June 15, 2024 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
54:48
20240615_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the Political Cesspool.
The Political Cesspool, going across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
So much to talk about tonight, ladies and gentlemen.
So much we need to get to.
And get to it, we will.
This Saturday evening, June the 15th.
We're in summer now, boys.
I can tell you that.
I took my kid, my son, to a catfish rodeo this morning.
And so we got there.
We checked in 8 o'clock.
It started at 9.
By 11 o'clock, there wasn't a dry piece of clothing on.
It was good times, Keith.
It's father and son, summertime stuff.
Ain't much more southern summer than a catfish rodeo.
Yeah, you got to do a catfish or a fishing rodeo sometime with your male sons.
I used to go catfishing with my granddad just about every weekend in the summer.
If we'd either do that or go to the zoo or go to the Pink Palace, which is the museum here.
Or, you know, back then you could go to the airport, walk up to the terminal, watch the planes take off and land.
Going back to the 80s, you could do that.
And it was always one of those things.
But going out and doing that today with Henry was wonderful.
He caught six catfish.
We had six on a stringer there, so he did a good job.
Well, another consequence of all this hot weather is increasing utility bills.
I was looking at my utility bill estimate for a half of the month, and it's the normal amount I have for the entire month.
Well, I'll tell you what, it's heating up out there.
It's heating up in here, and it's going to heat up even more now.
So happy to receive so much correspondence from the listening audience.
This came in a few days ago, earlier this week, rather, from a listener in Kansas City.
And he writes, Dear Mr. Edwards, it was pleasing to see your recent collaborations with Warren Bailog as Modern Politics and the Political Cesspool are the two programs I never miss.
I find him to be as worthy and complimentary a fit for your forum as fellow stalwart Brad Griffin and hope to hear from him on the program as often.
And he writes that he is on the Balogian end of our listenership spectrum.
Well, my friend, I thank you for that note.
And your wish is my command.
What does that mean?
Your wish is my command because he's back now and for good reason.
Warren Bailog for the third time in two months.
Warren, how are you this evening?
I'm doing great, Keith.
Usually the Belogian end, I'll just say that's the Hitlerian end of the whatever it is.
How are you?
Liz, if we could.
I tell you what, we're hot.
It's hot even in the studio tonight.
Liz, I don't know if it's possible, but if we could pipe Warren's audio up just a little bit, he's coming in a little light on that landline.
But no, we are doing good.
Good family time today.
Father's Day tomorrow.
Happy Father's Day, gentlemen, to both of you.
Let me just get that put out there.
Fame right here at the end.
Happy Father's Day to both of you.
I tell you.
Yeah, it doesn't get enough credit of these fathers in America, white fathers especially.
I guess those really the only kind.
My adult sons are taking me out to dinner tomorrow.
Yeah, for every father out there listening tonight, happy Father's Day.
Well, anyway, Warren, you were on with us in mid-May right before the conference.
So that was just about a month ago.
And we had you back on at the conference, and we nibbled on some topics.
But I didn't think that we did the full deep dive that I wanted to on this particular topic that you're coming back on to discuss with us tonight.
And it got resuscitated because one of your fellow speakers at the conference was having lunch with some colleagues earlier.
Well, I think earlier this week, a few days ago in any event, and one of the gentlemen he had lunch with said, hey, do you have a copy of Warren Baylog's speech?
I heard it was just fascinating.
There's a lot of information there that I need to know and that a lot of people didn't know.
And that's the thing.
Interesting as this story is, and it has been covered, I don't think it's gotten nearly the coverage that it deserves.
So even though we touched on it in your appearance on the conference floor back in May and in the week prior to that, we're going to focus on it almost exclusively tonight, if you don't mind.
And that is the Buchanan to Trump connection or the Trump-Buchanan connection and how one informed the other and may have been the reason for a monumental shift in American politics.
And by the way, folks, for all of you American Free Press subscribers, that's my next Q ⁇ A.
The next Q ⁇ A is with Warren Baylog on this topic because I think it needs a little bit closer examination.
Keith, very quickly, because we're running behind.
Well, I think it's something that all of us knew but didn't focus on before, but you focused on it perfectly that this Reform Party contest to see who is going to be the presidential candidate in 2000 was Trump's first initiation, first experience in the political realm and running for president.
And it's, you know, you're right.
Apparently, I don't know that he intended to learn anything from it because I don't think he ever intends that.
But I think that he did learn quite a bit from that experience.
Well, Warren has done the research.
Warren has actually cobbled together every piece of so-called mainstream, we call it control, call it what you need to, but every bit of publicity that has been dedicated to this topic, Warren has compiled it, and he put together just an insightful talk at the TPC conference last month.
So we're going to focus on that exclusively.
We've nibbled on it.
Now we're going to eat the whole thing.
So again, let's just start at the beginning.
That Reform Party convention, Warren, I told you on the phone earlier this week, I grinned ear to ear when anytime anyone asked me about the year 2000 because it was such a transformative year in my life and yours.
And, you know, especially for someone else who was there, although we didn't know we were there until years later when we actually first met.
I love talking about this.
So let's talk about that convention.
Pat Buchanan won the nomination, but it was challenged, and it was challenged as early as 1999 when Trump announced his intention to become the Reform Party nominee.
And this is the topic of the show.
And without further ado, we're going to toss it over to Warren.
But 25 years, the 25-year political evolution of Donald Trump from 1999 to 2024.
Take us back, Warren, to those early years, those early months of the year 2000.
Sure.
Well, first of all, I'll put it in context what Ross Perot did with the Reform Party.
I just did, I'll take this opportunity to plug my latest show, James.
I did a modern politics on the history of the big people who have challenged the system in the last hundred years in America.
And I really focused on four figures, Huey Long, George Wallace, Ross Perot, and Donald Trump.
And I was thinking about this because I had a conversation with my father about the MJP that we were trying to do there for years to get it off the ground.
We were unsuccessful.
And I was thinking about how the last time I did a third-party effort was 20 years earlier because we started the NJP in 2020.
So we started it.
We got involved with the Reform Party in 2000.
And how I was thinking about that convention.
And it occurred to me what a big, lavish, huge convention that was.
You were there.
Anybody who was there will never forget it.
There isn't a lot of footage of it online, only really on C-SPAN, and it doesn't really do it justice, how big it was.
But I got to thinking about how big it was and how lavish.
And I just actually, since I last spoke to you, I looked it up.
And it was, I think, $2.5 million or something was put at the disposal of the Reform Party in federal matching funds just to mount the political convention.
I don't know if that was all spent there, but an enormous amount of money was spent mounting that convention.
And this is due to Ross Perot and his legacy, 1992 and 1996.
And in 96, he ran as an independent in 92.
In 96, he ran as the Reform Party.
In 92, he got 19% of the vote.
I mean, that's a three-way race.
Well, status is George Wallace.
Huge.
Yes, it's a three-way race.
And then he got a little over 8% in the year 1996.
And that's how he was able to qualify.
That's why the Reform Party qualified for all these federal matching funds.
Warren, if I could just interject here very quickly, pardon the interruption, my friend, but this is what people who weren't there don't understand is that why would Buchanan want to seek the Reform Party nomination?
His money, M-O-N-E-L.
No, well, it's not part of it.
That's a small part of it because, you know, $8, $12 million, whatever it was, isn't a lot in terms of presidential campaigns, especially not now.
But Buchanan's case was, the case was, if he was receiving as the Reform Party's nominee, as the Reform Party nominee, federal taxpayer matching funds for his campaign, that should qualify him to be in the presidential debates.
And he thought, and this was the thinking the whole time, if he could get the presidential debates, he could make some noise.
And he was staking his claim on that, being that the Reform Party at that time was one of three federally funded parties receiving matching funds along with the Republicans and the Democrats.
Obviously, that didn't happen in the rest of history.
But had he been in those debates, and that was the thing, that matching money you're talking about was the case he was making.
Of course, he got out.
Well, that's why I went for the Reform Party, not for the, you know, some of these other perennial third parties that run.
Well, that continues.
But the fact that there was a lot of issues that overlapped, you know, especially on trade and on immigration, and even with Donald Trump, I will give Donald Trump credit that even back then, he was speaking about trade imbalances and he was talking about immigration, but not in the cultural terms that he casted in later.
You know, it was very much just in terms of, okay, well, America can't do this.
Donald Trump, at that time, when he was considering running, and he was friends with Jesse Ventura, and Jesse Ventura had won in Minnesota on the Reform Party.
He was a setting governor as a Reform Party governor, yeah.
Right.
And he, and Ventura won by getting in the debates.
I mean, that's really what pushed him in.
He got in the debates.
He did such a good job that it pushed him over the line.
So, yeah, Trump was trying to get the nomination, but the man that was running, the Donald Trump running in 1999, October of 1999 was when he declared, totally different guy than 2015, 2016.
He was culturally, socially, he was a, you could say a moderate centrist or even a liberal.
He was extremely pro-life.
I mean, made a big deal out of it.
Pro-choice.
Or pro-choice.
Yeah.
Pro-choice.
He was also very, wanted to have Oprah Winfrey as his running mate.
He repeatedly said this.
I mean, in interview after interview, he said he wanted Oprah Winfrey as his running mate.
And I actually found some more things, James, when I was doing that Q ⁇ A for American Free Press.
Some stuff that I didn't have in my speech is that he floated as members of his cabinet.
He wanted Colin Powell as Secretary of State, and he wanted John McCain as his Secretary of Defense.
And think of the bloggerheads he was at with John McCain.
I mean, right up to the end of that guy's life.
Trump ran against neoconservatives.
He ran against neoconservatism in 2015 and 16, and that's a big part of why he won.
But back in 2000, he was actually saying that he would do a new first strike or possibly even a nuclear first strike on North Korea.
Well, I was going to say this, and I want to toss it to Keith because you're bringing up a huge point to compare and contrast.
Again, what we're talking about with Warren Baylock tonight is the political evolution of Donald Trump from 99 to 2024 and why he reemerged in 2015 as a very different candidate.
Because one of the things, I mean, yes, Build the Wall Immigration was his tour de force, but breaking with the GOP neoconservative establishment on these foreign entanglements, these unconstitutional wars, was huge.
And he was running against Bush and McCain on that.
But in 1999, he said McCain would be his choice as Secretary of Defense.
So that is a radical change in 16 years.
And in a moment, we're going to get to why Warren believes that change occurred and how it propelled him into the White House.
But Keith, very quickly.
Well, remember back in 1996 that Pat Buchanan picked Zola Foster.
That was 2000.
Or 2000.
Yeah, whatever it was.
There seemed to be this fashion at the time of having a black running mate.
I mean, you know, well, that's just one thing.
But the thing about she was she was a nice lady.
But then on the other hand, on the other hand.
And she was right on the issues, but I mean, I get it.
And he was turned down by about God knows how many people.
I can't even remember who all turned him down, but I don't know.
But the point I wanted to make about Donald Trump is that you have to remember he's a guy that really doesn't have an ideology.
He has opinions.
Some of his opinions may be far left, some may be far right, some all over the map.
And he's not a deep thinker.
I think that his success in business has come from the fact that he has a good gut instinct.
That's what Warren's going to, Keith, exactly.
And that's what Warren's going to get into.
But again, as we move on in this interview, Donald Trump in 1999 wants the Reform Party nomination for President of the United States.
He calls Pat Buchanan, who was his obviously chief opposition for that piece of a Hitler lover.
He doesn't like the blacks, doesn't like the gays.
He's a wacko.
And he thought he could.
But he's only going to get the extreme right wacko vote.
And then he actually corrected himself.
He says, I don't even think it is right.
It's just a wacko vote.
And he can't imagine why anybody would think.
His group now.
That's his base.
He also said that, you know, he called out the fact, I think he called out the fact that David Duke had supported Pat Buchanan.
I mean, Trump was running as like a New York liberal.
Socially, he was a New York liberal when he ran.
And there was none of the racial dog whistling, of the cultural, any of the cultural stuff that they accuse him of.
America First.
America First, which was a Buchanan slogan.
Yes, so that's an old slogan, of course, from the, as you guys know, from the market.
Yeah, Lindbergh.
But they were calling Buchanan an isolationist then.
At that time, Trump, like I said, wanted to put John McCain as his Secretary of Defense and wanted to strike North Korea.
So what happened was Buchanan, of course, had run in 92.
I mean, as everyone listening to this probably knows, Buchanan had run also in 92 and I guess in 96 as well.
In 92, he gave his famous culture war speech running as a Republican for the Republican nomination.
And Buchanan had mobilized in those eight years a very, very hardcore base of people, you know, that were called the Buchanan Brigades, Pitchfork Pat.
And also, I will say, I will say that from just anecdotally from personal experience, I knew that in his 2000 effort, there were a lot of people who could be described as white nationalists, even national socialists.
I mean, all kinds of our guys were there.
In fact, someone I met that I've known for years at your event, James, said that he had also been there.
Actually, if I mind, if people mind if I say his name, it was Mark Weber.
Mark Weber.
Yeah, Mark Weber.
Mark Weber, yeah, he's on the show all the time.
Yeah, Mark Weber with a lot of people that were there that I didn't know at the time, but I came to know later.
Right.
So, and I just know from, I mean, our whole West Virginia delegation organized by Jerry Heinemann.
I mean, Jerry Heinemann is his old National States Rights Party guy.
He was a National Socialist.
I mean, there were a lot of these people involved.
I mean, I actually went to William Pierce and saw him at this time because we weren't living that far away.
And when we were getting involved with the Buchanan campaign, and I believe he told us, he told me and my dad confidentially that Will Williams at that time was very active with the Buchanan campaign.
So in other words, his campaign was being fueled by the enthusiasm and activism and fanatical support of all these highly motivated white racial activists, paleoconservatives, nationalists.
And the reality is Trump didn't have a natural base of hardcore support.
He was a New York liberal celebrity.
He was a celebrity real estate developer.
People knew who he was.
He wasn't saying anything unique.
He wasn't saying anything unique.
I mean, the thing was, he was not a red state American, and he found that he was drawing a lot of attention to his campaign from red staters.
We got to move this along, but I got to ask you this, Warren, before we move to 2015.
So you're understanding, I think, now, ladies and gentlemen, the kind of candidate Trump presented himself as in 1999 and 2000.
I guess the question would be for you, Warren, is people would ask, well, how could a man who would go on to beat Hillary Clinton as an underdog and actually become the president of the United States lose to a guy in 2000 who went on to receive 0.4% of the vote?
Now, in Pat's defense, in Pat's defense, God bless Pat.
I wouldn't be here without him.
I love Pat Buchanan.
He is my hero.
He didn't get into the debates.
They blocked him.
He had gallbladder surgery that took him out of the campaign for the last three months of it.
And a lot of people turned him down for the run.
A lot of things went wrong, as you can expect in an insurgent campaign.
But how did that happen?
I mean, how could Buchanan beat the guy that beat Hillary Clinton?
Because the Reform Party nomination, the man to capture the nomination, was not the guy that had the most name recognition nationwide.
It wasn't passive voters.
It was supporters.
Activists.
It was activists that did it.
And the reality is the Buchanan brigades from start to finish soundly defeated Donald Trump.
Those were hostile takeovers.
Those were hostile takeovers.
All his celebrity, all his money.
And I think this is something that really shocked him.
The fact that he, because he had thought about running for president for years, the fact that he throws his name into the ring, he actually put a lot of money behind it.
He had Roger Stone organizing his exploratory committee, and he really didn't even get to first base because he was out organized by the Buchanan brigades, who also essentially took the Reform Party away from Ross Perot.
And even though there were a lot of Puerto Tistas who supported Buchanan, like Pat Choate, who was Perot's running mate, and he supported Pat, Perot himself did not.
And so the Reform Party was wrested away from Perot, and Trump didn't even get to first base by the viewpoint.
I can remember.
I can remember.
That was, I will say this, and I've got to say this.
The results be damned.
That was a cutthroat, professional, well-organized Buchanan campaign in terms of what they were able to do and taking over.
I can remember being on the slate of the Buchanan slate to take over the Tennessee Reform Party.
They put me in as treasurer of the campaign and a delegate to the convention.
But you had to go into these state party conventions in state after state, all 50 states, and you had to take over the party.
You had to have more people than that were supporting Trump or the old Perot faction that didn't want Buchanan people in there.
And you had to go, and this was a hostile takeover, and Buchanan took over all 50 states, and there was no doubt about it.
And it blocked anybody else because once you control the state parties, once you won these state conventions, that was it.
You sent your slate of delegates to the convention in Long Beach that summer in 2000, and the rest is history.
And these other people could not compete with that level of organization.
Big question is this.
Did Trump learn from that being?
That's what we're going to get to in the second half of this interview.
But would you agree with that, Warren, that that was what happened in these state parties with this being a well-organized party?
State by state by state.
It happened in West Virginia, like I said.
That's where I met Jerry Hineman, who became like my mentor for a number of years.
I mean, we had a group of guys that took control.
The old faction was chased out to cheers at the meeting in Flatwoods, West Virginia.
This was my first time going to one of these meetings.
And Pat Buchanan was there, and we didn't know it at the time.
But after the other faction left, we saw it.
I mean, it was, yes, a hostile takeover in West Virginia.
And it was contentious.
I can remember the state convention in Tennessee that March when we first took over the state party and got control of everything.
It was hostile.
I mean, to say hostile, it was contentious.
It was old-fashioned politics.
It was smash mouth, screaming, yelling, all of that.
But where did Trump use the nationalist element, the white nationalist element that supported him?
Where did they come into play?
Not so much in his administration, definitely not in an administration, not even in his 2020 campaign, but in the fight for control of the Republican Party nomination.
Because that was a hell of a fight in the year 2016.
And it wasn't done so much on the ground organizing as it was online.
But Trump got the endorsement of Pat Buchanan.
He got the endorsement of David Duke.
He got all these people behind him because of how much he had shifted his rhetoric.
And it started with the birther stuff, with Obama.
But a lot of people, like I said, and we can go through here a little bit some of the articles because a lot of sort of elite liberal institutions, newspapers and journalists, have observed this transformation in Trump.
They've taken note of it.
But a lot of candidates, when they lose their first time, they learn from their mistakes and then they make up for the mistakes that they made.
And what basically happened was, I think, is that Trump realized that there was a huge, untapped source of strength in America, both in the mass of people that were ready to support a candidate who was socially to the right, but economically not a neoconservative, not a trickle-down economics, big business, Wall Street type, but an actual populist, an economic populist, but socially very conservative, or you could say nationalist, that there was a natural,
huge voting base for that, but that the establishment was not serving those needs.
Not even the Libertarian Party, which is socially liberal and economically conservative or big business reforms.
See, Trump Trump wasn't even serving those needs in 2000.
I think he learned what his base wanted him to do, which was be a populist.
Yeah.
Well, that's what we're going to get into with Warren Net.
We're about to come up on a break, and what we're going to get into with Warren next tonight.
Warren did the research.
I mean, he dug deep.
I remembered all of this just from having been there and from my memory recall.
But Warren actually went back and he reviewed all of the articles from that time.
And fast forwarding to 2015, that's what we're going to do when we come back.
So you see that Donald Trump in his first campaign for president.
And people say, well, you're over-exaggerating that.
No, we're not.
You really did go for it.
And we're not the only ones saying that.
The NBC News and a whole panoply of other so-called mainstream sources have documented it, but I don't think nearly to the extent that this story should be told.
We're going to fast forward from 1999 and 2000 to 2015.
Trump versus Buchanan transitions to Trump versus Clinton, and there's big changes.
What were they, and why did they occur?
Warren Bailar is going to answer it when we come back.
Stay tuned, everybody.
Pursuing Liberty, using the Constitution as our guide.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
USA News.
I'm Dave Collins.
The Supreme Court is getting rid of a Trump-era ban on bump stocks.
The court ruled Friday that the firearm accessory that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly can't be included in a 1934 law banning machine guns.
Decision was 6-3 on the ideological line, striking down a regulation imposed during the Trump administration.
Despite the ruling, bump stocks remain illegal in 18 states.
The leader of Florida is worried about Russian ships being so close to his state.
John Schaefer has more.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed concern over the presence of Russian warships just 90 miles away in Cuba.
They are not going to be deterred by weakness.
They're not going to be deterred by confusion.
They're not going to be deterred by a president wandering around aimlessly at the G7.
DeSantis said that Russia's military activities in Cuba are alarming and blames the Biden administration's perceived stance of weakness for the situation.
South Florida is starting to dry out.
Governor Ron DeSantis says more rain is on the way, but he believes it will be closer to regular afternoon showers that residents usually experience this time of year.
DeSantis had declared a state of emergency earlier in the week as the rains flooded streets and stranded drivers.
Damage assessments are still underway.
The CDC is warning about a salmonella outbreak in at least nine states and linked to pet bearded dragons.
The CDC says at least 15 people, including four in New York, have contracted salmonella with symptoms including diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps.
Four have been hospitalized.
U.S. consumers are expected to spend roughly $22 billion on Father's Day gifts this weekend.
The National Retail Federation says the average consumer is shelling out around $190 on gifts and celebration for dad on Father's Day.
This is USA News.
Greece is cheap.
But the airfare costs a fortune.
Paris?
Not much closer.
And again, airfare.
What about Puerto Vallarta?
Let's face it.
Flying anywhere is just too expensive.
Wait, what's this?
Low-cost airlines.
With one call to low-cost airlines, you'll drastically slash your travel costs.
We're talking insanely low airline prices to any of your favorite destinations.
Where would you like to go?
London, Rome, Costa Rica, Australia?
Wow, that's cheap.
So why wait?
Call now to learn how crazy cheap it is to fly anywhere in the U.S. or international.
Our prices are so low, we can't publish them.
The only way to get them is to call to instantly hear the most amazing best deals on airline travel.
Hey friends, James Edwards here again to remind you that Analope Hill Publishing is America's premier provider of dissident literature.
They print books that mainstream publishers are too afraid to touch, providing you with information you need to challenge the status quo.
Whether your interest includes contemporary dissident politics, history that would otherwise be censored or slandered, philosophy, or exciting and thought-provoking fiction, you'll find plenty to love in the Antelope Hill catalog, which includes books such as Generation 68, The Elite Revolution, and its legacy, about the elite-driven cultural revolution of the 1960s, which transformed America.
Why to be on the moon about the demise of the space program due to diversity?
The sword of Christ, which argues for restoring Christianity as the foundation of the West, and combating heresies like Christian Zionism, speeches by Mussolini and other historical figures, and much more.
With new titles added every month, there's no doubt that they have something for everyone.
So check out their catalog today at antelopehillpublishing.com.
Hey there, TPC family.
This is James Edwards, your host of the Political Cesspool.
Folks, I want you to subscribe to the American Free Press, America's last real newspaper.
Against all odds, AFP has and continues to publish a populist, independent print newspaper with an unparalleled track record.
Founded by a dedicated group of experienced patriots, AFP pulls no punches and tackles the most controversial and pressing issues facing America from an America-first perspective.
I've worked with the American Free Press since even before the beginning of TPC.
Now, that's something.
You can subscribe to the print edition by visiting AmericanFreePress.net today or simply pick up a handy digital edition subscription.
However, you do it, subscribe to the American Free Press, America's last real newspaper, by visiting AmericanFreePress.net or by calling 1-88-699 News, AmericanFreePress.net.
Welcome back, and back with us is Warren Bailog, a second-generation nationalist who got interested in politics and history in high school when he was 18 years old.
I was 20.
You're 20 and still in high school?
No, no, no.
He was 18 and he's still in.
Anyway, at 18, he was a volunteer for the Pat Buchanan campaign, a delegate, as I was at the Reform Party Convention in the summer of 2000, which we've been talking about during the first half of this hour.
He spent many years active in electoral politics until the alt-right came along when he attended the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.
By the way, Jason Kessler, author of the book Charlottesville and the Death of Free Speech, will be our guest later tonight in the third hour.
Eventually, Warren co-founded the National Justice Party in 2020, was one of its main speakers and activists.
And by the way, I should say, I watched several of Warren's speeches to the NJP, and I told myself, the next time I do an event, the next time we do a TPC conference, Warren is getting the call.
We've got to have him there.
And he came and he did not disappoint.
And now he's doing a weekly show on Odyssey with his wife Emily, Modern Politics.
And he also does War Strike twice weekly on Odyssey and Rumble.
So be sure to check that out.
Got this letter in, well, this handwritten note, I should say, in from listener in Missouri.
The old folks there call it Missouri.
My wife and I enjoyed the conference.
This is one of our attendees, one of our dear friends, especially meeting Warren Bailog, Tim Murdoch, and Jason Kessler for the first time.
So, Warren, well received you were.
That was a fantastic event a month ago, this weekend, as it turns out.
Oh, I know.
I can't believe it was.
It was already, it's been a month.
This month has gone by quickly.
No, I just want to say again, James, what a wonderful event that was.
I mean, it was just not only do you have just such quality people who are listeners who were there.
You know, my co-host on War Strike, Eric Stryker, Joseph Jordan is real name, but he goes by Eric Stryker.
He's a big believer of quality audience over quantity.
You know, he's always telling me that when we stream.
You know, he tries to build a very high-quality audience.
He doesn't do a lot of drama stuff or nonsense.
He always keeps it pretty highbrow or high-quality content.
And we've had a tremendous live stream viewing base that we've built since January.
And it's convinced me of the idea that you put out good stuff and you will get good people back.
You get good people back.
So it was an amazing event.
The people, the political successful, longtime listeners who were there were great.
And it was also a great honor to meet some people I'd never met before, like Brad Griffin and Jason Kessler, who I was aware of all these years, and I'd never met him before.
So fantastic event.
Once again, congratulations on that.
Well, made better by you, brother.
That is the absolute truth.
And especially with what you were talking about, which interested so many lifelong activists and advocates for our cause that weren't as familiar with it, and you really wouldn't be unless you had been there as you and I had been.
I tell you, the two speakers out of the whole panoply of them that basically were a different new look were you and Tim Murdoch, in my opinion.
Well, everybody was great, but everybody was great in different ways.
And yeah, I mean, I know what you're driving at, Keith, but there was just the information that you shared was, I think, really, I think, of historical importance, but it was not as widely known even in our own ranks.
So, again, resetting.
Talking about 1999 and 2000, Donald Trump to 2015.
And Warren, I got to tell you, when Donald Trump descended so famously that golden escalator and announced his candidacy, and I was reading headlines that Donald Trump announced that he was running for the 2016 GOP nomination, I was like, this guy again, because the only thing I knew about him other than his celebrity and the apprentice and him being a New York real estate magnate was that he had run against his most famous words up to that point were, you're fired, which is not music to the ears of a lot of his base.
He was a celebrity.
I hated the guy.
I mean, I hated him.
Like, I will tell you guys, because my first experience with Donald Trump as an 18-year-old, you know, fanatic Buchanan supporter was seeing this guy on, I think it was Meet the Press about Buchanan.
Oh, he's a Hitler lover.
He doesn't like the blacks.
He doesn't like the gays.
And I remember thinking, who is this Richie Rich, this little spoiled rich kid, pursing his lips with his coffee hair, denigrating Buchanan?
And then his Danny O. Buchanan.
I hated Donald Trump for about 15 years until I never forgave him for that.
I mean, every time I thought of the guy, I just heard him talking about Buchanan as a Hitler lover.
And then when I saw in 2015, I saw him give a talk about immigration, and I was like, what the hell, man?
I got to pay attention to this.
Calling them rapists.
I will say he never fully won me over emotionally because I still had that residual dislike of him to begin with.
But I thought, you know, if he's doing it, we've got to back him.
That was my philosophy in 2016.
That's right.
That's right.
Point out, though.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, Warren.
Go ahead.
And then, Keith.
Well, I just want to say this connection.
This connection.
Let Warren go with the.
Okay, I'm trying.
Traffic cop.
Warren, you go, then Keith.
Go, Warren.
Okay, all right.
I'm sorry, Keith.
I just want to say this connection I wanted to mention is something that was immediately spotted by a lot of, like I said, elite media and a lot of Jews, frankly.
I mean, to just not put too fine a point on it.
I mean, the people writing about it, I mentioned some quotes in my speech.
I went through a whole list of them, and I won't bore you with all of them.
But one of them, one of the early ones, was a guy named Matt Grossman wrote for Vox.
And if you guys know Vox, that's very neoliberal.
Ezra Klein, that's like almost J4J media.
He wrote in April of 2016, he wrote an article, Donald Trump Learned Overt Nativism from Losing His First Campaign to Pat Buchanan.
And he said that Donald Trump has earned six times the media coverage of any other Republican candidate.
So it may seem there's no stories left to be told about his campaign, but one has gone surprisingly ignored.
Trump lost his first presidential campaign to Pat Buchanan and learned to copy Buchanan's nativist appeal in the process.
And he goes through the history of it, and he says that one aspect of Trump's first campaign decidedly different from 2016.
He declined to pursue a nativist appeal.
In fact, he reportedly accused Buchanan of racism, calling him a neo-Nazi Hitler lover with prehistoric views, allied with the lunatic fringe.
And actually, Trump in his book wrote that Buchanan has written too many inflammatory, outrageous, and controversial things and has systematically bashed blacks, Mexicans, and gays.
And then essentially, he asked, what did Trump learn from his first presidential campaign?
He said that he retained the anti-trade message, but added Buchanan's warning of losing the country to ethnic and religious minorities.
He lashed out against undocumented Mexican immigrants in his announcement speech, made the Muslim ban the centerpiece of his campaign, earning the support of Buchanan and Duke, even resurrected Nixon's silent majority rhetoric, a phrase suggested to Nixon by Buchanan.
And then Grossman writes, in retrospect, this changed approach does not seem like an accident.
Many political candidates learn from their first loss, sometimes overcompensating in an effort to remedy their biggest difficulty from the prior campaign in losing to Buchanan.
Trump learned that many disaffected anti-establishment voters shared Buchanan's ethnocentric views.
In his first campaign, he avoided nativism and never led.
This time, he began with Buchanan's message and led from the beginning, perhaps losing to Buchanan.
That is huge.
That is a huge thing coming from establishment media.
Keith, go.
Okay, well, what fantastic is that?
What Trump did learn is he still is toned up on the gay issue and on the race issue.
For example, he's trying to dust off the platinum plan again.
I would challenge him to do this.
You know, put your money where your mouth is, Donald.
Tell the Jews and tell the blacks.
You give me 50% of your votes.
I'll make the platinum plan a priority.
I'll make Jewish issues a priority.
But right now, the dispiriting thing that we see on the right is that maybe 5% of the blacks will vote for Donald Trump and he'll act like 95% of them did.
See, that's what he's he still has that being out of the country.
None of that.
Typically, the 2016 campaign.
Remember, he lost the 2020 campaign when he was talking about the people.
Because what he's talking about.
Yes, Trump lost the alt-right.
He did not have the passionate support of our people.
There were many white working class voters.
For instance, I was living in Western PA.
There's a lot of union people there who are white working class.
And these are people who had been Democrat for years.
A lot of them hated Hillary Clinton, though, so much that they voted for Trump in 2016.
But anecdotally, I know that a lot of these people by 2020 didn't vote for him.
And I know some small businessmen and others who had a little more money or a little more like traditional conservative types who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and then voted for him in 2020.
So what we're talking about is not Trump today and not Trump in 2020, but specifically his successful 2016 campaign.
This is not a referendum on Trump.
We know the pros and the cons, and we know that he lost about 3% of the white working class votes.
Those are things that he hasn't learned that he could have learned from Buchanan.
That's fine, but that's not the ⁇ again, that's not the purpose of this conversation.
But the purpose of this conversation is from 1999 to 2015, when Trump announced his intention to seek the GOP nomination, you had a completely different candidate.
Because Warren, I saw that he was running.
I was like, you know, this guy, this guy that, you know, bashed Pat.
And then I started listening to what he had to say.
And I was like, well, what the hell is going on here?
Because this was a transformation.
Whether it's sincere, insincere, whatever, you nailed it in this regard, Warren.
You commented in that speech at TPC's 20th anniversary conference last month that Trump has always been good at recognizing an undervalued property and picking it up at a steal.
And that analogy played into, hey, there is this untapped reservoir of political strength in this country that nobody wants to harness.
And I'm going to do it and I'm going to become president.
And he did.
How did that ability play into his political politics?
Absolutely.
And I'll tell you, he talks about this openly in The Art of the Deal.
Now, The Art of the Deal, people say, oh, that was ghostwritten for him.
There's enough of Donald Trump, particularly, I think it's in the second chapter where he goes through the elements of the deal.
So a lot of like the stories and anecdotes and stuff, you know, you can throw out.
But there's certain elements of his thinking that come through very strongly in that.
The key thing you have to understand about Trump is he's a Queens man.
He is a guy from Queens who, looking across at Manhattan, was never in with that set of the Manhattan old money, the old money Manhattanites.
Trump is a guy who always viewed himself outside of that and always sort of antagonistic to that elite, wanting to be accepted by them, but at the same time going a different way.
And he talks about how he was building skyscrapers that all the old money bluebloods in New York were very thought, you know, Trump is flashy, he's gaudy, he's tasteless.
But he was beating them at their own game.
And it's very important him to do that.
So one of the ways he did that that he talks about was he was very good at spotting a property that he could turn into like a waterfront property that's run down, that everyone thinks is worthless.
Trump gets it and then turns it around and builds something and makes something out of it.
And he says that it's not the key thing with a deal, with making a deal, is not getting a high-value property or a low-value property.
The key thing is basically the profit you make on it.
So in other words, you can get killed getting an expensive property that's in a great location if you pay too much for it, the same way as you can get killed buying something in a lousy location.
You don't pay anything for it.
The key is to find something that can be turned around with hype, with momentum, with salesmanship, you know, to take something and turn it around.
And that's politically what he did.
Politically, that's what he did.
And I think that's why, and I think he knows he was doing it.
And I think that's in 2016.
If you look in retrospect, the reaction of the Republican elites and the Democrat elites, it's basically because the Bushes and the gores of this world have a kind of unspoken gentleman's agreement that you don't go there.
You don't go where George Wallace went.
You don't, frankly, where Huey Long went, but even and Father Coglin, but even where the people went.
Yes, you don't go there because if you go there, you unleash, you open up this Pandora's box.
White resentment, white lash, white rural, white rage.
That whole thing, like we want white people to pay taxes.
We want them to serve in our military and go fight our overseas wars.
We want them to work all their lives and produce and keep the infrastructure going, but we don't want to give them a voice, those frustrated masses of people.
It's an easy way to get a lot of power quick if you give them a voice, but now they're going to want more of that.
Now they're not going to be content to be just like the horse that's doing the pulling and getting beaten.
And I think that's what Trump broke.
He broke that decorum, and it felt like the personality and the way he did business in New York even.
He's a guy who breaks decorum for himself.
He will just go where no one else will, break all the standards and the codes, and get ahead that way.
And I think that's what he did in 2016 by appealing to that base.
And he learned it from his experience getting beaten by Pat Buchanan.
That's the million dollar question.
You just summed it up.
You answered my question in advance.
That's the million dollar question.
Did all of this occur, this era of Trumpianism from 2016, nearly a decade now, it was all result, in your opinion, and it's an opinion that I shared.
It's an opinion that Steve Kardaki from NBC News shares and all of these other people, Aarry Berman of The Atlantic, all of these other journalists, so-called journalists, share all of it as a result of Pat Buchanan.
Do you agree?
I mean, obviously you do, but I mean, I absolutely do.
I'll talk one other quote about it, which was really great, because there was article after article about this.
But one of them, you mentioned that.
It's at once been documented, but it's at once been documented, but at the same time been underreported.
It has.
Well, because, again, the people writing about this are, again, like, again, a lot of Jews and people who are very, like your real liberal media.
And minority media, pro-black people are also overrepresented in the chattering classes now.
But they're not the ones writing these articles.
Warren's got a got a lot of people.
They're not the ones writing these articles.
No, these are cold, like the kind of people that write for The Atlantic.
I mean, there was an article actually just in the Atlantic this past April.
Aaron Berman wrote in The Atlantic.
And The Atlantic is like your real, I mean, super globalist neoliberal publication.
They used to be ultra-waspy back in the 50s and things like that.
And they've tried to write now.
Now it's ultra something else.
But they said the conservative.
Not waspressing.
Like George Legarocco would say, the Eskimos, you know, he was one of the boys.
The conservative who turned white anxiety into a movement.
And the subheading was, Pat Buchanan made white Republicans fear becoming a racial minority.
Donald Trump is now reaping the benefits.
And it said that, you know, basically Trump succeeded where Buchanan failed, and partly because of how much the country has changed.
But that Steve Karnaki article, this was the one last quote I wanted to read.
This is an amazing quote.
He wrote this thing in 2018 called When Trump Ran Against Trumpism.
And he said that the version of Trump who dipped his toe into the presidential ring almost two decades ago was a jarringly different man ideologically.
And he said, here's what he wrote: He said he wanted a wall along the entire southern border and a pause on all immigration.
He vowed to rip up trade deals and revive manufacturing.
He hated political correctness and warned of the decline of Western culture.
He railed against the rigged system and fomented a populist uprising that terrified the Republican Party leaders.
He was endorsed by David Duke, and he was denounced and labeled a racist by Donald Trump.
He says his name was Pat Buchanan.
And when he set out in 99 on his third presidential campaign of the decade under the banner of the Reform Party, he encountered unexpected competition from Trump, a bombastic New Yorker who turned the race for the reform nomination into an insult-heavy pop culture spectacle.
In style and tactic, this Trump was indistinguishable from the man the world knows today.
But on substance, he was jarring, a jarringly different man, running against a worldview he would a few years later embrace.
And as you said, Keith, I don't think he actually really did embrace the view so much as he used it to power himself to the White House.
But it still is significant, whether or not that's the point I made in the question and answer thing is that it doesn't matter whether Trump personally, I personally believe Trump is a cynic and an opportunist.
I don't believe he really, because he governed as a traditional Republican in many ways.
However, he unleashed these forces for better or for worse.
I mean, for better.
He unleashed these forces.
He was the agent of change that unleashed these forces.
The genie out of the bottle.
Yes, he let the cat out of the bag, the genie out of the bottle, the Pandora's box, whatever you want to say.
And I don't think we're going back to the politics of the 90s.
I just when preparing the show I just did, I rewatched the whole 1992 debate with Perot, Bush, H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton when he was first running.
I'd never watched the whole thing before because I was only 10 years old when that debate happened in 1992.
And oh my God, when you watch it, these two are basically the same, Bush and Clinton, on immigration, on foreign policy, on trade.
They were indistinguishable.
Ross Perot was challenging them on those things somewhat, but they were basically the same.
The whole establishment, I think, wants to go back to that world, and they can't because of what we've just had.
People have gotten a taste of this.
They're not going to want to give it up.
Like Thomas Wolf said, the novelist from North Carolina, you can't go home again.
But let me say this: one of Pat Buchanan's famous sayings was, go hunting where the ducks are.
That's right.
If Trump wants to cross the finish line and become the president again, he basically needs to stop pandering to Jews, stop pandering to blacks with the platinum plan and stuff like that, and tailor his message to that disaffected white Gentile majority in America that is his natural base.
If he does that, I think that he can win again.
If he doesn't, he's putting, you know, it's going to be a crapshoot again.
Inadvertent is a word that I attach a lot to Donald Trump.
He has inadvertently done a lot of good and has moved our issues and our cause.
He has advanced our issues and our cause more than our collective ever could, perhaps inadvertently, but nevertheless, he has still done it.
And Warren, the point of this conversation, this hour of talk radio tonight is to say that he did it because of lessons he learned losing to Pat Buchanan to a much lesser and insignificant extent to the people who were behind Buchanan, people like us.
And that is something that I will forever, ever be proud of.
Who could have known then, Warren?
I mean, we were wanting Pat to make a show.
We were wanting Pat to win.
We were wanting Pat to, at least if he couldn't win, build a lasting movement.
He did it, but not in the ways we could have foreseen then.
But we were there and we were part of it.
And by God, we were right about all the issues.
That's the big thing, James, is that we were right about all the issues.
We and everybody who supported Pat and the people who supported Perot to a lesser extent, I think, but we were all right.
I mean, I was just reviewing Ross Perot talking about the giant sucking sound.
You know, I joked with Emily, I said on the show, I said the giant sucking sound.
And she was like, wait, what?
And I said, yeah, there's a Wikipedia entry on the giant sucking sound of all the NAFTA, all the jobs being shipped overseas when we passed NAFTA.
And Emily said, oh, well, that's good.
She said, I thought you meant that Ross Perot made a giant sucking sound.
I was like, no, no, no, no, he didn't.
But people don't remember that.
But on foreign policy, overextended, you know, foreign wars, wars for Israel.
I mean, look at what's going on over there now.
On trade, because Perot and then Buchanan also were talking about, you know, we can't, Perot said in that debate, he said, you can't take the manufacturer.
In World War II, we could go from manufacturing cars to manufacturing planes or tanks, but you can't go from manufacturing potato chips to manufacturing planes if you need to in a hurry.
Right now, we see that problem that the Zog is happening with Ukraine.
They can't manufacture enough munitions to keep this Jewish junta they got in Ukraine well-funded.
They're overextended.
We see it with also immigration above all.
I mean, back in 1999, who was talking about immigration?
Just fringe groups, fringe groups.
Now, it's gotten so much worse.
It's a full-on invasion.
It's one of the largest invasions, one migration, one population into a new territory in human history, probably over the last 25 years.
So we've got to give ourselves credit.
We were right.
And everybody who supported Buchanan and everybody who was in our movement, and that's why it pays to be on the, you know, you could say the right side of history.
Even when you're a fringe and no one, you're blacked out by the media or you're persecuted or whatever.
If you know the truth and you're on to it and you're sounding the alarm bell, eventually you will be vindicated.
And for whatever, that counts.
I mean, obviously, like I said in my speech, we got to win.
And one other thing, though.
There's something to be said about being there first, even when it's the time.
The well-begun is half done.
He needs to.
Nothing is more disheartening to his base than to have 5% of the black population vote for Trump.
And then when you get in, spending 95% of your time trying to press.
This isn't even a bad image.
It's about the issues being winning.
Well, the thing is, we want it to be about transforming America, not getting lip service.
Well, what we are about is our issues being winning issues.
I get it.
No, I get it too.
But our issues are winning issues, and that's the point.
Trump, as you know now, is there.
We're taking away from our bragging rights.
We were there.
We're trying to get a chance to brag a little bit.