct competition.
I think we're good to go.
I mean, he won that election, as you know, by spending very little money.
That's interesting. There's a whole industry of consultants who hate him for that.
But he also showed that you don't have to pander to Hispanics.
He didn't even have a Spanish language website.
He certainly had no Hispanic consultants.
He didn't do any worse than Ronnie did with Hispanics.
I mean, the whole thing is a complete...
Of course, the category of Hispanics should not exist.
They've invented it in a way to maximize the number of people they can try and appeal to on the basis of being a Hispanic.
It's not a linguistic category because they speak all language.
It's not a racial category because there are all kinds of different races.
You know, Linda Chavez, you remember the Neil Kahn luminary, she was actually nominated to be Bush's Labour Secretary, I believe, but turned out she was employing illegal aliens, so she wasn't confirmed.
But she told me once that her own children, her husband's last name is Guzman, and so her own children, it's not a Jewish name, it's not recognised to be a Hispanic name, but the first name was Pablo, because she That family, her family hasn't spoken Spanish for several generations.
They're from New Mexico. But when the Maryland education bureaucracy saw that they had Spanish first names, they put them in a Spanish immersion.
Which they didn't speak because they're just trying to maximize the size of this client group.
I think the Census Bureau should abolish the category.
We've got to go to precise racial categories in this country because that's what the reality we've created.
Well, this is the other thing too, which is to say that all races are the same.
And let's just, we could say Mestizo rather than Hispanic.
All races are the same, but you have to change your message for the black group.
And you have to change your message for the Hispanic group or the Mestizo group.
And it's like, well, which is it?
If you have to alter your political message and pander to concerns of every particular group, then clearly you're saying that these groups are going to fragment your political unity.
They're going The thing that really terrifies the left right now is that someone is going to figure out a way of appealing to American whites on the basis of their identity.
Up to now, they've been able to persuade people that any kind of reference to the white vote and so on...
It's illegitimate and wrong.
When we first started writing in VDR, after 2000, after 2000 election, we started writing stuff saying that as a matter of simple arithmetic, it would make more sense to the Republicans to appeal to their white base and mobilize that rather than trying to penetrate these various minority groups.
We found that The reaction from the establishment was hysterical.
I mean, for example, there's this site, Free Republic.
I don't know if it's still going, but it's basically an aggregation site.
We were banned from Free Republic. People were no longer allowed to post stuff from Vida on Free Republic because we'd argued that the Republicans should go after the white vote.
And this is clearly racist.
And this is supposed to be a conservative site, you know.
Of course, that's exactly what Trump did.
Somehow he was able to appeal He's found some way of appealing to American whites implicitly without actually making racial arguments.
He didn't really make racial arguments.
They said he did, which is actually part of the game.
People assume, oh, he must be making racial arguments.
Maybe he's on our side.
But he didn't make direct racial arguments.
Somehow he was able to appeal to them in some kind of implicit way.
That's the specter of death itself for the left.
They must keep the whites in the US from uniting, because they could unite, and they could stop this before it's too late, and they're desperate that that will not happen.
And that, I think, explains a lot of the hysteria in American politics from the left at the moment, that they know it could be taken away.
They really thought that Hillary was going to be able to It really was the flight 94 election, is that the term?
She was going to come in, she was going to appoint another Sotomayor, a wise Latina to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has shown that it's willing to do anything.
If you can find gay marriage in the Constitution, you can say that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee free speech, the Second Amendment It doesn't guarantee gun ownership.
They can say anything they want. It's just a question of absolute power.
And they were on the verge of getting that.
She would have opened the borders.
She would have vastly increased the refugee influx, what we used to refer to as doing the full Merkel.
They would have this tremendous influx and they would knock out the white population of the US. They were right on the verge of doing that.
And they're extremely annoyed that they haven't been able to do it.
Right. Which is why they have to find a white Christian country as their scapegoat, which is Russia.
And yeah, it was an absolutely consequential election to the point where I actually entered into the political fray for the first time in my public career and chose sides because it was not hard to figure out that this was a referendum on whether America continues in its current form or turns into something far different.
And this, to me, is another thing that's well worth I mean, white males are the tax livestock of the redistributionist society.
There's no question of that.
Suddenly, everyone's in the KKK. And that is really shocking and tells you the exact agenda that is going on, which is to keep white people quiet, to keep their shoulders to the yoke, to have them continue to produce things that can be snatched up by the state and redistributed to other groups.
And I wish it wasn't that way.
I wish we could all be a little bit less racially conscious.
But sadly, that's just not the way politics and demographics are heading.
Some years ago on Vida.com, we had a multi-part debate between Jared Taylor, who runs American Renaissance on the one hand, and Steve Saylor, who's a columnist of ours on the other, about white nationalism versus citizenism.
Saylor has this concept, what he calls citizenism, which is that Americans can unite on a civic national basis, rather than explicitly racial basis.
Jared argued that they couldn't for various reasons.
He's abandoned, by the way, the term white nationalism now because he thinks it's hopelessly smeared.
So he calls himself a white advocate.
But that irritates me because I think white nationalism is a perfectly fine term.
I think it's a legitimate point of view.
My heart is with the citizenists.
You know, I want to believe that we can all get along, to quote, to whatever his name was, down in the Los Angeles riots.
And it warms my heart when I see we get these letters from Mexicans and blacks and so on saying that they support us and everything.
But I do think that my head says that things are going to precipitate out on racial lines.
In the end, it's not going to be possible to keep this thing going because of the continued influx.
It's just goading people to think in terms of racial categories, particularly policies like affirmative action and so on.
At some point, people are going to start to count about, you know, why is it that there are so few white people?
Whites in general and white Christians in general at the elite Ivy League universities.
It's because they're caught in a vice.
On the one hand, there are preferential quotas for blacks and Hispanics.
On the other hand, there are no quotas against Asians and Jews, you see.
So the result of that is that the white Christians are actually substantially underrepresented in the Ivy League.
Now, at some point, they're going to figure this out.
You know, Pat Buchanan mentioned it when he was campaigning, and he was, of course, immediately announced in the usual way for saying it.
But eventually, it's not going to be possible to suppress this.
Well, I think, yeah, the historical parallel, you know, let me know what you think, Peter, the historical parallel that pops into my mind goes something like this, that before the separation of church and state, you had groups jostling for control over state power.
And as long as the state has the power to redistribute between groups, and as long as groups have self-identifiable characteristics like race that they can use to coalesce, to form together, and to attempt to hijack the political process to get resources for themselves.
In other words, as long as there's no separation between state and race, as long as there is this power to redistribute, then people are inevitably going to form into gangs, form into groups, just like they do in prisons.
They're going to form into gangs, voting blocks to attempt to get money from the state.
As long as the state has this power to redistribute income, people are going to be to some degree defined by race and defined by power blocks to get resources from other groups.
If the government no longer has the power, as it didn't at the beginning of America, and as it didn't for many years in the Western European experiment, if the government does not have the power to forcibly strip income from one group and give it to another, then I don't care who's here.
Because people who are going to be here are going to be here because they love freedom, not because they love the contents of my wallet.
Well, you know, in general, I agree with that.
But Lee Kuan Yew, you know, the founder of Singapore, once said that when you have a racially diverse electorate, all elections become about what tribe you belong to, regardless really of what the public policy is.
In other words, even if the state is not very redistributionist, the people are still going to organize themselves along racial lines.
I mean, it's true that the U.S. was, you know, the government's share of the GDP was very, very small.
In the early years of the Republic.
But it was also a very homogenous society.
So we didn't see this kind of rent-seeking and even this kind of jostling for political power that we do when it's racially divided.
So I'm afraid I'm not quite as optimistic as you are.
I mean, one of the biggest disappointments I've had in 25 years now in the immigration debate is the attitude of the libertarians.
I mean, I was a financial journalist for 40 years and I was You know, I relied very heavily on the libertarian analysis, you know, way back when in the 70s, arguing about wage and price control and about taxes and that kind of thing.
But I made in Alien Nation and a speech I gave to Property and Freedom Society, it's up on the site, you know, arguments to why libertarians should care about immigration.
Basically, it's a question of property rights, you know.
I mean, the people in the nation, the state, have property rights, and they don't necessarily want to give those away to foreigners.
There's a whole bunch of arguments.
But libertarians just simply would not listen.
In fact, they were extremely angry when they were forced to think about this question.
That's been a really profound disappointment to me.
As a financial journalist, I used to rely very heavily on the Cato Institute and their work.
And then when I realized that when I got involved in the immigration issue, I realized I just couldn't trust them.
They just lied all the time.
And that, of course, made me think, well, if they're going to lie about immigration, maybe they're lying about this other stuff as well.
But then I stopped using Cato.
I was much more skeptical and careful about using the Cato Institute's material when I was at Forbes after I got involved in the immigration debate because it was a revelation to me how unscrupulous they were.
Well, it is going to...
I mean, whether it's genetics or environment still remains somewhat of an open question.
But when we look at the average IQ of sub-Baharan blacks being 70, then what happens when they move into a higher IQ society with a relatively free market but a redistributionist state is very predictable.
It's extremely predictable what is going to happen.
It's going to be like a caterpillar tracks on a tank just going round and round, which is that they're not going to succeed significantly.
Very, very few of them are going to succeed in a higher IQ society, which means they're going to be dependent on the state, which means they're going to vote for bigger government, and they have no particular respect for property rights because property rights is the opposite of taxation and therefore interferes with the redistribution that they want.
And if it's an, let's say it's an all Japanese society and some Japanese group fails or some Japanese guy fails, well, you can't ascribe it to racism.
And this is the big problem. As long as people are screaming racism and there are IQ differences that nobody knows how to remediate, certain groups are going to do well.
Think of sort of Japanese and Chinese and South Koreans and so on.
Or Jews. Certain groups are going to do badly, mestizos and sub-Saharan blacks in particular.
And then, because nobody can talk about race and IQ, the entire explanation that is made up is racism.
Which again, is like, why would anyone want that entire trap that seems completely unavoidable at the moment?
It's also true though, Stefan, to begin pessimistic, that even if you have relatively high IQ immigrants who are racially distinct, they do tend to feel alienated from predominantly white society.
There are countries in the world, Canada being one and Australia being another, that do tend to have, that do try to discriminate in favor of higher skilled immigrants, which means that they tend to get higher IQ immigrants.
But still, they have problems with deep alienation from the Indians and so on.
And, you know, if people find themselves in a society where they're in a minority, it's hard psychologically.
And they tend to act out in various ways.
And they aggregate. And they congregate.
Because the whole idea of multiculturalism is, you know, instead of being these distinct mosaics, instead of being these balkanized societies where everyone from India clusters in one place, and even people from particular parts of India and particular classes of parts or castes within India cluster in one place, it was all supposed to, you know, well, we get this rainbow, we get this liquid, and we put it into this water, and we end up with better water or whatever it is.
But that's not what happens.
What happens? This is where we've got to have a moratorium for 50 years.
Because, you know, if you look at what happened in the 20th century, they did have, in effect, a moratorium for 50 years.
And, you know, the effect of this was that the groups that had come in did slowly begin...
To merge, to assimilate to the Anglo mainstream.
The Anglo culture is extremely seductive and people will assimilate to it if they possibly can.
You know, Michael Novak in the 1970s wrote a book called The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics and making the argument that the Eastern European ethnics who come into the country were quite different from WASPs and were not assimilating.
But right at that time, in the 1970s, they started to assimilate.
They started to see much more Intermarriage and so on.
But it did take 40 years.
I mean, one of the interesting things about the two great waves of immigration to the US is in some ways it's been a controlled experiment.
When the first wave of immigrants came in, you know, they were differentially, their skill levels were highly variegated.
And what we found was, I mean, it's all there in the data, what we found is that skilled immigrants tended to have more skilled children and lower skilled immigrants tend to have lower skilled children.
And it took four generations for that effect to go away.
But it was going away by the 1960s, at which point, of course, the U.S. stepped in and screwed the whole thing up again.
Well, that also could be explained by IQ and regression to the mean, but sorry, go ahead.
And you know, the thing is, these were not groups which were radically distinct.
I mean, Southern Italians are not radically distinct from other whites.
But now, we have really dramatic differences.
It couldn't be more dramatically different than the human groups that we're bringing in.
As you say, sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.
It's going to take 1,000 years for them to assimilate.
Well, and this question of allowing a pause, you know, you can't eat continuously.
Goldfish do it and they explode, right?
I mean, you have to take a break between meals.
And the idea that immigrants need to be, in a sense, digested into the mainstream culture.
If you continue to have more immigrants, you know, you're thirsty, you're in the desert, you have a nice swig of water, that's wonderful.
You get waterboarded, that's a whole different kind of experience.
You know, there have been many such pauses in American history.
Most of them are not legislated.
For example, one of the arguments you always get is that immigration enthusiasts will say, well, Benjamin Franklin was worried about the Germans in Pennsylvania.
Well, that worked out all right.
Well, of course, what actually happened was German immigration simply stopped in the middle of the 18th century.
And it didn't resume again for nearly 100 years until the 1840s.
And that allowed the Germans who were in Pennsylvania to assimilate.
And the same with the Irish, you know.
If you look a great way of Irish immigrants came in and it provoked a tremendous reaction in terms of nativism.
There's actually a party. You know, the American Party, the Know Nothing Party, which destroyed the Second Party system because of the reaction to Irish immigration.
But then Irish immigration stopped.
The potato famine was over.
And the numbers of Irish coming to the country fell very dramatically.
We're not aware of this because we're aware of the Irish influence on the American culture.
But in fact, it was a trickle after the great waves of the 1840s and 1850s.
And that also allowed assimilation to take place.
Right. And it's not that hard to figure this kind of stuff out.
I mean, all you need to do, I would say, Peter, is perform the very simple mental experiment of saying, okay, if I moved to Zimbabwe, how long would it take before I felt perfectly naturally acclimatized and thought exactly like Zimbabwean people or close to it, you know, with a little spice and flavor in for difference?
Or if I move to Saudi Arabia, how long would it take for me or my children or my grandchildren to fully assimilate into Saudi Arabian culture?
And if you think of that, it doesn't take more than a moment to say, that would be tough, that would be a challenge.
Now, if I move back to England, a whole lot easier.
Even if I move to Poland and learn Polish, you know, a little bit easier, at least similar cultural histories and so on, religions that I grew up in and so on.
If you move to a place that's really foreign to your ethnicity, to your history, to your culture, to your religion, to everything about you, how long does it take to blend?
Well, the answer is I doubt it would ever happen for you, maybe a couple of generations down the road.
But if you continue to bring people in, you're not going to have any chance for the dominant culture to maintain itself.
It's going to get washed away.
As you know, Stephan, in Japan, there is a Korean minority, which has been there for many, many years, generations after generations, and they're still distinct, the Japanese.
And most people can't tell Japanese from Koreans.
The Japanese insist that they can, but they've never fully submitted, although they're obviously very similar.
But, you know, the other question, Stephan, is why are we arguing about this anyway?
Why do we have to have this immigration?
What is the point of it?
And the thing that struck me most as a financial journalist when I started to look into this issue is In the early 90s, was that there's a consensus among labor economists, you know, that this great influx has not benefited the native-born Americans in any significant way.
And this is a finding which is replicated right across the world.
All first-world countries, the native-born, are not benefiting in aggregate from this great influx.
It does increase GDP, but the great bulk of that goes to the immigrants themselves.
What it really does is it causes tremendous redistribution within the native-born community.
In the US, when I last looked at them, there's something like 2-3% of GDP is being transferred from labor to capital as a result of this immigrant influx, but through wage competition.
And that, of course, explains the class nature of debate.
It can be explained in very crude Marxist terms.
If you're one of the owners of capital, you're going to benefit from this influx because you get cheaper labor.
But if you happen to be a laborer, if you're making a living in America by selling your labor, it's a disaster.
And that's why we see stagnant wages for the last 30 or 40 years in the US. Well, and this is the funny thing, too, because I wanted to touch on something you talked about back in 1995.
Which was, Mexico has written in its constitution, I've heard, that the demographics of Mexico cannot change.
So you'd think that Mexico would all be about nationalism and so on, but Mexico is basically letting people go across the border.
I mean, it's always like, well, we have to build the wall, they say, in America.
But of course, Mexico could quite easily build the wall.
The question is, why don't they? And the answer, I think, is quite simple.
that people go from Mexico to America.
They get money either through working under the table or through the welfare state or through some other mechanism, and they send it back to Mexico.
And what that means is Mexico is getting the equivalent of taxation.
Basically, their illegal immigrants are taxing Americans, and they're sending the money to Mexico, so the Mexican government gets income without having to provide one single goddamn service to these people.
So, of course, if they could set a catapult and a conveyor belt and any kind of thing, it's a big surfing mechanism to get people into America, how on earth does that benefit the American public to be taxed and have the money sent overseas to Mexico?
That is a net drain without any recompense.
Because this is how Trump could very easily pay for the wall.
It's just simply tax remittances.
He could do it easily. And for that matter, they could simply require you to show that you're legally present in the U.S. before you can remit money overseas, which the Israelis have done.
I mean, the Israelis had a very similar illegal immigration crisis after the fall of Mubarak.
And they solved it by doing all the kinds of things we've been advocating for 20 years, one of them being not allowing people to remit money.
There's a really interesting thing going on in Mexico right now because, you know, they've been in the habit of allowing people to come in from Central America and, in fact, all over the world, with the implicit understanding that they're going to go to the North and going to the U.S. So because they, I mean, it's a disgraceful thing, but because they're now faced with tougher border enforcement, They find that these people tend to stay in Mexico, which they don't want.
And so they're throwing them out.
You know, the hypocrisy is extraordinary.
I mean, all this stuff about Russian hacking the election is nothing to what the Mexicans are doing.
The Mexicans are openly changing their citizenship laws so that Mexicans in the U.S. can retain Mexican citizenship and vote in U.S. elections with the absolutely stated purpose of influencing the American politics in the direction of what Mexico wants.
I mean, how much more meddling can you get?
Right. Well, I believe that the data will come out should anybody end up cooperating with Trump's request to ferret out illegal immigration.
I think millions of votes were cast illegally in the American election, which is the only thing that gave Hillary the edge on the popular.
Now, I don't know if you've updated this from 1995, but one of the things that struck me about your earlier interview, Peter, was the question of saying, okay, Moving to America, apparently these days it's being dangled as a constitutional right for everyone on the planet to move to America.
Let's say we want to move to South Korea or Japan or Mexico.
What happens? Well, as you know, at the time when I wrote Alien Nation, we called up all these countries and asked you...
And they just laughed at us.
I mean, the Japanese just practically fell off the chair laughing, you know.
There's no immigration to Mexico, or China either for that matter, which is extraordinary because China is growing at an enormous pace, at least it was then.
And you would think it would be shocking in immigrants and there are all kinds of skilled Americans who go in there and start companies.
The Chinese won't allow it.
It's a one-way street, immigration policy.
And of course, they're quite ruthless, particularly the African countries are quite ruthless about expelling people.
And the Dominicans are in the process of throwing out hundreds of thousands of Haitians who crossed the border into Dominica.
They've done that several times in their history, but they're in the process of doing it again.
So, you know, this is just something, it's a unique first world disease.
We're the only ones who do this. Yeah, it's a unique white disease.
I mean, if whites were to advocate, you know, 1% of what goes on in Mexico in terms of protection and ethnic protection, or what goes on in Japan, I mean, the screams and the cries and the horrors and the, you know, hand-wringing and the Victorian smelling-salt couch-fainting would be beyond imagination.
And this hypocrisy, I think, is where this escalation could get very dangerous, because at some point, at some point, Right,
right. But what that requires is that we have rational, intelligent, fact-based discussions about these issues rather than – this is another reason why I have such skepticism towards multiculturalism is that multiculturalism comes with endless screams of racism against white people.
And what's the value?
Like, what's the benefit for that for me or for you or for our kids?
How does that help our lives be better?
Yeah. It was a huge mistake.
I mean, it was just what Gandhi called a Himalayan blunder.
You know, the whole opening of the First World up to Third World immigration was just a catastrophic disaster, and it would take many, many years to recover.
I mean, we should be setting about figuring out how to make these people leave, get these people to leave.
And one of the ways in which I think it should be done is by restoring the principle of freedom of association.
People should be allowed to, you know, have restricted covenants in the house and so on, whatever they want to do.
To maintain their communities.
These are all things we should be thinking about.
So let's close up with a couple of sort of practical recommendations.
I'm very much a theoretician, so I don't get my hands that mucky in sort of advocates.
But I do like some of the ideas that you put forward.
I think, of course, just enforcing the law would be a good step.
And you point out how the DACA thing easily put Obama in the category of impeachable by simply refusing to enforce the law.
And of course, any of the Workers in the field could have decided to not enforce that because it was against the law.
They're perfectly within the rights to do so.
But I thought you have an interesting argument about opposing multilingual.
Because up here in Canada, as you know, the multilingual French-English came in.
I think it was under Pierre Trudeau.
And what that does, of course, is it gives a huge boost to Francophone politicians who grew up speaking French natively and therefore don't have to figure out how to debate and give speeches, which is a very challenging thing to do.
In a language that maybe you're not particularly familiar with or you have kind of like high school exposure to.
So I wonder if you could help people understand some of the more practical options that politicians could offer that might be able to solve some of these issues.
Well, the answer to illegal immigration is enforce the law.
There are some other answers.
For example, I think there should be what we call in this country E-Verify.
So employers could find out whether the people who are working for them are actually illegal.
And that will require legislation.
But fundamentally, enforcement law will do it.
On the legal immigration side, I think the only answer is a moratorium.
No net immigration.
That means about 200,000 to 300,000 people, at least when I wrote Alienation, were leaving the country every year, the US every year.
So you could have 200,000 to 300,000 coming in, and that would deal with hardship cases and so on, and you have no net immigration.
Ironically, that's not far from what Teddy Kennedy predicted was going to happen after the 65 Act.
He said there would be 200,000 to 300,000 immigrants.
In fact, it was over a million.
I do think that you're quite right that there should be an official language legislation in the US because the growth of bilingual education, the creeping official bilingualism is a terrible threat to the monolingual anglophones in this country.
We get email all the time from people, you know, in eastern Washington state saying that their kids can't get jobs at McDonald's because McDonald's is requiring them to speak Spanish because there are so many legal immigrants up there.
Now, in Quebec, of course, they just stepped in and prevented the employers from doing that.
And I think the Quebec legislation is something that the Americans should look at.
I've been trying very hard to get people to write an article about how the Quebec language legislation works as a model.
I can't find anybody, so if anybody's listening, they should drop me a line.
I think that in the long run, as I said, we're going to have to go back to restoring freedom of association, giving people the right to discriminate.
If they want to hire only whites and so on, only Americans, they should be able to do that.
And the purpose is to reduce the demand for the artificially instigated demand for foreigners, basically.
And of course, for entrance SAT scores to universities would be, you know, penalizing East Asians, penalizing whites at the same time as boosting Hispanic and black scores is fundamentally unjust.
Equality before the law, equality of standards should be universal.
Right. The problem is, you know, if you have a racially diverse society, it's very, very hard to treat people equally.
Because, first of all, they're not equal, and secondly, they'll organize and demand different treatment.
I mean, for example, one of the things that strikes me about American law is, you know, you can't segregate prisoners.
And in a way, this was a big issue in California, because in California, the prison system was segregating out of different races because they kept killing each other.
And their idea was that if they could just have white prisons and Hispanic prisons and black prisons, you know, they wouldn't kill each other.
Well, the judges said, no, no, you can't do that.
Now, you know, it's obviously not great to have a security prison system, but on the other hand, what can you do if they're killing each other?
These are all unfortunate questions which we wouldn't have had to ask if we hadn't imported this problem.
Right. Now, sorry, there was one other thing I wanted to touch on.
When you were talking back in 1995, the interviewer was asking you, was it risky?
Was it difficult? Was it dangerous?
And you had talked at the time about your then-wife being concerned that she was going to be killed on a book tour kind of thing.
What has it been like for you to talk about these issues?
Because, of course, there are a lot of younger listeners who are saying, you know, boy, that's dicey, that's risky.
I'm not sure whether I want to step on that minefield.
In terms of cost-benefit, how has it been for you?
Well, it's been catastrophic, of course.
I mean, it's actually destroyed my career in the mainstream media.
And if it wasn't for the internet, we would be...
You know, I've been very bad shape.
I mean, I wrote highly technical stuff about investment strategies and so on.
For example, latterly at MarketWatch, which is a website owned by Dow Jones.
And I never talked about politics, and they wouldn't let me.
It's a fairly political website, but I wasn't allowed to talk about politics.
But still, the enforcer groups start to harass them about politics.
About the fact that they're employing this neo-Nazi because of what I've written in the past about immigration.
The biggest change in nearly 20 years of doing BDARE.com is that almost all my writers now are pseudonymous.
Almost all of them. And I won't allow students to write under their own names.
You know, under a certain age, I won't allow them to write under their own names because, you know, these graduate admissions committees and so on, It's extremely dangerous.
People's lives are destroyed.
So you're right. In retrospect, both Steve Seller and I agree that we've written this immigration stuff under a pseudonym.
But anyway, I think I'm too damned old to worry about it now.
Well, it's funny. I mean, race realism is the new Copernicus, right?
I mean, it is the new thing that challenges an existing fantasy or disbelief.
And the consequences are difficult.
I mean, for politicians, I can completely understand the short-term objective and gain of suppressing dissent and, you White males in particular as, you know, the tax livestock to feed the ever-hungry moors of other voters.
So, yeah, I mean, there's no benefit for politicians.
There's no benefit, as you say, for business who want cheap labor, who want the H-1B, you know, chain them to the typing desk kind of immigrant serfs.
And it's just the average person and in particular the poor.
You know, we have the welfare state because we say, well, I want to help the poor and then we drive down wages with immigration.
And these things at some point we're going to have to have a rational discussion.
Well, you know, Stefan, it is extraordinary that the Bell Curve was published in 94 and it really hasn't penetrated public debate.
Maurice says, Charles Maurice tells me that in the academic debate, you know, his arguments are completely victorious.
I mean, it's universally accepted among psychometricians that these differences exist and that they're at least partly hereditary.
Well, that's not penetrated public debate either.
On the other hand, that's true for the debate among labor economists on immigration.
As I say, 20 years ago, the consensus among labor economists was that this great influx is not doing the native born any good.
But it still goes on.
We think that propaganda is in fiction or overseas or in totalitarian regimes, but the Overton window of acceptable debate regarding immigration and ethnicity remains extraordinarily narrow.
Although, of course, websites like yours and the experts that I bring on my show are helping to widen it for people and that we can have a rational debate for the betterment of all concerned if we stick to the facts and stick to the evidence.
So I really, really appreciate your time today.
I want to remind people, go and check out VDR.
Do you want to just mention, I think it's interesting where the name of the site came from.
I didn't know it until I heard it.
Oh, Vida, yes.
It's actually named after Virginia Dare, who was the first...
English child born in the New World.
She was born in the last colony, which of course was lost, so nobody knows what actually happened to her.
At one point, she was a major folk here in the US, and Franklin Roosevelt went to her fourth and fifth anniversary and all this kind of thing.
She was born in 1587.
And we were making a cultural point, you know, which is that the U.S. was an English founding.
I mean, it was fundamentally founded, and it remains substantially, you know, an English multiform society.
But of course, we're always accused of being racist because she was white.
The first white child born in the New World was Snorri Porfinson up in Newfoundland, in the Viking settlement.
We can't call ourselves Snorri.
So, We're going to stick with Vidare.
So, yeah, check out Vidare.com for some very thought-provoking articles.
And I would, you know, urge people to have the courage of your convictions with regards to private conversations.
The web is a whole other issue.
You know, whether graduate school remains a wise choice for independent thinkers, I think, is perhaps a topic for another time.
But do check out Vidare.com, some great articles.
And check out Peter's Twitter feed, Peter Brimelow, B-R-I-M-E-L-O-W. It's well worth following.
Peter... What can I say?
But thanks. Congratulations on your new fatherhood, a relatively new fatherhood, and I'm sure we'll talk again.
▲
Export Selection