Peter Brimelow on the Invasion of America, Who’s Behind It, and How Long Until Total Collapse
Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right.
Paid partnerships with:
Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker
TCN: Watch 'Replacing Europe: Following the World's Deadliest Migration Route,' dropping January 20 only on https://TuckerCarlson.com
Last Country Supply: Real prep starts with the basics. Here’s what we keep stocked: https://lastcountrysupply.com
#TuckerCarlson #immigration #BenShapiro #identitypolitics #legalimmigration #DonaldTrump #donors #media #firstamendment #blacklist #subpoena #nationalism #news #politics #podcast
Chapters:
0:00 It's Time to Rethink Immigration
4:11 How William Buckley Jr. Stabbed Brimelow in the Back
13:44 Why Did Ben Shapiro Attack Brimelow?
14:05 Why Brimelow Was Pushed Out of National Review
21:27 Is Israel an ethnostate?
27:23 The Effort to Make America Less White
31:31 Why Letitia James Is Trying to Destroy Brimelow
46:08 Why Is the White Population Around the World Being Eliminated?
48:52 Brimelow's Experience With the Murdoch Family
56:55 The Ridiculous Lawsuit to Silence Brimelow
1:02:56 How Was Trump Able to Win Over the White Working Class?
1:06:33 What Does America's Future Look Like?
1:11:10 Will the Department of Justice Help Brimelow?
1:14:07 Is Brimelow Hopeful for the Future?
I don't know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.
Okay, so here's one.
This is a tweet from last week, less than a week ago, from a guy from basically an anonymous account, and I'm quoting.
If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered.
Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they're a majority over whites.
White solidarity is the only way to survive.
Okay, that's on the internet.
Elon Musk retweets it and says, 100%.
And then Elon Musk writes this.
If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct.
Exclamation point.
All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true.
And I think most people know it.
But I read that and I thought, here's the world's richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things saying this.
And Peter Brimlow, who I know, who's a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for that, than that.
So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.
It feels kind of tingly on the one hand.
Tingly?
I'm happy that the debate has moved in that direction.
And the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on vdair.com, which was my website, my birthright citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.
On the other hand, you know, we've been ruined and we're facing personal ruin, of course, because of this attack on us by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James.
As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that, you know, I'm a long time, despite my accent.
I've been here for 55 years and I'm a longtime financial journalist.
I work for Forbes and Fortune and the Barons and so on.
And I work for National Review.
I wrote for National Review a lot.
And I wrote a piece on immigration in 1992 saying time to rethink immigration.
That's sometimes credit with kicking off the modern debate.
And there was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost.
And Buckley bit the stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.
And for the next while, the Wolf Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and the crying out going on about the need for amnesty and there was no way to combat it.
So I set up a website, which I named VDARE.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child, not white child, as they always say, born in the New World.
And over a period of about 25 years, it built up into quite a force until about two years ago.
It was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who just basically subpoenaed us to death and has, in fact, now sued us personally as in the foundation and through the foundation.
So we're a bit like General Flynn, you know, no middle-class family can stand up to this.
General Flynn had to sell his house and we're going to face be driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess.
It's a horrifying story.
I've kept abreast of it through your wife, who texts me as a wonderful person.
And I know that you're a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need.
And I'm grateful to have.
So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing, but I'd like, if you don't mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review.
1992, you said you wrote this piece saying time to rethink immigration, which I remember well.
At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative.
So that was a significant piece at the time.
And then you said Bill Buckley, the then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back.
Can you tell a story what happened exactly?
Oh, sure.
I was never on staff at National Review, but I was what they called a senior editor, and I rolled for it a lot.
And in 1992, I wrote this very long cover story.
It's about 14,000 words.
Bill had retired as the editor then.
He was just circling around in the background.
But the then-editor John O'Sullivan went with this story.
And for about five years, we basically directly challenged the official conservative line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, illegal immigration is very good.
That's what the Wall Street Journal said and is still saying, as far as I can tell.
Yes.
And then at the end of five years in 97, Bill, just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O'Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told us to shut up about it, told them all to shut up about immigration, which, of course, they all eagerly did.
He put the Washington Bureau in charge of Rich Lowry and Panuru and so on.
And so for them, for two or three years, you couldn't get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public.
But then the internet came along and rescued us.
And I started VDARE.com.
May I ask you to pause and explain why that happened?
Why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O'Sullivan run it?
Another Brit, I think.
Yes, indeed.
Who now lives in Budapest?
Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation specifically?
Well, of course, I've had 20-odd years to think about that.
And the answer is over time, my ads has evolved.
At the time, I thought he was just jealous.
This is actually a thing you see.
I was a financial journalist for a long time.
It's a thing you see often in the corporate world.
Entrepreneurs will come back and fire the managers that they put in to replace themselves out of sheer jealousy.
I think the congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors.
And I think that was influential with Bill.
He liked being lionized by the then Republican majority in the House.
So the Republican leadership didn't like it.
Newt Gingrich, et cetera, who was ascendant, came in in 94 to much, much fanfare, achieved not a lot.
But they're the ones who pressured Bill Buckley, you believe.
I think that was true.
But I also think that the neocons in New York hated it, hated the line.
And Bill was very, very leery of offending the neoconservatives, people like Norman Perhoris and so on.
And I think they pressured him to, I mean, I know they pressed him to get rid of John.
Now, why would they care?
Oh, because at that point, the neoconservatives, predominantly Jewish faction, they had this sort of Ellis Island view of America.
They wanted to be extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they feel as Jews that it will leave them out in the cold.
Despite the fact there's never been any real anti-Semitic movement in the United States, there's no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they're white is a threat to Jews.
I don't know where that comes from.
Right.
And I actually think there's a certain sort of jealousy there, you know.
They didn't like, I mean, if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism.
But here was a non-neoconservative fact.
We would have then described ourselves as perioconservatives, coming up with the whole idea and the whole issue.
Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when the Hart Seller Act kicked in until the early 90s.
There was no discussion of it at all.
I actually went through National Review's archives and I found that they hadn't discussed immigration at all between the passage of the 65 Act until the early 90s.
People simply didn't realize what was going on.
Why?
I think there are a couple of reasons.
One is that, you know, there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 1968.
So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the U.S.
Pray 40, The Return00:03:01
And, you know, and so it just wasn't an issue to them.
And, you know, what happens with it's like an academic life.
We have an academic theory.
It's not that it conquers the other theories by being better and better arguments.
It's just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off and they're replaced by younger.
And that's true for politicians, too.
That's true.
A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue.
And I include Ronald Reagan in that.
I mean, it simply wasn't an issue when he was growing up.
And that's why he was haunted while going by this Urka Amnesty in 1986.
He actually genuinely thought that the ruling of the permanent government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement, whereas in fact, he just took the amnesty and didn't enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.
Christmas feels like just yesterday, but in fact, it's already time to think about Lent.
Lent.
Lent is a great chance to step back, examine our lives, and decide whether or not we're headed somewhere worth going.
This Lent, we strongly recommend the world's top number one prayer app.
It's called Hallow.
Its Lent prayer challenge starts February 18th.
It's called Pray 40, The Return.
Transformation does not start with improvement.
No, transformation starts with repentance, the courage to admit that you are lost and change direction.
Pray 40 forces you to confront that responsibility, forgiveness, and what it means to truly repent and live a life of meaning by following Jesus.
Every day, enjoy simple, deliberate prayer.
No spectacle, no performance, just silence, honesty, and one small step toward renewal.
This is not about fixing your life overnight.
It's about beginning the journey home.
Pray 40, the return, starts Wednesday, February 18th and runs right through Easter.
Download Hallow for free at hallow.com/slash Tucker.
But I'm a little bit fixated on William F. Buckley because he was such a dominant force.
Let me just back up Skinny.
What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it's obviously donor-driven.
Oh, of course.
And we weren't aware of that in the 90s.
I wasn't even aware.
I didn't think about the donors' role in politics really until some years later than that.
We thought that people just got up and argued, and you just simply didn't realize how dominant how important the donors are.
I think now looking back at him, particularly given Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think, and he depended on National Review financially to a considerable extent.
his lifestyle to a considerable extent and I think he depended on the magazine yeah Yeah, yeah.
Conservative Party's Dilemma00:15:39
I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended on him.
Yeah.
That's what he wanted you to think.
But in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent.
The winters in Stad and the sailing across the Bermuda race.
I don't know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine.
In any case, he just didn't want to disrupt the donor flow.
And the more I think about that, the more I think that probably was the reason.
Interesting.
So that's basically a species of fraud.
I don't mean against the tax code.
I mean, it's intellectual fraud.
It's your making the case that you believe these things because they are true when in fact you're taking money to say them.
I think Bill actually, my experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics.
When he went to those dinners he used to put on 73, 73rd Street, it was very hard to get to talk about politics.
He was always wandering off in odd directions.
And you can see that in the way he lived his life latterly, I mean, writing these books and so on.
He just basically didn't do any serious thinking about politics.
Initially, he was very...
I have a letter from him, actually, saying how wonderful my immigration story was.
And...
Really?
Yes.
And it was, you know, I forget what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that sort of stuff.
He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration.
He just told them to stop covering it.
But the official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable.
They just didn't do any journalism on it.
Which is how he was about drug legalization.
He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about him.
Huh.
Why?
I guess he was balancing a number of issues.
In the case of immigration, I think he's done.
Immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the early days.
I remember.
And I think as we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on Legan Kelly, yes.
And he was attacking you for some reason or other, I forget what.
And he was saying that then he suddenly says, but Tucker's good on some things.
He's good in immigration.
Well, I understand that you're interested in the idea of immigration moratorium and so on.
Of course.
This news to me, that's what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration.
I mean, just about five or six years ago in National Review, he called me a white supremacist basically for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction.
And those days, back in the early days, if you advocated immigration control, you immediately suspect that you immediately suspect of being anti-Semite, even though there's no direct connection at all.
And now they've changed their mind on this.
They've fallen back.
I mean, Norman, before he died, I was very friendly with Norman.
He didn't talk to me for the last 10 years of his life, but he died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95.
But just before he died, he gave an interview in which he said he changed his mind on immigration.
He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed.
And he credited John O'Sullivan, the editor of National Review, for helping change his mind.
He didn't mention me.
Why didn't he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life?
Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character and I deviated on the immigration issue.
And he suspected I had the habit of calling the National Review the Goldberg Review because at that stage, briefly, it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight.
And of course, was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue.
Well, he's certainly a lightweight.
It's hard to know what he believes or doesn't, but he certainly, I mean, if Jonah Goldberg is like your intellectual force, then you've been degraded.
Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, you've got to stop calling National Review the Goldberg Review because it sounds anti-Semitic.
Actually, my understanding is that Goldberg is not technically Jewish.
His mother was a Gentile.
But I knew her.
She was a great person.
I replied and said that and he didn't get bad, but he just gradually suspected more and more.
He suspected more and more of thought crime.
Norman was an extremely passionate man.
He didn't famously.
He didn't socialize with opponents.
I miss him.
I really liked him.
I was sorry.
No, there was a lot about him that was appealing.
He was a man of great energy.
And I admired him in a lot of ways.
It was kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still.
He was constantly in motion.
And I actually owe his wife, Midge Decker, a lot because she was the chair thing of the Philadelphia Society, which is a conservative affinity group.
And she invited me to speak on immigration in, I guess, 2005.
And that's where I met my first wife had just died.
And that's where I met my current wife, Lydia, who, of course, was running the VDA Foundation with me.
She was the publisher of VDA.com.
And you've had her on, of course.
Oh, of course.
And I'm a fan.
She's a brave woman and a smart one.
May I ask what happened to your relationship with Bill Buckley?
When he fired John O'Sullivan, I was the only one of the entire staff who went in and asked, why did you fire him?
What?
Yeah, well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book.
That was because John was very popular with the National View base and the immigration issue was very popular.
And so he didn't want to admit that he was dumping them both.
So he got really ruffled because he wasn't used to being challenged and said, he resigned to write a book and resigned to that book.
And we basically never really spoke to each other after that.
I mean, I was constructively dismissed from National Review.
I got a letter telling me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very important in the National Review world because it was run like a fraternity.
And if you were senior editor, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that kind of thing.
And I never wrote for it again.
Why did they dismiss you, do you think?
Well, I'm sure that the Washington Bureau was always upset with the immigration issue because it embarrassed them.
It embarrassed them in Washington Cocktail Parters, you know.
And he put the Washington Bureau in charge of the magazine.
So I'm sure they would be happy to do it.
And they didn't want to write about immigration.
And I think also, you know, mud sticks, Tucker.
Mud sticks.
And this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and anti-Semite for raising these issues, it sticks.
And it has stuck.
So that, you know, even though Ben Shapiro is now in favor of just talking about immigration, I don't see him apologizing to me.
No, well, of course not.
He doesn't care about you at all or other people at all.
I had a really interesting experience recently.
Lydia and I were at an ISI book event, and I bought Matthew Cartanetti's book.
I actually bought it.
I put down my, it's a rotten, awful book about the conservative movement.
says that I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn't.
Well, it's a silly, he's a silly, I mean, this is Bill Kristol's son in life.
Bill Crystal's son-in-law.
That's the point.
I took it up to him and went, I like to collect inscribed books.
In fact, I forgot to bring your book.
I'm sorry.
And he wouldn't sign him.
He wouldn't inscribe him.
He said, I have nothing to say to you.
And the really weird thing about this is that...
From what crowd?
I mean, I don't think you've ever said that I'm aware of an anti-Semitic thing in your life.
I don't think you're an anti-Semite.
Well, Cartonette is a convert, of course, so he's probably very, you know, particularly ardent.
But the weird thing about this was that Cartinetti had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think who his father-in-law is.
But he said to your face, I won't inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you.
Essentially, yes, that's right.
He signed it, but he wouldn't inscribe it.
Then he said, nothing to say to you.
Wow.
Yeah, I mean.
It's kind of surprising.
And we live out there in the eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, and we don't have to face this stuff.
But I guess when you're in D.C., you faced it all the time.
Yeah, well, I left.
But I also believe in forgiveness, and that's kind of the difference, I think.
I mean, we're commanded to believe in forgiveness and to treat people as human beings.
Norman didn't believe that.
No, I'm very aware of that.
Very aware of that.
It was a principle position with him.
Yeah, it's a principle, but it's a satanic principle that you can't forgive other people.
That is, you're not forgiven if you don't.
So that's my view.
But wow, that's amazing.
So you were just cast out.
Well, the thing is, he'd already signed the book, so I couldn't give it.
He signed it, but I just cried.
I couldn't give it back.
Get my money back.
Whereas conversely, Yuram Hazzoni was also there.
And, you know, Hazoni, as you know, banned us from his National Conservative Conference because he said he didn't think we were appropriate.
And so we had a series of bitter exchanges in Video.
But Hazoni was perfectly friendly.
And he signed the book and inscribed it.
And we chatted about children and grandchildren and so on.
Joram Hazzoni is a very courtly man, a very charming and warm person, I'll say.
I had lunch with him once, and I don't agree with him on a lot, but I liked him.
It's hard not to like him.
I think he's very good.
A lot of the stuff he says about conservatism is exactly accurate.
But I think that's right.
He's moving it away from being classical liberalism.
The problem, of course, is that he's caught in this bind because he doesn't want to admit that Israel is an ethno-state because he doesn't want Americans to have ethno-state.
He wants them to be a civic nationalist state.
What do you mean won't admit?
I mean, Israel is, by its own description, an ethno-state.
Yeah, but he keeps arguing that.
That's not an attack, by the way, at all.
Well, you know, I've never been able to get him to explain how you cannot say that there's a racial component to Israel when the whole, when, of course, the Jewish religion is racially based.
I mean, that's why they have the matrilineal principle where you've got to have a Jewish mother.
And I've never seen him respond to that.
And I don't think he can, because he doesn't want to encourage straight-up white nationalism in America.
For years, you've been told this is not happening, and you're a bigot for thinking it is, but it is happening.
Mass migration is reshaping the West completely.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a fact.
Different people live here now.
You're not a racist for noticing that.
You're just using your senses.
Again, it's not a theory.
It's the biggest fact of this or any generation in a thousand years.
The replacement is real.
European governments aren't just tolerating mass migration.
They're encouraging it.
They're funding it.
They hate their populations and they want new populations.
We've got a new documentary on this called Replacing Europe, following the world's deadliest migration route.
Our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see.
They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public has never told.
It's not ideological.
It's reality.
This is happening.
It's destroying the West.
And our cameras caught it.
Replacing Europe.
That's the doc, only on TCN now.
I just want to be clear about my own views, not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely, I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethno-state.
It's their country.
Have whatever state you want, as far as I'm concerned.
But it is an ethno-state by definition.
The people who founded it were not religious.
A lot of them were atheists.
And they identified as Jewish racially.
Again, I have no problem with that at all.
That's their country.
But to say it's not an ethnostate is not only a lie, but it's like a ludicrous lie.
And he won't admit that?
That's my reading of what he wants, as only saying.
But it's one of these situations where his civic nationalism is so intense that it might just as well be ethnic nationalism for the U.S.
A lot of things he says about immigration to the U.S. are excellent.
Right, I agree.
And I'm not attacking Yormazoni at all, whom I like, but that's dishonest because Israel is an ethnostate and you should just tell the truth about, especially about obvious things, right?
Well, it's what Orwell calls doublethink, isn't it?
It's doublethink.
You've got to believe two contradictory things at once.
And it's necessary to operate in large parts of the political world.
Interesting.
So, but why wouldn't people who support an ethnostate in Israel want one here?
I mean, why would they object to that so strongly?
I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate.
They're overwhelmingly pro-immigration.
However, having said that, you know, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know they're going to be people on the other side and some people very hardly on those side.
And I know a lot of them.
That's why I would never be anti-Semitic because you can't generalize.
I mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who of course is an aide to Trump, I think he's the deputy chief of staff or something, he's going to be the first Jewish president.
I say this because it horrifies people so much.
But he's like Disraeli in Britain.
Benjamin Disraeli, of course, was Jewish, but converted to Episcopalianism.
He was converted by his father at a very early age.
His father took the whole family over to being Episcopalians.
He basically invented the Conservative Party, reinvented the Conservative Party in the 19th century.
He came up with a complete grand strategy for it based on the empire and imperial patriotism and so on.
And that really carried the party through for the next 80 or 90 years.
A couple of generations because they partially in Britain was a nationalist party.
And because of being a nationalist party, it got a very substantial working class vote because it is the blue-collar workers who are patriots.
And the Conservative Party was able to tap into that.
Now, Miller's done the same thing.
He's invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party, which he desperately doesn't want to take up because it's run by cowards and fools.
But he thinks they should move towards restabilizing America's ethnic balance and basically eliminating this immigrant inflow, which is causing all kinds of problems with lower skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance.
And he's not afraid to admit that.
And not only that, but I don't think anyone is cunning to survive the Kushner White House.
Immigration As Demographic Project00:05:39
I mean, that was really extraordinary because Jared Cushman, of course, believed exactly the opposite.
He's basically a liberal New York Jew.
But for some reason, Miller was able to survive with survive with him.
I couldn't have done that.
And I wouldn't have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did.
Sessions was his close aide and was his mentor.
And then Miller abandons him when Trump turns against him.
I couldn't have done that either.
But then he's in the White House and Lebanon.
Yeah.
No, I think those are all fair and true observations.
It's interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a demographic project.
I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white.
They'll say that.
It's not controversial.
I mean, you could prove it on video or didn't even bother to, because I think most people watching this already know that.
Its architects, starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965, basically just said, ultimately admitted, the whole point is to make America less white, a non-majority white country.
Why is it so hard for conservatives to say the same?
If Democrats are saying we want America to be non-white, why can't conservatives say that that's what their motive is?
I have to say that Kennedy didn't say that when he was the floor manager of the Heart Salary Act, he gave a very explicit assurance that you love to quote saying that this will not alter the racial balance of America, and it will not mean a million people here will be coming in, whereas in fact, a million people here are coming in.
Of course.
And that's one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having V-Dare, even though I have my own peterbilmore.com substack.
That's not the same kind of voice, because we've got to get legal immigration to the debate here.
I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more remarkable than people realize, but they're not doing anything on legal immigration.
But I'm sorry, that means I'm not answered your question.
What was your question?
Well, my question was, the whole point of the project was not to feed a desperate need for low-skilled labor.
That definitely no longer exists now with AI.
And it wasn't to improve America.
It's completely destroyed America.
It destroyed the state of California.
Well, when I was writing the book I wrote on immigration, Alien Nation that flowed out of my cover, saw the 95 book, which Harper Garnes refused to reprint, I quoted a man called Earl Rob, who is a Jewish activist and so on.
And he explicitly said that the Jews were in favor of mass non-white immigration because it makes the rise of a he didn't use the term neo-Nazi, but that's what he meant, you know, party in America impossible.
In fact, he does the exact opposite.
It makes it more likely.
Well, exactly.
But he did say that.
He quite calmly said that this is why most Jews favor.
Well, it's also made the rise of hard-edged anti-Israel politics.
And I'm not pro-Israel, especially, but I don't hate Israel.
A lot of people who hate Israel are immigrants.
Look at the New York Marathi race.
Well, exactly.
Mandami won because of the immigrant vote.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The native-born American New Yorkers.
And God knows, look at who they are, for God's sake.
But they voted against Mandami.
Exactly.
So they've really screwed themselves up.
This hasn't worked.
I mean, if your interest was to keep anti-Semitism and really kind of crazy anti-Israel sentiment to a minimum, and I agree with that.
I'm against anti-Semitism.
I'm against like basing your life on hating Israel.
It seems kind of lunatic.
If that was your goal, I mean, you literally achieved the opposite result.
Is that fair to say?
Not for the first time.
Yeah.
That's fair.
Fair.
So you may think maybe that wasn't the goal.
I don't know.
I'm just guessing here.
Maybe there was another goal that we don't understand.
Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can't be analyzed intellectually.
It's just a whole series of reflexes.
Or spiritual.
But, you know, one of the reasons we know that the New York Attorney General's attack on us was basically instigated by the Anti-Defamation League because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit this, that they had gone to Letitia James and told her to take Vider out.
And we say to ourselves, why us, Jews?
What have we ever done to you?
You know, we have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we're not allowed to have conference anywhere else.
The donor was Jewish.
We had all kinds of Jewish donors, all kinds of Jewish writers.
Well, that doesn't make any difference to the ideal partner.
So, what are you going to do when the power goes out?
Not theoretically, but actually in real life.
Most Americans used to think total power failure only happened in unstable countries, places without functioning governments, places you only went to on vacation.
This is the U.S. people would say that could never happen here.
Okay.
Well, then it did.
Remember Texas during the deep freeze?
The grid collapsed.
People were left without heat.
Power You Can Trust Always00:02:26
Some froze to death in their own homes.
So the truth is obvious now.
The government can't guarantee you electricity.
And when things go wrong, no one's coming to save you.
That's why Last Country Supply offers the Grid Doctor.
It's a 3,300-watt battery backup system built to keep your entire household running when everything else stops.
It powers full-size appliances, medical devices, essential tools.
You can use it indoors.
It's totally safe.
There's no fuel.
There are no fumes.
There's no noise.
We have one at home and it's awesome.
It's got 15 output ports.
It charges from the wall when you have power, from your car when you don't.
It's got a solar panel so the sun can charge it.
It's built to withstand EMPs, lightning, solar flares.
It is durable as hell.
So taking care of yourself and the people you love, the people you're responsible for, is your job.
Get power you can trust always.
Get the grid doctor today at our very own, lastcountrysupply.com.
Our business.
This is the power supply that we use.
Lastcountry Supply.com.
Now to what happened to you and to VDARE.
So you're expelled both from National Review and you leave your old life as a financial journalist behind.
I think it's a fair summary.
And then you create this organization called VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, the first British child born in the Americas.
And it becomes successful.
It becomes big.
And it's not anti-Semitic.
It's not racist.
It's against changing America's population through immigration.
Is that a fair summary?
Yeah, I studied in financial journalism for a long time.
VDAR was kind of a moodlighting project.
How'd you pull that off?
It was very difficult.
And of course, it eventually became impossible.
And I was fired both from Forbes and from CBS, what used to be CBS Marketwatch, became Dow Jones Marketwatch.
In both cases, it was during turndowns in the markets.
But I happened to be the one, you know, they chose to fire me rather than people who were frankly less valuable to them.
So it did, in the end, terminate my career in the mainstream media.
But on the other hand, we were developing VDARE very rapidly and it became quite a big deal.
NRA's Legal Battle00:11:27
And in 2019, we raised nearly $4 million, which enables us to buy the castle and do all kinds of other things.
Of course, it's been utterly destroyed now.
I've been out of it for all.
It was suspended two years ago and I resigned.
So, you know, I'm supporting the family now on pension, pensions, and savings and so on.
And I do have a family.
I haven't minded children.
So it's kind of irritating.
Irritating doesn't begin to describe it.
So tell the story, if you would.
You're running VDARE, and somehow Letitia James, who's the Attorney General, V-DARE is a 51c3 charity, and it was registered in New York in 1999 entirely because our then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York and therefore it was convenient for him.
And this was when there was a Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of law affair and nobody heard the idea of law affair, this kind of exploitation of regulatory power never occurred to anybody at that point.
Well, because we registered in New York, even though we don't operate in New York, she was able to demand, we one day woke up and found we got these massive subpoenas, demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email going back to 2016.
Of course, that was a huge problem because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and our anonymous pseudonymous writers.
And I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were filed.
May I ask him what okay, so you're not domiciled in New York, you're not operating in New York, you're nothing at all.
Well, we registered New York, that's the key point.
But the 501c3 is registered in New York.
That's right, that's right.
But you're not.
But you can't get out.
You've got to have her permission to get out.
You can't change states?
No, you can, only with her permission.
And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 501c3 and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets and she could claim jurisdiction over that.
It's a huge mess.
And we had very expensive lawyers looking at it for a long time, even before she came along and hit us with this.
May I ask on what grounds she issued subpoenas to you?
She doesn't have to give grounds.
But what she said was she wanted to investigate the Castle purchase, which we did in 2000, or more accurately, I should say Lydia did in 2000.
Because, as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen, 15 conferences cancelled.
Hotels would accept a book, and then they would cancel as soon as they came under pressure from the left.
And we realized we were never going to be able to have a conference at all.
So we bought our own venue.
And she wants to investigate that.
Well, of course, all that purchase was very carefully lawyered, precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it.
But it doesn't make any difference.
She demands that, and she demanded that, and she demanded all kinds of other things.
The really killing thing for us was demanding all the email.
We had to turn over more than a million documents.
The really killing thing was demanding the email because we know if she got the writers' names and the donors' names, she would release them.
She did that with Nikki Haley.
They leaked the donors to her pack.
And the papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley's donors were actually the letterhead was in New York Attorney General's office.
But of course, nobody ever came after for it.
I'm just confused.
Did she have evidence you committed a crime?
No, she was looking for evidence.
And she's not found it, but she's charged us anyway.
Well, she hasn't charged us.
It's not a criminal thing, but she's suing us anyway over it.
My impression, my guess, my guess, is that the Trump administration will begin to ignore the courts in some cases.
And people will say that this is the beginning of fascism and a takeover of the destruction of our legal system.
And, you know, that's a fair point.
No, but I would not have to destroy it.
That's exactly what I'm about to say.
Exactly.
It has already been destroyed.
And when the Attorney General of a state you don't live or operate in can destroy you because she doesn't like your opinions, then we don't have a functioning legal system, period.
And this happened before Trump.
So I just want to say that.
The wonderful, I mean, one of the wonderful things.
Let me back up a second.
One wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprising journalist actually dug up a speech made to the ADL.
They had a conference called Taking Hate to Court by Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James operatives.
And he is the one who's leading the charge against us.
And he said to this conference that hate speech, that's us, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
But there are ways around that.
All you have to do, if it's a charity and you have jurisdiction, is to start issuing subpoenas.
He said it sucks to be sued.
Just subpoena them to death.
And of course, that's exactly what he's done to us.
They inflicted over a million, million, million and a half dollars in out-of-pocket costs for lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that lady had to spend digging through documents and so on, which meant that she couldn't fundraise or do any of the work.
They just destroy you through the process of punishment.
They just destroy you that way.
So he's actually openly admitting this.
So when we saw this, we thought, oh, it's all over.
They've obviously admitted that what they're doing is not political.
It's not because of some regulatory concern.
But we've been totally unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this.
We're trying again now.
We have what they call a 1983 action against Letitia James and the operatives personally.
And we're trying to raise this First Amendment question there.
But the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it.
I mean, if the attorney general and her staff are admitting they're destroying you because they disagree with your opinions, it seems to me that any federal court would take that up because that's a foundational question.
That's what we thought.
But in fact, they didn't...
The first time we did it, the court simply dodged on a technical issue.
They came up with a technical excuse to dodge in.
And we have Troy trying again now, but we just have to hope for the best.
I think one of the things that is clear to me, I mean, is from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerably, goes far beyond this situation.
Another case I'm aware of is that there seems to have been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that's quote-unquote on a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary.
In our case, the classic example is we had an hotel cancel on us in Colorado Springs.
And they are quarrels not with them because they paid up the liquidated damages like men, and it was a lot of money.
But they cancelled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a rhino, John Sothers, had said he wouldn't extend police protection to the conference.
In other words, anti-faculty go in and he wouldn't extend police protection?
Yes, that's right.
Now, this is an issue that he's starting to kill you.
That's right.
And who is this?
His name was John Sothers.
He was the mayor of the Republican.
John Sothers, the mayor of Colorado Springs, basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his city.
Now, this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the civil rights era.
And the point was made very clear by the courts that the local authorities, the local governments, have to extend protection to people's First Amendment rights.
In other words, in those days, the black demonstrators would go into it, would have meetings in the city, and the local whites would be angry about it.
Well, those whites had to be kept away.
The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings.
Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court, which refused to take the issue up.
And the appeals court in Colorado rejected us.
And I believe it had at least one.
We had one good judge there who said this is obviously an attack on First Amendment rights.
But the other two, who I think were Republican appointees, to vote against us.
So we lost.
And we weren't able to.
Our initial lawyer, you know, civil rights litigation is extremely damaging if you're on the wrong side of it.
I mean, there's enormous damages involved.
So it would have been a huge victory, and we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way.
And our initial lawyer in Colorado Springs was so keen on this, it was so obvious open and shut case, that he took it on contingency, you know.
But as soon as he realized that the city was going to resist, he ran away and we had to start paying our paying lawyers to litigate him.
Well, anyway, subsequently, there was a case before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess the verse was Volo.
It's called the Volo case, V-U-L-L-O.
And this was a case where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA.
And the NRA fought it and it won.
And in the decision, Katenji Jackson says the NRA's case is strong, but it's essentially empowerful.
It's not as strong as Vida's case, where they were denied police, where the state agency basically discriminates against them on political grounds.
Well, I said, what's this?
We never heard about this.
Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an Amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to reject our attempt to sue Colardo Springs on a civil rights theory, and that it was wrong for the following reasons.
And for that reason, the Supreme Court should take up the NRA's case against NRA versus Volo, I guess it was called.
And the Supreme Court did take it up and ruled against the state of New York 9-0, which of course does us absolutely no good whatever because we're out all that money and are forced to memorize they're not protected.
I mean, in other words, there's a real determination on the part of the NRA is apparently more palatable than we are.
I'm a little bit confused conceptually with the idea that white self-awareness is effectively illegal in the United States, whereas ethnic self-awareness in every other group is encouraged.
Like, doesn't make any sense.
Speak for myself, I'd rather live in a deracialized world where people think about it less because it does cause problems.
But as long as you're encouraging identity politics, why do whites not get to have it?
What is the answer?
Well, it's completely hypocritical.
It's because the people running the society are anti-white.
And they've been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in an anti-white wing.
Purpose Of Capitalism00:02:55
Well, anti-white in this case really means anti-American.
I mean, because the whites are Americans.
That's who Americans are.
The people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Yeah.
I did know that.
And the purpose of the project, like big picture, again, I keep going back to this, but I'm just, I am a little bit confused because this is the defining fact of our lives, is that whites around the world are being eliminated.
And I would like to know why.
Do you have any guesses?
As I say, I think, Doctor, I think it derives from emotion rather than a kind of rational calculation.
I mean, if you look at what's happened in South Africa, or for that matter, in every big American black city, that's majority black.
I mean, they can't want it to get into a situation where the water is putrid and nothing works and all that kind of thing.
But they do.
The purpose of the system is what it does.
And the purpose of non-white government is to produce non-white government and non-white results.
Unless, of course, you're Chinese.
I mean, because Singapore's run Japanese, they're run very efficiently.
They are.
It's just interesting that people move here because it's a white country.
Your feet are right into the ground, yes.
Well, Well, all of us benefit, white and non-white, benefit alike from systems created by whites because they're more humane, they're more just, they're more fair, and they're much more efficient and cleaner, obviously.
You know, I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you, I was looking at an interview.
Somebody sent me an interview I did for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedman.
And I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism?
And he said, yes.
As you know, he's a very fire-breathing libertarian, but he actually thought about this question.
And he said that, you know, he said, capitalism has really only ever worked in English-speaking countries.
He said, I don't know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted that there's some kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism.
What economists call a meta-market framework operates.
So the question is, why are these capitalists bringing, you know, why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H-1B flow coming when it's obviously going to produce people who don't do it like Mandami, who don't support capitalism and, in fact, hate it?
What are the capitalists doing?
Well, they're doing what Lenin said.
They will sell us the rope with which we hang them.
And I mean, that's demonstrable.
It was true in 1917.
It's true in 2026.
Murdoch's Legacy00:06:57
Do you think it's the product of short-term thinking?
Oh, in the case of business people, of course it is.
The malign influence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a whole generation of business people actually believe all this nonsense.
It's very hard to get out of their heads because they're never allowed.
I mean, they're never allowed criticism of immigration on the editorial page.
So you've referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also to Harper Collins.
Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family.
What's been your experience with the Murdochs?
Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert in, I think this 1990 on a Ghostinger's autobiography, which was never published for the various reasons.
He changed his mind about it.
But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally, and he continued to be extraordinarily generous until very recently when I guess I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when you came under attack because somebody looked into people on the payroll and they found that this thought criminal is on the payroll.
So at that point, I was dropped.
But he's personally been extraordinarily generous to me.
That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch.
And you know, that is not the case with a lot of these characters.
It's not.
A lot of these mispellahs, Robert Maxwell, and so on.
I remember Rupert tell me once that he thought that Maxwell, when Maxwell, as you know, fell off his yacht off the Canary Islands and was found dead.
Rupert's theory was this guy is such a jerk that the crew probably couldn't stand him anymore.
That is one theory.
That is one theory.
His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked.
I don't know the truth of it, but he certainly had a lot of enemies and a lot of suspects in that crime.
But I mean, it was personal in place.
That's not the case with Rupert.
He's not cruel.
He's not vindictive.
Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I've ever met in my life.
I mean, he has perfect manners.
He is truly Anglo in that way.
And I never had a bad time with him.
Even when he fired me, I talked to him after, and he couldn't have been nicer.
So I strongly agree with your assessment.
But he kept you on the payroll for decades.
Yeah.
So I had five children born on his health care.
I had some born on his healthcare, too.
God bless you, Rupert Murdoch.
It was very good.
I don't know.
The truth should be told, good and bad.
So essentially, I was a consultant for him, and he didn't consult me at all because, of course, I would have told him to do the exact opposite of what he was asking.
But I have no complaints about Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, no, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years.
But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley, then, you know, Rupert has great personal decency, and I've seen it, but the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American basic American interests.
So like, what is that?
This guy likes America.
He treats people around him well.
There's a lot good to say about Rupert, but the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Harper Collins, like all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America's interests.
So why?
Why is that?
Do you know?
Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of a news corporation or 21st century Fox, whatever it's called, whatever it's called now, to the neoconservatives.
And so he took on a lot of neoconservative baggage at that point.
I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment.
There shall be open borders.
I mean, it was really lunatic.
And I believe that's still the case.
But why would he do that?
First of all, because they're very good.
They're extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy.
They were extremely good in the Cold War.
They were, that's correct.
But that was then as it is now, and they just simply haven't made the transition.
But that's a major reason.
I know, so he's operating in New York, and he was under a lot of suspicion there and has been, you know, he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy.
And he's showing that.
It's genuine, though, with Rupert.
I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initial Iraq war, the Gulf War.
And he said, well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli.
You know, his father played a major role in discrediting the Gallipoli expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by Winston Churchill.
They're trying to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia to help Russia join the war.
He said, so I'm just, I guess I'm just basically anti-Arab.
I said, those aren't Arabs, they're Turks.
Well, exactly.
Exactly.
Yeah, they're all the same.
Yeah, the Ottoman Empire is gone, and they've done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who help finance his companies.
So it's kind of a strange answer.
His father was a famous journalist in Australia who broke the news of the disaster at Gallipoli, as he said.
And he was very proud of that.
But that's not much of an answer, is it?
Well, you're doing better than I do, Tucker.
I don't know.
He said such an effect on the world and on my life.
And I said five times, I've always liked him and still do, but it does.
Somebody said to me once, one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist.
And his father's a journalist who wants to be a businessman because he did found a publisher empire in Australia, Sir Keith Murdoch.
I think there's a lot in that.
I mean, I think that you and I are ideologues, professional ideologues, but Rupert's not a professional ideology.
No, that's crazy.
Somebody who spends all of his time looking at numbers.
He's a fantastic memory for numbers.
I can never remember any phone numbers.
He remembers every phone number he's ever dialed, you know.
And running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and a tremendous application to going over pages and pages and pages of figures.
And I don't know that he spends a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a sporting sense.
I mean, he likes to be, he likes, you know, he likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing.
Appealing to the White Vote00:15:20
But then he likes going to Australian football matches too.
So I think it's kind of a similar thing.
That is a very smart analysis.
I think you're exactly, I think you just answered the question.
He's outsourced a lot of the thinking to others.
It's transactional.
He's not tightly wedded to ideological details at all.
But he's really allowed the Wall Street Journal editorial page to become a force of destruction.
Well, I have to admit, it's many years since I've bothered to read the Wall Street Journal.
Yeah, to me, too.
I rely on people sending me things, and they don't send much from the Wall Street Journal, or for that matter, from National Review.
Very rarely seems to be.
Is National Review still in existence?
Apparently, so it has the Republican establishment to support.
It's like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.
Do you know the editor of National Review?
You mean Rich Lowry?
He's gone for some time now, hasn't he?
Don't know if somebody else.
I haven't the faintest idea.
But did you know him?
I sat in rooms with him and I went to book his parts with him.
I have absolutely no memory of him at all.
He never said anything of significance.
And I think that's why Bill hired him because he was completely malleable.
Yeah, I think that sounds right.
Sad, how much has been lost?
So speaking of lost, what happened in the end?
And I interrupted your story, my apologies, but to VDARE.
Vidair is suspended, suspended in July of 2024 because we just ran out of money.
The foundation is still in existence.
And Lydia is still, she's not paid, but she's still paying lawyers and dealing with the legal situation, which continues to ramify.
As I say, we're being sued personally and as a foundation.
On what grounds are you being sued?
Oh, there's a whole bunch of things.
It's fundamentally technical issues to do with whether we had the right number of directors to vote on the right number of things.
It's all paperwork stuff.
It's all stuff that would normally resolve with a phone call and possibly a refiling and stuff like that.
They've not found any evidence of misappropriation of funds.
And in fact, we moved to dismiss on this basis, although they huff on puff a lot.
I mean, there's 60-odd pages of rhetoric, but the actual charges, they haven't got anything.
Who is suing you?
This is New York State.
So they're using tax dollars still to sue.
Oh, yes, that's right.
Enormous.
They've spent a great deal of money on this.
They also, very weirdly, subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of our dealings with Facebook.
Well, Facebook banned us in 2020 as part of Zuckerberg's campaign to defeat Donald Trump.
They thought we were pro-Trump.
So we actually hadn't had any deal with Facebook for more than two years when they came after us.
But nevertheless, they got all these records off of Facebook, but they've done nothing with them because, of course, there's nothing there.
I think they genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the Russians or someone to run bot farms.
Do you remember that was the allegation with interference in 2016 that the Russians were financing tiny little Facebook pages?
And that's how they were manipulating the election.
I think they genuinely believe that.
I think one of the things about Democrats is that they really do believe their own propaganda.
Oh, they do think that the Middle America is full of people wearing pointed hats.
We'll be at war with Qatar by the end just because they've talked themselves into believing Qatar secretly controls America as they did with Russia.
And then we went to war with Russia and we're still at war with Russia over that.
Right.
The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda too, which is why they won't, for example, appeals to the white vote.
One of the things we did at VDARE is we discussed and documented what we call the Sailors Tragy, as opposed to the Rove Tragy.
In 2000, Karl Rove was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities.
And it makes no sense statistically, because I think George Bush judge W. Bush got like 51% of the white vote.
It's appalling performance.
So Steve Saylor, who's one of our writers who we've had on, pointed out that if they could just increase that proportion of the white vote to what his father got, which is like 57, 58%, that would swamp and overwhelm any possible conceivable gain among minority voters.
So we were saying you should go for the white vote.
And now this caused a great deal of trouble for us.
I remember I got a letter from an email from Jude Winiske.
Do you remember Jude Winitsky?
He said, Peter, you've gone too far.
In other words, appealing to the white vote is not allowed.
And look, it's just a question of arithmetic.
You know, there's more of them than there are minorities.
In any case, to this day, the Republicans have still not done that.
They've done it tightly.
Why was Jude Wininsky mad?
Jude was a liberal, you know, and way back when he was a liberal Democrat and he still had a lot of these reflexes.
But it was just thought to be, people just got very emotional about it.
You know, they think it's somehow illegitimate and they still do think it's illegitimate.
For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election, you know, this young kid who's a complete cypher as far as a Wall Street cypher, as far as I can see, chooses has his success in the gubernatorial race.
A candidate who is one, an immigrant, two, a woman, and three, black.
So he's a black Jamaican immigrant.
And this is how he's going to appeal to the white vote.
They're going to get people in the halls of southwest Virginia out to vote for this black immigrant.
It's ridiculous.
And of course, they got a terrible share of the white vote.
It was like 53%, and that's why they lost.
But they would rather lose than make a full-out appeal to white votes.
I think that Tell was in the ability.
So this was an, you know, I'm not saying a bad person, but Winsom Sears was not a good candidate.
It was kind of an incapable candidate and hard to deal with.
So, like, they chose her because she was black.
That's right.
Despite the fact that she wasn't good at her job.
I mean, this is epidemic in the Republican Party.
Well, it's epidemic in the country.
They've chosen so many Republicans in particular.
They've chosen so many black candidates.
They're about to do here in Florida.
The next government candidate is likely black unless a miracle occurs.
Why is that?
They are just pixelated by this, transfixed by this.
I'm trying to find the right word, hypnotized by this phenomenon of the whole race question.
They're just race whips, what it comes down to.
They're just so afraid of being called racist that they'd rather lose with a black candidate than run a candidate who appeals to whites.
Trump did appeal to whites, not enough, but he does it in some kind of really implicit way.
If you actually look at what Trump said, in spite of all the rhetoric, he's not said anything that's explicitly white nationalist or anything.
I see no sign that he's ethnic civic nationalist.
But for some reason, he's made some connection.
I mean, all through West Virginia, while Biden was president, you would see these signs supporting Trump and saying very rude things about Biden.
And these are outside trailers.
Very rude things about Biden, yeah.
I mean, you know, this is a poor area.
These rundown trailer homes that you see with these Trump signs on them.
For some reason, Trump made a connection with them.
And it's eerie.
Now, on the other hand, he also made a disconnection with the other side.
So you get this Trump derangement syndrome.
But he was able to mobilize the white voters.
Why do you think that was?
Which part of it?
That he was able, working-class whites love Trump.
Trump is not a racist.
I've never seen any sign of that at all.
And not a white nationalist at all, and hardly a Christian nationalist.
But he, for some reason, had an emotional connection with these voters.
Why?
Do you know?
There's a concept in sociology called the implicit community, you know.
Communities that represent or appeal to some people without actually saying it explicitly.
The classic example with NASCAR, for example.
Why is NASCAR a white stronghold?
Or everybody watching NASCAR is white.
And the NASCAR operatives don't like this and they can't hate it.
Yeah.
They can't try and diversify.
Republican Party is a classic example of this.
I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it, the Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia.
And you and I both remember that when the Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia, you know, I forget when the last Republican, I always keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to carry West Virginia was, but it might have been Clinton.
And now it's just the Democrats have ceased to exist in West Virginia, even though this is a very poor state.
Republicans prevailed simply by virtue of not being Democrats.
Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia.
That's how much has changed.
Right.
So there's something that's going on at a very deep psychological level, some kind of implicit signaling.
It's baffling.
Now, of course, he did say, you know, when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration, and never look back.
So he obviously struck a nerve there.
So he did enough to strike a nerve simply by raising immigration in this rather, you know, I'm sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar.
And if Carstaff forgets his lines and says the wrong thing way that Trump does talk about immigration.
But he did raise it.
And of course, until then, it's been driven out of Republican parties completely.
I know he wrote about it for you were fired over it, right?
There was almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up.
But then when he did, the damn broke.
And now, the big difference that I found, Tucker, is if you speak to grassroots Republicans, as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus is overwhelming that immigration has got to be ended.
The consensus is overwhelming.
Whereas when I got involved in this in the early 90s, a lot of Republicans never heard of this question.
And they would assume, for example, that immigrants don't go on welfare to the same extent that native-born do, which is completely wrong.
It's completely reverse of the truth.
And it was back then.
It was obvious that they were going back into welfare in disproportionate numbers.
But people didn't know.
And the Walter Jones not telling them.
Well, the Walsh Jones still isn't telling them, but they do know now.
And maybe we played a role in that.
Well, yeah.
And it's had such a complex and degrading effect on the native population.
It hasn't been, it's not just a matter of competition in the job market or my, you know, my tech job went to an Indian or something.
It's way more complicated than that.
And as immigrant communities became totally dependent on federal benefits, it changed the incentive structure for native-born communities.
And a lot of them started going on it at higher rates also.
So it just, it created a vortex that's hurt everybody, I think, especially the whites.
Where does it go from here?
The big thing that has to, the next, if I was still running VDAR and on my own website, peterbrimmo.com now, what I'm interested in is legal immigration.
Legal immigration is still running at a million a year.
No, that puts the fact that the foreign-born population in the U.S. has fallen by two and a half million in the last, and just joined this year.
That's an absolute extraordinary number.
I used to track it VDAR, the foreign-born population, because it was a way of tracking the impact of immigration.
It very rarely goes negative.
It went negative briefly when Trump first got in because they were frightened of him and a lot of eagles left.
And then towards the end, before COVID, it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken, the administration taking to tighten up on both legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Now it's 2.5 million, going to form 2.5 million, the foreign-born population, even though we know a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% from colour, by the way, only about 10% white.
So what we really need is an immigration moratorium.
And I'm delighted to say there is a bill proposed by Chip Roy in the House, it's called the Paws Act, calling for a moratorium.
And there's several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on birthright citizenship.
And let me see if we look at my list here.
Secure the border.
I mean, in other words, they should set and codify Trump's activities, tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on the southern border, because we know that when the Democrats get in, they'll reverse it.
But they won't be able to do that if it's in the law.
They'll have to pass a law and have to admit what they're doing.
The problem is that the White House seems to be not pushing any of these bills.
And unless they do, I don't think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything.
He's just going to lie low.
And I don't know why the White House isn't pushing these bills.
Of course, it's got its hands full in Minnesota, where they clearly need to declare the Insurrection Act and that kind of thing.
And it keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that and sinking ships and stuff.
I mean, which must be very entertaining, but I would really rather than focus on ending this immigration disaster.
You know, it's whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review.
I'm 78.
I can't wait much longer.
I think they should just get on with it.
And you have a number of children who will inherit the country.
That's really the point.
People occasionally, yeah, people say, okay, I get attacked all the time for being an immigrant.
My position is, you know, I'm an immigrant doing a dirty job that Americans won't do, talk about immigration.
But the real reason is I have children here.
My youngest child is 10 years old.
And God knows what the country is going to be like by the time she's a grown woman.
Are you bitter?
I've been extremely blessed in my personal life, even though my first wife died.
So I don't think I think things could have worked out differently for me professionally.
But in my personal life, I'm very blessed.
Luma's Defense00:00:58
You don't seem angry.
I mean, because my read on it is what happened to you is grotesque and is evil and not the kind of thing I thought would ever be allowed here.
So I'm shocked, always shocked to hear your story.
I guess I am bitter at the Conservative movement, people in the Conservative movement, people I've known for 30 and 40 years who basically haven't helped us, haven't defended us.
The most prominent people who have defended us, Tokyo, are you and Laura Luma, your friend Laura Luma.
So that just shows how ecumenical we are.
So Luma helped you?
Oh, yeah.
She supported us on Twitter when we were when we were trying to raise money to defend ourselves.
Judicial System's Crisis00:04:59
And she made it.
I have a gift saying goal, which I just launched before Christmas Friday to help us personally, because, of course, we're now facing tremendous legal costs personally.
And I believe she's helped us with that.
Have you received any help from the Department of Justice?
We know that there are people in the Department of Justice who are not directly.
On the other hand, Trump can't stand Letitia James, quite rightly.
And they've made various attempts to bring her to book for various crimes.
For one thing, I mean, she's clearly guilty of massive mortgage fraud going back over.
But we know the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats is joint nullification by Democrats.
They've been unable to indict her because basically because judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand juries won't indict Democrats.
So I don't know where that stands.
They also have an investigation into her deprivation of Trump's civil rights in these scandalous cases and this Hush Money case and the fraud case and so on, which should never have been allowed to go to court.
The judges should have started.
But of course, the judges are on the other side.
And our judges just try to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor.
I mean, what's happening is these Democrats, senators, not only have the power to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also have the power, apparently, to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors.
And they're apparently taking the position that they won't allow the appointment of a federal prosecutor if he's likely to prosecute Letitia James or any other Democrat.
And God knows there are enough Democrats out there that need prosecuting.
That's how they're protecting them.
Many respects, we're looking to slow-motion civil war here.
I mean, New York is essentially secede and Minnesota essentially seceded from the Union.
The whole legal systems are opposed to what the federal government is doing.
Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is the land that law forgot because normal legal norms simply don't apply there.
What happens is what the Democrat operatives want.
And of course, this is not a government under law.
So in effect, New York is seceding from the Union.
And that's why I think ultimately we're going to have to go to the Insurrection Act and we're going to have to go to wholesale impeachment of judges.
All these judges brought in by Biden, I think he had one or two white men, both of whom were gay, something like that.
All the others are women and people of colour and so on.
And they're delivering the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law.
Ultimately, it's going to have to be purged of the judicial system.
Trump, when that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the third branch of government.
But it's been completely destroyed long before Trump.
Right.
Right.
My last question to you, Peter Berlin, thank you so much for doing this.
Are you hopeful?
I have one of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015 is that miracles happen quite often in politics.
Yes.
I mean, nobody expects the Soviet Union to collapse.
Are you old enough to remember that?
I'm 56, yeah.
I remember it like it was yesterday.
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
I mean, that's literally true.
Nobody, either on the left or the right, expect the Soviet Union collapse.
On the other hand, I don't think they expected the Catholic Church to go in the direction it went in Vatican II.
And on the third hand, nobody expected Trump.
And he has been a miracle.
I mean, he's changed the situation in so many ways, not all of which I think he has probably thought about, but he does it anyway.
So I'm hopeful because I think miracles happen in politics frequently, but we need one.
The situation right now, we're heading in a very, very bad direction.
And in the situation where Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, disobey law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals.
That's more extreme than ever happened in the South during the desegregation.
Much more.
It's more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter.
I mean, this is insurrection, actual insurrection.
It's insurrection.
Shadow Banned For Six Years00:00:52
That's right.
That's right.
It's insurrection.
And of course, Eisenhower and Candy did use the Insurrection Act to impose integration.
He sent the 101st Airborne to a high school.
Right, right.
With the total applause from the mainstream media, which was then, of course, completely oligopolistic.
I mean, it was dominant.
At least now we have Twitter, even if we are shadow banned on Twitter.
Are you still shadow banned?
Oh, yeah.
Well, as far as we can see, we are.
And Calder, you know, her followership has not risen for like six years.
It's been 2.1 million for six years.
It doesn't go up.
It doesn't go down.
I mean, it's obvious.
You can see from the engagement that there's something very strange going on.