Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 8, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:21:06

Live with Jeremy Carl, Senior Fellow at Claremont Institute - Viva & Barnes SIDEBAR!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'll tell you something else that's going to get you a lot of hits.
	I am taking a, what do they call it, like a regular dose, you know, whatever.
	They're trying to build up, of ivermectin.
	Ivermectin was a boogeyman early on in COVID.
	You couldn't talk about it.
	That was wrong.
	We were given bad information about ivermectin.
	The real question is, why?
	Everyone's going to say Joe Rogan was right.
	No, Joe Rogan was saying, yeah, he was right.
	But that's not what matters.
	What matters is the entire clinical community knew that ivermectin couldn't hurt you.
	They knew it, Patrick.
	I know they knew it.
	How do I know?
	Because now I'm doing nothing but talking to these clinicians who at the time were overwhelmed by COVID and they weren't saying anything.
	Not that they were hiding anything.
	But it's cheap.
	It's not owned by anybody.
	And it's used as an antimicrobial.
	Antiviral in all of these different ways and has been for a long time.
	For malaria for almost 20 years.
	Yeah.
	And my doctor, who is now my doctor, was using it during COVID on her family and on patients.
	And it was working for them.
	So they were wrong to play scared on that.
	Didn't know that at the time.
	Know it now.
	Admit it now.
	They didn't know it at the time?
	Oh my goodness.
	I don't want to take out too much of any personal animus on Chris Cuomo because I don't really have any.
	But you see how they just wash their hands?
	He has a doctor now who was prescribing it to family then because the doctor knew then what they were saying then was a lie.
	And then you had Chris Cuomo.
	That was the information they were giving us and we were just repeating it.
	Demonizing other people.
	Canceling other people.
	Shutting other people down.
	It sounds like Chris Cuomo, like I said to him when I saw him at the Unusual Suspects, is having something of a red pill moment.
	And with that comes the understanding that he was not just part of the problem, but that he might have caused harm to people through what he said at the time.
	What he and the others in the media said at the time.
	Why did they have bad information?
	They've known forever that it was safe ivermectin, whether or not it was a useful prophylactic.
	I don't want to get into too much medical advice or any of it.
	For that matter.
	But he's having an awakening now.
	And there needs to be atonement for the wrong information that they propagated because their pharma-sponsored pharma companies, who had them by the balls and by the wallet, were telling them what to say and telling them what not to question.
	And they very well did kill people.
	Period.
	It was the best information we had at the time.
	Well, maybe you should have been getting your education.
	From tonight's sponsor, hillsdale.edu forward slash Viva.
	Maybe if these idiots had studied the Constitution, they wouldn't have been all gung-ho about these medical tyrants violating our constitutional rights.
	When you came in here, you notice it said a little, this contains a paid promotion.
	This is another one.
	Information is the gift that, once given, can never be given back.
	They can never take it back from you.
	Disinformation, however, the ones that they were sitting around...
	Accusing others of spreading disinformation, now admitting they were the disinformation.
	And yeah, he should have studied a little bit more.
	Hillsdale.edu.
	That's why I'm excited.
	That Hillsdale.edu is offering more than 40 online courses in subject matter that people should know.
	Constitution.
	The readings of C.S. Lewis.
	I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said, the worst tyrant is the one who torments you with the blessing of their own soul.
	Because they can do it forever.
	You want to read the book of Genesis?
	Constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, might be more relevant now than ever.
	The history of the ancient Greek church.
	Hillsdale College is online.
	Their courses are free.
	That's right, free.
	My favorite, by the way, and I love it, and I think I'm going to maybe one day take a test.
	We'll see.
	Constitution 101, the meaning and history of the U.S. Constitution.
	Can you imagine the beauty of that document?
	And we're appreciating the forethought, or the aforethought, or the...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The predictive...
	Magical power of that constitution.
	A 12-lecture course, you'll explore the design and purpose of the constitution, the challenges faced during the Civil War and during modern times, and how it has been undermined for more than a century by progressivism and liberalism.
	Courses are self-paced.
	You can start and stop whenever you want.
	Enroll now Constitution 101.
	Our country needs more Americans who understand the constitution, and hopefully they'll even potentially take a Canadian who understands the constitution, and that can defend the freedom of the American people against encroachments of an increasingly large and unaccountable Go to...
	Am I showing the link right now?
	I am.
	Okay, good.
	Go to the link.
	It is hillsdale.edu forward slash viva to enroll.
	No cost.
	Easy to get started.
	hillsdale.edu forward slash viva.
	And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, and I didn't screw this up, which I don't think I did, the link is in the description.
	Bada bing, bada boom, Hillsdale.
	Maybe Cuomo.
	I'll send him a link.
	It's free, so I have no problem giving him a link.
	I'll email it to Chris.
	All right, tonight, by the way, A man who might understand the Constitution.
	A man who might understand the, what are we calling it?
	It's called the CRA.
	And in Canada, that's called the Canadian Revenue Agency.
	Here, it's the Civil Rights Act.
	Jeremy Call wrote a book, by the way.
	You're going to get to meet him, but he wrote a book and he called it The Unprotected Class.
	And I know this now because I've been listening to podcasts all day.
	He had floated calling it It's Okay to be White.
	And my goodness, look, hindsight is 20-20.
	He should have called it.
	It's okay to be white.
	It's going to be an amazing discussion.
	It'll probably piss some people off, but alas, it's the internet.
	If you're not pissing people off, you're doing something wrong.
	Okay, we're going to bring in...
	I'll bring in Barnes first.
	Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
	Relatively good, good.
	Do I ask before I bring in Jeremy?
	I had an oral argument for the Eighth Circuit Minneapolis on Tuesday, and I got the corporatist wing of the Republican appointees.
	So, you know, they shed tears like Niagara Falls when they think a big corporation's getting sued.
	So they have 100 excuses why vaccine-related religious harassment and discrimination is okay because big corporations need to be protected, too.
	As Mitt Romney would say, corporations are people, too.
	Okay, well, I guess the silver lining, it looks like your internet's back on.
	Oh, yeah, I got a whole new thing set up.
	It turned out I had too many internets coming in.
	So it was breaking each other up.
	All right, well, we're going to bring in Jeremy Carl now, who, from what I understand, Robert, you've known him for a third, well, it's going to be 30 years, going on 30 years.
	Jeremy, I'm bringing you in, and I think I'm going to put myself on the bottom.
	There we go.
	So that I don't, when I bring up comments, let me see what's going on in here, that it doesn't cover my, it doesn't, it'll cover, oh, look at that, look what it does.
	Viva and Barnes, love you guys.
	Viva, do you still like turtles?
	Yes.
	Except when we catch them fishing, and it happened.
	I didn't snag it.
	I caught a snapping turtle, and it was not a pleasant experience.
	Jeremy, sorry, I hope that intro wasn't too traumatizing, but you look like a tough man.
	First of all, okay, tell us who you are.
	Tell us how you know Robert and how far back this relationship goes.
	Sure.
	So I'm a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, which is a public policy think tank.
	I served in the Trump administration.
	Before that, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior and the President.
	Also appointed me to the National Board of Education Sciences.
	Prior to that, I spent a decade as a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and did a bunch of stuff before that.
	And I think more relevantly to this podcast, I have known Robert or Bob, as I'm going to probably just miscall him throughout this podcast because it was Bob when I first knew him, as an 18-year-old freshman at the decidedly non-populist Yale University, with which Bob eventually sensibly transferred away from.
	I think his junior year, but we knew each other for two or three years there, and we were involved in a lot of political stuff.
	And I've got to tell the listeners, I think Bob is pretty much the same guy now that he was back then.
	Same issues, same populism, same distrust of all the bad guys in the institutions.
	As I was listening to him talk about the circuit court, I was like, man, that could have been...
	We actually lived together with a few other students one summer in Georgetown, and I was like, you know...
	That could have been the Bob Barnes from right back then talking.
	So this will be a fun conversation.
	Look forward to it.
	I mean, I remember some of the political correctness coming in to Yale.
	I, along with Nick Adamo, Sam Ingersoll, we started a little organization there for a little while.
	We had different names, Poor at Yale, Pay, which was kind of fun.
	But the other one was Real Diversity.
	And it was approaching, in part, The issues you're talking about in The Unprotected Class, your new book.
	But it's reached a whole new scale.
	There were tremors, if you will, of the coming earthquake of what critical race theory and everything has become.
	What I consider fundamentally not just a racist ideology of bashing and attacking people because of the color of their skin, just happened to be white, but also an anti-American.
	ideology that's fundamentally about being anti-American.
	But still my favorite census demographic.
	When the census goes out and they ask, what's your ancestry?
	And they'll get some people that say...
	What are you talking about?
	American.
	And the census person will get confused and the person will get offended.
	No, I'm an American, USOB.
	They send the bureaucrat back and they got to check it on the box.
	It was a good way to track where Trump was going to do well in 2016.
	That's absolutely true.
	And the number one place that really is strong is Appalachia.
	That's how people will identify themselves as American more than anywhere else.
	You got to spell it right.
	It's apostrophe M-U-R-I-C-A-N.
	Absolutely.
	To get it right.
	But what sets you on generally this path?
	And I was like, or well, first of all, I was going to ask, going back to Yale, we saw the tremors.
	I don't think, you know, we saw the full quake of it, but that's until the last maybe decade or so.
	But on this issue of how, what did you see at Yale that has led to what Yale is today?
	So what was your experience when we were both there?
	Yeah, I mean, I think it's an interesting question.
	I think for all the people, particularly a lot of the Zoomers and maybe Zoomers listening to this call, who are like, ah, this is new, it's terrible.
	And it is.
	It's worse.
	But I distinctly remember on my freshman dorm wall at Yale, and this is down-dating myself completely, this would have been 1991, September 1991.
	Coming with a Newsweek magazine cover that was about, it was titled Political Correctness.
	Is it the new Enlightenment or the new McCarthyism?
	And, you know, political correctness is kind of, it's not quite wokeness, but it's basically the same sort of thing.
	So these issues were out there.
	It wasn't as extreme.
	It hadn't completely taken over the institutions in the way that it has now.
	But these issues have been playing out for a long time.
	And now we're seeing the consequences.
	Of these kind of radicals who've just completely taken over and are really running the show now.
	Well, we're going to get into your role in the Trump administration, but what did you study at Yale again?
	So I was a history major, but Bob and I were both very involved in the Yale Political Union, which I ran.
	And it's funny you mentioned, I don't want to make this too somber, but literally it's so frightening, Bob, that you just mentioned this because I was literally thinking about him yesterday.
	You mentioned Nicodemo.
	Nick Adamo was the one guy I met in my life who I was like, that guy could be president.
	He was a Yale football player.
	He'd been homeless, like a real populist like Bob, and was tragically killed in a plane crash the year after graduating.
	It sort of shows how random the world can be.
	But we were, you know, on a kind of cheerier note, we were very involved in campus politics.
	And so I kind of dealt with the whole range of issues there.
	And I was not, obviously, I was not as conservative as I became.
	I was kind of an independent.
	I was definitely a rebel against the received wisdom and the received things that I was supposed to imbibe from Yale's administration and a lot of my peers.
	Nick was great.
	I got wind of what had happened.
	Spent a few days with my good buddy Jack Daniels thanks to that.
	I was thinking of all the people to suffer a tragedy.
	There were some people at Yale that I wouldn't have cried over.
	But Nick, that was a rough one.
	He loved to sit down for Yale students because he grew up homeless in the streets of New York City.
	He had all kinds of stories.
	And he would just regal these kids at cafeteria time.
	Just random strangers with these stories just to educate them on who they are.
	And he still gave maybe the best definition of a response to this.
	The beginnings of political correctness, or the woke revolution, the precursors were the political correctness revolution.
	He used to say, man, here at Yale, we got a week that even honors gay whales.
	Well, what about something for blue-collar people?
	Would that be really a crime?
	But it was the beginnings of the signs of what was happening, the slow...
	March through the institutions in the Gromsky way or the long march, if you borrow from the old communist references, that has now taken over so many places.
	When did you first start witnessing this professionally and culturally?
	Because to me, it didn't become fully cognizant until the whole Trump revolution.
	And then seeing in the second term of the Obama administration where this old...
	Sort of destructive ideology of let's celebrate wokeness, let's celebrate race and gender and identity, let's strip meritocracy from everything, let's be anti-American, anti-nationalism even, and then unleashing it with probably the number one public policy promoting this destructive ideology is open borders in many respects.
	But going through your whole professional experience, when did it start to become...
	I think ironically, I kind of, or maybe not, I had to kind of go outside the system entirely before I could really get that perspective on it.
	So I got married in 2004, and my wife and I moved to India, and I was doing sort of public policy work out there.
	And it was in India that I began to see the way that politics around caste and community and everything there.
	was really kind of the same playbook that I was seeing around race in the United States.
	You know, talk about privilege and this and that.
	And at the same, right around this time, I read Thomas Sowell's book, Affirmative Action Around the World.
	And he kind of looks at not just kind of racial discrimination here in the United States through affirmative action, but he sort of compares it to other places.
	And so that was really the first time I really began to think kind of more seriously about these issues.
	But then I would say, Things got much more radical at the beginning of the second term of the Obama administration.
	And I think in some ways that's going to be the subject for the follow-on book here to an extent, because I actually don't have a perfect answer as to what happens.
	I have some educated guesses, but we really see it.
	We see it even in the social science survey data, where all of a sudden things become much, much more anti-white.
	Everything goes much more crazy.
	Bob, I think you're correct to point out that in the Trump admin, As soon as Trump goes down the escalator, everything goes up to 11. So it gets much, much more severe, much, much more unhinged.
	And it really hasn't stopped since then that we've kind of been seeing that.
	But I think its origins go back a little bit further.
	Jeremy, it's funny you mentioned the second term Obama's 2012, give or take.
	I'm thinking Trudeau came into power in 2015 in Canada.
	And I noticed it as of 2015, but I think it started infiltrating Canada a little earlier as well.
	And so it doesn't seem to be just an American phenomenon.
	I don't know if it's in your experience or in what you've studied, if it's a Western phenomenon.
	In other Western countries, there began to be this same sort of backlash against whiteness, European ancestry.
	Well, I think clearly, and I mean, you look at particularly as bad as white people in America have been in defending their basic rights, and I think we have been really bad.
	In Europe, it's even worse.
	And, you know, the immigration system in particular there and the immigration situation, as bad as it is here, at least until, I mean, maybe we're kind of getting comparable finally under Biden.
	But in Europe, the borders were even more open, and the consequences of open borders were even more destructive than I think they've been in the U.S. And so I think there are absolutely bigger things coming on.
	Again, I do touch on this.
	I do address it in the book.
	But I think, honestly, it's such a big subject that I kind of feel like it probably deserves a lot of a book of its own.
	And fortunately, this book is already...
	Been going like gangbusters.
	And so I think there's definitely going to be a sequel out there for me to explore this a little more.
	Could you give folks a basic description of the thesis of the book and some of the ideas that are communicated in it and the intended audience for it?
	Sure.
	Well, let me first start with the intended audience.
	And it's really written very consciously.
	It is not to kind of use the online term.
	For the edgiest of edgelords, you know, whatever else.
	I mean, now I have given it.
	I have friends who answer to that description and I've given it to them and they've been like, wow, you know, even I learned a lot.
	So I'm not suggesting that they would not benefit from it.
	But I really did try to write a book that took a very provocative issue like this and said, actually...
	I'm going to make this thesis that everybody else on the left particularly is going to scream and say this is horrible or racist or awful and say, no, this is actually a totally mainstream thing.
	I'm going to argue it in a very moderate and responsible way.
	I'm not going to do a lot of bomb throwing.
	I think the best things my editor did is it wasn't a particularly overheated rhetorical manuscript even when I submitted it.
	But as we went through the editing process, any time that things got a little bit heated, we just struck it out.
	So it's really a just the facts, ma 'am.
	I mean, I've got a thousand.
	References in there.
	And essentially, the thesis of the book is that anti-white racism is kind of the predominant form, or not just the only form, but the predominant form of racism in American society, that it's really damaging, that if we don't do something about it, it's going to be very bad, not just for white people, but for all Americans.
	So that's kind of the quick elevator pitch thesis.
	How I demonstrate that is I first kind of give a little bit of a lay of the land.
	Then I talk about the civil rights revolution because I don't think you can talk about this issue without addressing civil rights law.
	And Bob is an attorney and I know you'll be very familiar with that.
	I then get into...
	11 different chapters where I look at a whole bunch of different subjects.
	So I look at everything from the military to healthcare to entertainment to education to, you know, you kind of name it, immigration.
	Each of them gets their own chapter and I sort of explore what anti-whiteness looks like in the context of these areas.
	And what I, you know, it's not that nobody's ever done or looked at any of this before, but it's everybody's looked at just civil rights law or they look at, you know, just how education is going woke.
	I tried to kind of take a much broader brush and say, hey, we've got a bunch of blind men touching the proverbial elephant here.
	And what I'm trying to do is bring it all together and say, the elephant is an elephant.
	It's the same thing that's underlying all of this.
	And then I kind of offer what's inherently, of course, a more speculative look at why this is going on and then what we can do about it.
	So that's the book.
	And hopefully I give your audience a little bit of a sense of why I'm interested.
	Jeremy, I got to read it just because it's funny.
	I said, well, someone's going to clip some of this and say that this is a white nationalist party.
	This is from the Washington Compost.
	A top interior official has controversial views on race.
	He used a white supremacist website to support them.
	And then the funniest part was right here.
	American Renaissance, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, quote, has been one of the vilest white nationalist publications often promoting eugenics and blatant anti-black and anti-Latino racists.
	I don't know what this American Renaissance featured in the publications.
	He had a 12 Steps to White Recovery.
	Carl's past writings and links were brought to light by the Huffington Post, Media Matters, which was on.
	All right.
	I mean, everybody knows.
	Anyone who's white is a white nationalist, period, unless you're one of those groveling self-apologists.
	You know that this was when you were accepting the post of the Trump administration, that they were going to scour through your past and drudge things up.
	Right.
	Yeah, it was interesting.
	And I knew this was out there.
	And of course, this kind of actually, it's a fascinating example.
	I talk about this in the book, by the way.
	I'm not running away from any of this.
	I have a whole thing where I talk about my time in Interior when this came up.
	And it had nothing, of course, not any of it to do with any of the work I was doing in Interior.
	But this is a classic example of how the left uses their information ecosystem to create a scandal where none exists.
	So basically, the origin of this was...
	I wrote a piece for foxnews.com.
	I mean, I do almost all my own pieces.
	I almost never accept a pitch from somebody else.
	But in this one case, the editor, who was kind of a friend of mine, said, hey, can you do this?
	I wrote a piece in five hours, which is like really, really fast.
	I mean, insanely fast for me.
	I'm normally really deliberate.
	Turned it in.
	It was a piece about nothing.
	It was about some controversy around Starbucks and bathrooms or something.
	Didn't think anything of it.
	A year later, I get a call.
	From the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a left-wing, muckraking organization.
	And they're like, well, why did you link to American Renaissance, this white nationalist site, in your piece?
	And I'm like, well, what are you talking about?
	So presumably some editor had, you know, put links in the piece and just hadn't realized.
	I don't know.
	I mean, you know, who knows?
	Maybe I did it accidentally.
	I don't know.
	The notion that I, who was at Stanford at the time, would have, like, intentionally been linking to American Renaissance and feeling like, ah, nobody will care.
	I mean, it's just ludicrous, right?
	But so that fact is then created, which, of course, was completely fake.
	And then I get the Huffington Post, which is fake journalism, calling me up and interrogating me about it as soon as I join.
	The Interior Department.
	And then that fakeness all of a sudden is picked up by the Washington Post.
	And so you take this thing that was completely fake from the beginning, and now it's a huge Washington Post story.
	And I think nothing...
	And by the way, every time the left writes a hit piece on me, that appears.
	And so I think it's a fascinating example of just how...
	I mean, I was denounced by members of Congress and environmental organizations that I'd once been despaying members of.
	And I mean, it just shows beautifully how the left really operates.
	And I kind of have to tip my cap to their effectiveness because morality and ethics aside, I mean, they're really able to conjure something out of nothing.
	And that's kind of impressive.
	No, but the irony is that you could link to whatever the hell that website was and context unknown, whereas other members of, say, it almost seems to support the thesis that...
	Other members on the other side of the political racial spectrum can literally be members of organizations that themselves are engaged in fraud, criminality, whatever.
	And that gets a pass because it would be racist or otherwise to observe or comment.
	But it seems to be fair.
	Of course.
	I mean, the double standard is if the left didn't use double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
	So I just take that as part of the ecosystem we're in.
	And again, look, I just went and I did my job.
	I only mentioned it even in the book just because I didn't want anybody to think I was hiding the football or ashamed of anything.
	But it was just a classic example No doubt.
	I mean, and the other thing is, so what was your experience in the Trump administration?
	Because I think an ongoing issue throughout his first term was a lot of the people he appointed were not Trumpist.
	And a lot of them were Quite anti the very agenda he was trying to institute.
	And then towards the latter part of the administration, people that were much more aligned with what got him elected started to get put into positions of power, like yourself, Amanda Milius in a certain way in the State Department.
	People like Paul Dans was over at Office of Policy and Personnel and Management.
	We watched January 6th together live from his office.
	I decided not to go down that day.
	Turned out maybe a fortuitous decision.
	But the concern for Trump's second term, because you've talked about it, the Claremont presentation with Michael Anton, that policy matters more than politics, personnel can matter more than policy.
	Pat Buchanan talks about this in his book about recounting the Nixon administration, that he often undervalued the importance of personnel and how Nixon's own administration was often undermining Nixon's own agenda.
	And the concern is that it will happen again with Trump.
	There are people around his campaign that are not aligned with him.
	There's considerations for the vice president that would, in my view, be not good choices for him.
	What was both your experience in the Trump administration and how positive are you that a second Trump administration would fix some of those defects so that the actual personnel could institute what Trump gets elected to do?
	I think it was a mixed bag, Bob, and I think you described it accurately, right?
	Like, the more based people, the more people who are more aligned kind of came in toward the end of the administration.
	I think that Trump has probably learned some lessons from that.
	I think he's definitely learned some lessons from that.
	The question is whether he's learned all of the lessons that he needs to do to learn.
	I mean, I think the good news is, after January 6th, even more enemies.
	We're smoked out even more kind of like folks who were just kind of going along for the ride, you know, the Mitch McConnell's, etc.
	And so I think in some sense, that's been really good.
	I think Trump realizes as he's seen this unprecedented lawfare against him.
	One of my Claremont colleagues is John Eastman, who is, of course, was Trump's leading attorney and has been also the kind of subject of unprecedented My book talk last week in New York on this, I shared the stage with Jeff Clark, who is another attorney, again, in a totally similar situation to Eastman.
	So just complete...
	It didn't matter how many establishment credentials they had.
	They were associated with Trump.
	So a total war against them.
	I think the good news is Trump understands now that they're in a total war against him.
	And so I'm more optimistic that he will fight like that.
	But at the same time, to really make the sort of progress we need to make, it's going to get uglier than it's been ever.
	Like, it's going to make the post-January 6th witch hunt look like a game of pinochle.
	I mean, it's going to be...
	If we're going to really take their power or try to take their power, they're going to use every deep state, every media thing that you can imagine.
	And so I'm ready for war.
	I'm ready to go in there.
	And I hope and think Trump is.
	I've actually heard some encouraging things from folks close to the VP process about...
	Maybe him picking Vance as the leading guy.
	If that happened, I think that would be an incredibly positive development.
	It would remind me, Bob, and this is kind of dating ourselves, when Clinton picked Gore and just doubled down on his brand.
	And I think that worked.
	I would love to see Trump do a pick that isn't safe, but that shows his confidence and doubles down on his brand and says, look, this is what you're going to get in a second term of a Trump administration.
	Jeremy, the book is called The Unprotected Class.
	I made the joke that you had originally floated calling it it's okay to be white, which is the super controversial slogan.
	And you don't want to give everything away, but I was thinking as I'm listening to a couple of podcasts with you earlier today, like the most, not say damning, but the most controversial in that it's definitive aspect proof of Call it reverse racism or just anti-white discrimination.
	What is if you have a top three or just the number one piece of evidence that is incontrovertible that nobody can disagree with that comes out of the book?
	Well, so I think there are two things.
	I mean, there's a lot, but you just hit on one of them.
	So let me talk about that.
	But then I'll give you the other one first, which is you can observe in census data.
	And in everything else, what we would call a flight from white or a flight from whiteness.
	So the numbers of Native Americans in the census almost doubled between 2010 and 2020.
	And that wasn't because of Native American fertility explosion.
	That's because everybody's figuring out that identifying as something other than white is really good.
	And you see the same thing among Hispanics.
	And some of this, I mean, again, because I really want to be scrupulously honest, because the left will not have any quarter.
	Some of this is...
	Because of slight changes of the wording of questions, although in and of itself, that was done to make people go away from being white.
	But a lot of this is just people recognizing that it's a revealed preference, right?
	Like, I don't want to be white, as economists would call it.
	And then I think the second thing that I always point out is just this very book title.
	And believe me, I wanted to call it It's Okay to Be White.
	I have no question.
	As well as this book is selling, I'd be selling three times better.
	If I'd been able to use that title.
	Well, I would only say, like, in as much as whoever thought it would shield you from the very same attack and criticism you're going to get now, you were going to get it in the same levels regardless.
	You might have just...
	It would have been just worth it to, like, own it and say, yes, biatches, you're going to say it anyhow, so I'll give you all the reasons of the world.
	Sorry, I cut you off there.
	Yeah, no, no, exactly.
	I mean, that was my feeling.
	And so what happened there was I got the editorial staff to agree to it.
	They were like, yeah, we can use it.
	And then we got to the sales staff and they said, I cannot sell that title at Costco and Walmart.
	I find it ironic.
	It shows you how crazy the woke revolution is that it's reached into Walmart, right?
	I mean, you look at the actual customer base of Walmart.
	I mean, that would have been an interesting title.
	That would have actually engaged what you could...
	What the memers and others call the normies would have been, oh, I wonder what that's about.
	But it just gives a sense.
	And it's, I think, a genius of the woke revolutionaries that they took over advertising and marketing departments.
	They took over human resource departments.
	They took over places that actually control the message that comes out of corporate America.
	They said it wouldn't be able to sell at Walmart.
	That's a slightly separate question.
	What I was told is they couldn't sell it to Walmart.
	Walmart wouldn't put it on the shelf.
	This was a decision made by my old publisher who was purchased right before we went to market by a different publisher.
	So maybe they would have made...
	A different choice.
	But of course, the point is, it's okay to be Asian.
	It's okay to be Black.
	It's okay to be Hispanic.
	It's okay to be Native American.
	All these things are uncontrovertibly true.
	And it should also not be shocking.
	It should be the anodyne statement that it's okay to be white.
	But of course, the very fact that that is such a shocking statement and that when it was put on posters near campus, it was seen as a white supremacist assault is, again, just sort of the proof of the real environment.
	That we're living in right now.
	No, what I love is it's so absurd.
	Like, they'll sell American History X. They'll sell, I don't know, what's his name?
	Not Mel Brooks.
	Mel Brooks movies.
	You know, Amazon will literally sell Mein Kampf but will not sell a joke that's a parody of that or will take down other books that it deems to be controversial.
	It is the evidence of the thesis and they don't seem to appreciate it, but you have to play the game to get it out there.
	Okay, sorry.
	So the name of the book is interesting.
	But now, going back to the doubling of Native...
	People who identify as.
	Now, that's interesting because some people might say that's out of a shame of being white or a fear of being white or the perks of being diverse, which I guess is a matter of framing or a question of perspective.
	No, absolutely.
	And I talk again in the book about there's a whole series of there is scholarship.
	And the funny thing is all these scholars are basically leftists who are doing this scholarship because no conservative would ever be hired in these departments who kind of talk about white to native identity shifting as a form of white cultural shame.
	They're running away from allegedly I'm not.
	Saying this is my own view.
	But, you know, they don't have any identity, they don't have any culture, and they want to have a culture, so they adopt this Native culture.
	Now, of course, the notion that white people don't have a culture is absurd, but, like, that's the environment that these people are swimming in, right?
	And so there's, again, there's a lot of scholarship about how people seek to get this Native identity, and also a lot of these tribes make it easy.
	I mean, Cherokee, quite famously, you can be 164th Cherokee by blood.
	And if you've got the right tribal lineage, you can be an enrolled member of the tribe.
	So there's really absurdity.
	I mean, if you look at old pictures of Native Americans and you compare them to a lot of folks who would identify as Native Americans today, I'll just leave it to say that a lot of them look pretty different than...
	The irony is, even at 164th, Elizabeth Warren still doesn't make it in.
	It reminds me I was in law school.
	There was my favorite Indian, a red-haired Irish Indian, who said he was Native American in order to get on moot court.
	And to get on Law Review, because that's how he figured out the quickest ticket was.
	And he once came up to me, because I worked with an actual Native American law professor who was chief of his tribe and all the rest, who said the greatest danger to Native American interest were, quote, Indian-loving liberals.
	They'll strip you of all your liberties and rights by the time they're done with it.
	But he came up to me once, this Irish, red-haired Indian.
	He goes...
	Is there a way for them to prove whether or not you're a member of a tribe?
	I was like, yeah, right.
	But it was the beginning of...
	I filed suit today with Stephen Miller's American First Legal Group against Red Hat and IBM.
	That's a great suit, by the way, Bob.
	I didn't realize you were involved in that.
	And American First Legal...
	Doing the best work in my area right now.
	I thought Stephen Miller was one of the best people in the Trump administration.
	One of the best people that Trump kept close to him.
	Miller managed to maneuver through the Ivanka and Kushner and all those dynamics in the White House with Abel's skill.
	He's the one who helped really radicalize Sessions.
	Before Stephen Miller came in, Sessions was kind of a conventional Republican.
	He became big on trade and immigration and war.
	After Stephen Miller became part of his team.
	But yeah, because it goes to all the issues you're talking about in the case.
	I mean, this is a guy who's just a good, hardworking tech nerd.
	You know, never had a negative review ever.
	And all of a sudden, you know, Red Hat starts to really embrace, when it's taken over by IBM, all the woke revolution stuff.
	They start putting in real quotas.
	They're dumb enough, as James O 'Keefe caught them doing, saying it on tape and on video.
	They run my, and basically my guy was, he was like all the check the box wrong things for woke.
	So he's white, he's a male.
	He objected to the vaccine mandates on religious grounds, objected to them discriminating against other people based on race, based on gender, based on religion.
	And so when it came time for them to make changes, he's at the top of the list for them to X. And then they added insult to injury.
	His wife was pregnant with a high risk pregnancy.
	And they denied him family and medical leave for a key period of time, putting his child and his wife at risk.
	So, of course, that motivated him, and he sought us out, and then we sought out Stephen Miller to work on this, because they've been great on all this.
	And the farmer discrimination stuff, the Biden administration.
	I mean, the Biden administration has taken Obama's second term and turned it up to 10. Whether it's immigration, whether it's woke ideology, whether it's race-based benefits.
	I mean, saying farmers are going to get benefits based on what color they are.
	Different groups are going to get benefits based on these different identities.
	That it's Joe Biden doing it has multiple levels of irony, but that's another story for another day.
	Well, I talk about that in the book, right?
	Joe Biden made his bones, as I think you're probably alluding to, in the Senate as the anti-school busing.
	For racial balancing.
	I mean, this was like his big issue.
	He was working with Jesse Helms.
	Oh yes, he was close.
	He used to hang out with Jesse and all the rest.
	I mean, it's like Southern Poverty Law Center.
	I mean, that's been one of the greatest grifts of all time.
	Morris Dees, the founder of Southern Poverty Law Center, started out as a Klan lawyer.
	He was working for the Klan.
	Then he figured out all the money had dried up for the Klan.
	So he's like, where can I get money?
	Oh, I bet I can get a bunch of New York liberals to write me checks pretending I'm against the Klan.
	Like the Klan meant anything by 1975 anyway.
	And it's a Southern Poverty Law Center that does nothing with the South, does nothing about poverty, and doesn't care about the law.
	They're fraud, fraud, fraud center.
	They're the worst.
	They go after me.
	It's a badge of honor.
	It's not the only time.
	If you're on their bad list, that's a good sign.
	Absolutely.
	I'm pulling up.
	They're dedicated to LGBTQ rights.
	Looks like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	That sounds discriminatory, but it's got to be LBJD.
	Oh, look at that.
	That's bigotry.
	They should be identified.
	They don't have the plus.
	It's 2SLGBTQIA plus up in Canada.
	And I don't know, once you've had the plus, why you need anything that came before it.
	Okay, so two interesting stats then.
	The idea that you couldn't name the book It's Okay to Be White, which is hilarious.
	People identifying as other than white.
	In one of the podcasts, I love it, and it's something that I notice online, and you got the defiant L's who always compare and contrast.
	But you have...
	It's going to be terrible.
	I'm going to get in trouble for this anyhow.
	You have a demographic of people who, as you described it, try to play both sides of the coin in terms of denouncing their whiteness while also invoking their...
	Minority status, and it happens to happen a lot with members of the Jewish community, where there'll be the open denunciation of being white, but then at the flip side saying, well, we're also minorities who are victims of whatever historical oppression, so therefore our victim status trumps our whiteness, so we get to both criticize our whiteness while benefiting from...
	First of all, how much hate do you get for even discussing that or addressing that?
	Well, it's funny.
	I get exactly the opposite from people who haven't even read the book.
	I mean, the only angry comments I'm getting, because I've gotten just incredible feedback, like I kept waiting for the real...
	I'm sure the negative feedback from the left will happen, because the book is selling too well for it not to get some negative feedback from the left.
	But, you know, it's sort of like...
	The really far right saying, this book doesn't name the Jew, and that's the problem with it, right?
	And I'm like, actually, I have several pages in my religion chapter where it's appropriate, where I talk about how the organized Jewish community has been really bad on a lot of these issues, just because I don't autistically screech about it on every page and have some conspiracy.
	They want to.
	They've decided that I have not sufficiently...
	But, you know, again, I think with all of this, I mean, it's sort of fun and we're having this freewheeling conversation, but with sensitive issues like this, I try to deal with it really factually.
	And so I think that, you know, I try to deal with it responsibly.
	I just say, look, you know, these are the organized institutions representing major parts of the Jewish community, and they're terrible on these issues, and that's really bad, and we should call them out.
	And by the way, I do the same thing.
	For the liberal Christians, like a lot of the mainline Protestants, who are just as bad.
	And even, unfortunately, I'm in an evangelical church, and we're pretty good, my particular church, on this.
	But a lot of churches, even in the evangelical tradition now, have kind of been taken over way of wokeness, and it's a real problem.
	Well, even so, the Southern Baptist Convention was putting out a bunch of quasi-commy nonsense.
	It seems like a lot of it, you know, we saw precursors of the 1960s with the sort of takeover of the professional managerial class, which included the clerical class, like where a lot of priests turned against their working class communities.
	You know, there's good stories about this in Baltimore, about all the different ways racial politics was destroying the basis of the working class prosperity in that city.
	Of course.
	You know, a lot of issues about busing and housing were not as simplistically reduced to racial prejudice as it was being articulated.
	And then there was a, you know, there was even a group of developers that were prostituting.
	Profiting on the backside because you always had to.
	And you had people like Pelosi's family and others that go back to the Baltimore political machines before they went out west.
	And she became the greatest stock investor of all time.
	It's quite impressive, her stock history.
	Absolutely.
	But the other thing you rightly rebut in the book is this whole myth of the nation of immigrants.
	And a recognition that even compared to Ellis Island, we have, I mean, one of my favorite stats that I wish Trump would talk more about, you know, people like J.D. will and others will, Vance is great, the best senator in the Senate, in my opinion, is all the jobs under Biden have gone to foreign-born people.
	Native-born Americans have been losing jobs now year after year after year under the Biden administration.
	This great economy is not a great economy for Americans.
	It's a great economy for other people.
	It's great for Ukraine, too.
	If you're in the money laundering business, you've got new mansions everywhere.
	But can you give a snapshot of what you describe in the book?
	We're a nation of Americans.
	We're not a nation of immigrants.
	Sure.
	You brought up two different things, so let me deal with both of them.
	The first is this kind of notion that you kind of point out.
	The one thing in my book, or there are other things that are pretty subversive that I try to deal with responsibly, but I say the most kind of subversive chapter in the book is when I talk about so-called white flight, because I really do...
	Invert the narrative there, and I think appropriately, in that I think that white flight is the only form of ethnic cleansing in which the victims were blamed.
	And I think the notion, as we increasingly see as a little bit of some better histories come out, Jack Cashel wrote an interesting book recently about his own experience in Newark as a white ethnic being kind of driven out of that city.
	I mean, were there people who just saw that...
	There was somebody of a different race, and they didn't like that, and they just left for no reason?
	Sure, of course there were.
	I mean, were there absolute racists?
	Of course there were.
	Was that the predominant thing that caused people to leave communities they'd been in for decades, or in some cases, centuries?
	No, it was because the schools collapsed.
	The safety became really, really bad.
	A lot of people really tried to stay, but it just, it became, in the title of Cashel's book, it became untenable for them to stay.
	In these neighborhoods.
	And so I think one of the sort of more daring things I do in the book is I really attempt to marshal a series of facts to show a very different description of what white flight looked like than kind of what the lies of your liberal teacher told you.
	So I think that's thing one.
	Now, to talk about immigration, not all of these areas was I expert in, but immigration is one where I've spent a lot of time.
	I've done a lot of research.
	I wrote a kind of...
	Pretty influential article called A Nation of Settlers that caused quite a stir a few years back.
	And it gets a little bit to Bob, you talking about a nation of Americans.
	And that is to say that we really never were a nation of immigrants.
	I walk through the kind of American immigration history or migration history, I should say.
	Starting with Jamestown in 1607 and taking it up to the modern era, and I basically show how we were never a nation of immigrants rhetorically until the Democrats, particularly JFK, needed it for the 1960 presidential campaign.
	And of course, I'm not suggesting that there was no immigration to the U.S., but that there were times where we had huge pauses of immigration.
	There were times most of early American history where it would really be described more as settlement.
	So people were going and they were setting up a new political community.
	They weren't joining an existing political community.
	And that really defined...
	And that's a piece of democratic and liberal propaganda, and I push back against it pretty aggressively in the chapter.
	In an interview that I had listened to earlier today, you said that there was something controversial about the idea of a melting pot or some negative connotation of the idea of a melting pot.
	I didn't hear it more elaborated on, and I'm curious because as a Canadian, we always hear about the melting pot experiment of America and what a success it was.
	What is the negative connotation of the melting pot?
	Well, it depends.
	There were people who criticized it from the left and from the right.
	I mean, there was sort of the kind of...
	True kind of nativist, I don't like how that's kind of a loaded term, but I'm lacking a better one right now, who didn't like all of these European ethnics coming in, but The Melting Pot comes from a title of a play by a playwright named Israel Zangvil, wrote in the late 19th century, Teddy Roosevelt, who was actually very, very strong on national identity and immigration issues, saw it, and he was actually quite inspired by it.
	It was like a real intellectual touchstone for him, this idea that...
	All of the races of Europe, as Zangwell says in the play, are going to come together and melt and reform, essentially, into that God is going to put you in the crucible and make you an American.
	That's roughly a quote.
	So that's the positive vision.
	I think that's arguably still...
	Given where we are, probably the best vision that we have.
	But then a lot of people said, no, actually, on the left, it should be a tossed salad.
	So everybody kind of keeps their own unique identity, but we're all sort of together and we're kind of vaguely American in some way that nobody really defines very clearly.
	I don't know that I find that really satisfactorily.
	And now we're not even a tossed salad.
	I don't even know what we are, but it's something that's very, very not good.
	You can be sure of that.
	It looks like African tribal politics, where you compete with power based on your tribal ancestry.
	I don't know any scenario where that ends well, and yet it's before the Marxist left.
	For those people unfamiliar, could you give a basic understanding of what critical race theory is?
	To me, a lot of these ideas, whether they're open borders, whether it's promoting...
	Results based on identity with the distortion of civil rights law and misusing disparate impact analysis or other aspects of what's happening culturally, people not wanting to even identify as white in census data and reports.
	A lot of the critical race theory and open border stuff is very destructive and meant to be destructive by people whose ideologies are like the second stage of the French Revolution.
	Yeah.
	No, and I think a lot of it is meant to be destructive.
	And I think, again, I caution, this is kind of how I end the first full chapter of the book, to say, hey, look, when you have this level of racial balkanization, typically in society or ethnic balkanization, and everybody's at each other's throats, it tends to end really, really badly for societies.
	And the left kind of thinks that hitting Whitey, metaphorically, and sometimes literally speaking, Pay some short-term dividends for them.
	And what I suggest is just really that is a short-term win that is going to be a big long-term loss for everybody.
	And I didn't write this book.
	Again, I say it in the book and I say it elsewhere.
	I'm not doing it to whine or complain or to kind of enter the victimhood Olympics.
	I'm actually, well, I wrote it for everybody as much as anything else.
	The message is for white people to stop allowing ourselves to be treated this way.
	Because there's a lot of us.
	And if we decided that we're not going to put up with being second-class citizens and treated like second-class citizens in a country largely founded by our ancestors, it would stop.
	And so we need to respect ourselves.
	We need to...
	Respect other people, of course, but we don't have anything to be ashamed of, and we should stop acting like we have to be ashamed of.
	And this is really more of a call to arms than it is a call to, like, wind the refs.
	I find it quite funny that the left would go with the tossed salad term, given the double entendre of that meaning, and the left being accused of being perverts quite often.
	You described something...
	And I love the idea where you're talking about the battle for power among various tribes, and that human nature is what it is, that people always kind of tend to want what the other has, and so they have to find a rational justification to moralize their pursuit of the goods of others.
	You described it more eloquently, and I think there's a term for it.
	Yeah, it's a legitimating ideology.
	Legitimating ideology.
	I love it.
	Okay, sorry.
	It's a term that comes from the late sociologist Searite Mills, who was actually a leftist himself.
	But he wrote a very influential book in the mid-20th century called The Power Elite, among other things.
	But he describes it just in the way you say it.
	It's an ideology that says, look, in 2024, I can't just come up to you in America and say, I want your stuff.
	Nobody feels good about that.
	It feels sort of un-American.
	So if I want your stuff, I've got to come up with this legitimating ideology that says you're a white supremacist, you have white privilege, this is white fragility, whatever it is, and the only way that we can have compensation for that is for me to take your stuff at the end of the day.
	And I think ultimately that material calculus undergirds so much of what we're seeing today.
	I'm not suggesting there aren't more spiritual things sometimes at play or other things, but I think at the end of the day, It is a competition for resources, and people are using this as a legitimating ideology to get more resources for themselves and their groups.
	Exactly.
	And that kind of conflict doesn't tend to end well.
	Even if someone believed in that ideology, it is very much as you identify short-term and self-serving.
	Now, on the immigration front, you've identified a range of issues.
	Well, for people out there, could you explain just how dramatic?
	What's happening is.
	In other words, we're at the highest rate of non-Americans, that's another way to put it, immigrants, sharing the American countryside as we have ever had in our entire history, more than the peak of asylum.
	And all the insanity of the Biden set of public policies, abusing asylum law, the breakdown of the administrative state.
	We're in these immigration judges who deserve to be in quotes like California State Bar judges deserve to be in quotes.
	And some of the policy and personnel changes that need to be radical and revolutionary if we're just going to make America America again.
	Right.
	No, absolutely.
	And as you pointed out, we have the largest percentage of foreigners that we've ever had in the country right now, even more than the Great Migration at Ellis Island and all of that.
	And again, just to show what a radical departure this was, in 1970, which is the census right before I was born, the U.S. is 4.7% foreigner now.
	We're about 15.5 now, give or take.
	We're probably a little higher than that.
	4.7% foreigners.
	Disproportionately older, like very old, especially given that the society was much younger then, and overwhelmingly from Europe.
	This isn't like ancient history.
	I'm not invoking George Washington or even the Civil War.
	I'm talking about basically in my lifetime, that was the demographics of the United States.
	But what's happened right before the 1970 census is we have this Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965.
	And what that does...
	Is it radically transforms our immigration policy in terms of who we let in and how many we let in.
	And it just, it opens the floodgates.
	And I think it's a kind of interesting, but ultimately maybe only moderately relevant in historical debate to the degree to which people really understood what was going to happen as a result of Hartzeller.
	I think it took even a lot of advocates by some degree of surprise.
	It was a cataclysmic change in terms of the demographics of the United States.
	And until we really address Hartzellar and deport every single illegal to show that we're very serious and kind of start with that, and then I would argue go to a net zero immigration pause for a time.
	It doesn't mean we're not having anybody in, but it means you're deporting one for every person you bring in.
	I think that it's going to be very hard to recohere an American identity.
	When you say 4.7% or 5% were foreigners, what's the definition of a foreigner?
	Just foreign-born.
	So you, Canadian, are a foreigner, right?
	It's literally that simple.
	Properly pronunciated Ferner in the South.
	Ferner, yeah, depending on where you are.
	So again, I mean, it's really, I mean, it's shocking the degree to which this changes because it's basically in pre-Heart Cellar, the foreigners who are left are people who came in on Ellis Island and they're old, you know?
	And subsequent to Heart Cellar, it's everybody and their seventh cousin coming from countries, many of which have no...
	Real connections, culturally or otherwise, with America.
	In fact, many of which are selected.
	We have so-called diversity visas where we hand out about 55,000 visas a year.
	The precise qualification you need for a diversity visa is basically that your country has little tie to America's culture, history, and traditions.
	And you don't have a lot of immigrants from there.
	So it's nuts.
	Now, you've mentioned your own experience.
	Now, are you still living in Montana?
	I am still living in Montana, which is, in some ways, it's like going back in a time machine to an earlier America.
	So these are not some of the crazy stuff.
	But even here, we have illegal immigrant flights.
	Biden is trying to fundamentally transform Montana, just like he is the rest of the country.
	But we do have just about...
	I think other than West Virginia, we have the lowest percentage of immigrants of anywhere in the country.
	So definitely it's not...
	The revolution has not quite made its way to Montana yet.
	Well, from what I understand, what's that show with Kevin Costner?
	Yellowstone.
	That has caused a certain uptick in property value in Montana?
	A lot.
	Although I have to tell you, if I turn to the camera right now, you would see...
	It's snowing and it's probably snowed over a foot in the last 24 hours.
	So that wasn't a joke when you put it on Twitter.
	That wasn't like a winter picture telling Californians to stay out.
	That was real.
	No, no, that was real.
	And in fact, it's probably snowed six or seven more inches since then.
	Now, I say particularly in the interest of truth and particularly for conservatives who want to move up to Montana, this is not typical for this time of year, but it's not unheard of that, you know, you would get some very significant snow even in May.
	You've even seen glimpses of it there in this sort of relocate.
	I had a friend of mine who was doing reporting in Tennessee that there was a coordinated effort to place various immigrant groups in Tennessee, some for political purposes, others for economic purposes.
	There was ties to Tyson Foods.
	They wanted a cheaper labor source, and they were being located near Tyson factories.
	Yeah, I think I saw it.
	It's unbelievable.
	But even in Montana...
	You have Afghans being brought in with Biden's disastrous exit.
	We should have never been there, but the way he exited was a disaster.
	And we've seen this throughout Europe.
	The Islamic immigration has particularly been problematic and controversial.
	And to me, it was like, if you sent me to...
	Someplace in the Middle East.
	I'm not going to blend in well.
	You know, different cultural values, different histories, different traditions, etc.
	Why importing people with a radically different life experience, many of whom can't really culturally blend in, be the so-called mixing pot?
	That was the TTR rationalization for nationalization of immigration was, well, these are going to be Americans.
	These are not.
	We're going to be immigrants, and we have to have a reasonable restraint as well.
	But these are deliberately bringing in people, as you know, to the diversity visas.
	They're kind of anti-American.
	They're opposed to American values.
	Not only don't share it, they oppose it.
	I mean, a lot of Islamic immigration.
	Now, maybe some of the Jewish left is waking up as all the Hamas protests take over college campuses, and they wake up to the beast that they unraveled or unleashed.
	But, you know, how much is that?
	Like, you know, secret flights into different parts of the country.
	It appears to be the immigration agenda a deeply anti-American agenda.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I mean, and again, the great replacement I talk about in the book, that's a thing.
	My colleague Michael Anton has a wonderful phrase, the celebration parallax, which is essentially to say it's not true and it's good that it is.
	So the truth value kind of entirely depends on who's saying it.
	So when the left points out that all this immigration is totally diversifying and transforming America, that's wonderful and we should celebrate it.
	But as soon as...
	I don't really like it because I'm the one being replaced.
	Well, then you might as well take off your SS patch that you've been hiding under this nice suit jacket because we know who you really are, right?
	Like the notion that, of course, the Japanese aren't replacing themselves.
	The Chinese aren't replacing themselves.
	No other countries outside of America and Europe would pursue.
	Such a suicidal immigration policy, right?
	And this is, I mean, I want to be clear.
	I don't immigrant bash, okay?
	And in fact, look, I've spent years traveling around the world.
	I have tremendous sympathy for why people want to come here.
	If I lived in most of these countries, I would want to come to America.
	I think a lot of them want to be good Americans, and they want to contribute to society, and many of them do.
	But that's not the relevant kind of characteristic.
	The relevant characteristic is, what is in the interest of the people who are U.S. citizens right now?
	That should be what guides our immigration policy.
	Our national interest is defined by that.
	We are not a charity.
	We are a nation.
	I always describe it as countries like your house, right?
	Just because somebody wants to live there doesn't mean you have an obligation to let them in.
	Even if they're nice people, good people, and wonderful people, you don't have to put them up in your house.
	In blue states, you seemingly do these days.
	You do have an obligation if you let the little squat.
	That's essentially what happened, right?
	We have...
	A squatter immigration policy, effectively.
	You call it celebration parallax.
	I think I love that concept.
	It's not happening, but it's great that it is.
	Depending on who says it, it takes on a different meaning.
	I posted that clip yesterday of Kathy Hochul saying, in our state, there are some young black kids who don't even know what a computer is.
	When a white liberal says it, it's empowering.
	When an old white man says it, it's racist.
	The Great Replacement Theory, I mean, the bottom line is, and I've been saying this for a while, A, it's not racist, it's political, and B, it's not a theory, it's a strategy.
	It's undeniable.
	I mean, I don't want to be too dogmatic.
	It's an undeniable political policy.
	Right.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And that's why it was so great when Vivek just said that in the campaign, because even Trump, who's obviously, immigration arguably is a signature issue.
	You know, because he's not sort of this weird online guy, you know, worrying about what Renaud Camus is saying, right, like people like me are, that may not even be...
	But Vivek is there.
	And he just said, look, the Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory.
	It's just a description of Democrats' immigration policy.
	And it was a very Trumpian moment, right?
	Because he's just saying things that are so obviously true, but the left is like, well, you can't say that.
	He just did.
	And so I thought it was one of the great moments of the 2024 campaign.
	What are some of the ultimately solutions and remedies that you talk about in your book?
	That can be done and must be done if we're going to make America America again.
	Right.
	So I talk about six formal and six informal solutions.
	I won't get into all of them for reasons of time.
	But, you know, kind of formal ones are you get rid of DEI root and branch.
	You extend this affirmative action ruling as far as you can.
	So it's not just talking about...
	College admissions, but you're talking about employment, etc., etc.
	I think we need to fundamentally relook at civil rights laws.
	And again, I don't say that.
	There are other people who've written, my colleague Christopher Caldwell, Richard Anani, I've kind of written entire books, particularly focused, maybe even slightly overly focused in my view on...
	rights laws, although they are super, super important.
	But I don't need to relitigate the 64 Civil Rights Act.
	I would just simply say, look, it was a blunt instrument that was attempting to address some real problems.
	We're now as far away from that as they were from the right We're not worrying about people not being able to eat at lunch counters.
	We're worrying about white people not being able to get a job just because they're white.
	Let's totally reorient our civil rights laws so that we are really focusing in the private sector and private sphere on freedom of association so that we're focusing on kind of the problems that really do exist out there.
	And then, of course, also I touched on some of these immigration issues.
	You've got to deport every illegal to show that you're serious.
	We've got to get control of the border completely, even in terms of legal immigration.
	On the informal things, I think there's a lot of Alliances, I think, particularly with Asian Americans are particularly low-hanging fruit, where they are, to the extent that anti-white discrimination is sometimes simply targeted at merit.
	Sometimes it's just targeted at white people for being white, but sometimes it's targeted at merit.
	I think in the affirmative action cases, there's some opportunities for political alliances there.
	And then I kind of talk about a lot about what's called white shifting or multiracial whiteness, or the sort of more polite scholarly term is ethnogenesis.
	And this I really kind of indebted to Eric Kaufman, who's a Canadian scholar, actually, but he teaches in the UK.
	And he's multi-ethnic himself.
	And he kind of writes about this notion that you have all these groups like Hispanics, which is a term essentially made up in the 1980s by the Census Bureau, which is a predominantly, overwhelmingly predominantly, a European-descended ethnic group.
	or you have Eurasians or all these other groups, or even groups that, you know, monoethnic people who are not white, but just have a really strong identification with America's traditions And that you could kind of form a unified American ethnicity over time from these groups that is kind of a new American majority, a new patriotic majority.
	But to do that, you've got to change the incentives around the census.
	You've got to change the incentives around affirmative action and all these other things so that people feel like It's advantageous to identify as part of the American majority in a way that they don't now.
	I mean, I don't know what your level of involvement is with Trump now or with a potential second Trump term.
	Practically speaking, how realistic is it to say we're going to deport now 10-plus million people?
	I mean, set aside the legalities.
	I don't even know what country they would go back to if there's no documentation.
	I'm sure a lot of people would like that as a policy, but how realistic or unrealistic is it?
	Well, I think that's the right position for us to have, right?
	Like, I'm arguing that as an advocate.
	And I'm very, very aware.
	I had a lot of friends in Stephen Miller's shop who were really, I mean, they were smart and well-intentioned people.
	And they pushed and they got a number of things done on immigration, but they also fell well short of what was really probably necessary.
	And it wasn't because they were bad people or not smart people, but because this is a big ship to turn around, right?
	Look, my position, I think our advocate's position going in should be everybody goes who's illegal.
	Okay, period.
	Realistically, if we even deported half of those people, it would send a message, right?
	And said, if we deported half and said to the others, like, your time may be coming, like, that sends a message to people that, like, you don't just get to show up on our borders and everything's going to be taken care of forever, right?
	So I think that ultimately...
	You know, you hope for some degree of self-deportation, but you have to do enough to show you're serious.
	And you have to, and this would be my biggest advice to the Trump administration, and I'm very open to going in in a second term, is we have to create facts on the ground.
	So we need to just do things.
	And this is maybe, again, Bob, where people like you come in.
	The number one offices that conservatives need to control going into the next Trump administration is the Office of Legal Counsel and the White House Counsel's Office.
	Because we need bold attorneys who are willing to take very aggressive illegal opinions and that are smart, that are not just like autistic weird things that any serious attorney would look at and kind of laugh out the door, but put out serious aggressive opinions and be willing to take the risk of defending those opinions while at the same time we as administration...
	We're just deporting people.
	We are putting bureaucrats' desks out on the street, and we're saying, look, this is what it is, right?
	And if you want to say that what we did is illegal, here's our legal opinion.
	Let's go argue about it in court, right?
	And the left is expert at creating facts on the ground.
	We are often really bad at it.
	I think whether we do that will determine the success or failure of a second Trump administration.
	In that regard, one of the things you mentioned that I think is an excellent policy solution that...
	I think more people on the right need to start to embrace, articulate, discuss, get it out there in the court of public opinion so that it gets its own zeitgeist, is state governments and local governments should have the power to enforce immigration borderline.
	I mean, it's weird that they have trespass rules, but they can't enforce them if the person is trespassing in the country.
	It's insane.
	And this is thanks to our Supreme Court making a couple of questionable decisions in my mind about that, dating back to Obama's policy and Arizona's attempt to do it.
	But Congress can fix that itself.
	Congress has just passed a law making it clear state governments and local governments have the power to enforce the border.
	And I think that's really good.
	And going to political constituencies, you look at the reaction of black voters in Chicago, black voters in New York.
	Don't like what's happening in distributing, redistributing power to illegal immigrants coming in, their resources being stripped.
	If you look at it from a labor perspective, working class blacks are as negatively impacted as any group in the country from illegal immigration.
	It's working class people who always pay the brunt of all this immigration.
	It's their schools, their neighborhoods, their roads, their jobs that are being damaged, weakened, taken away, their leverage, their power.
	It's along the border.
	That Trump did his best improvements because those are Mexican-Americans that don't want a bunch of other people going back in.
	My favorite hack during that whole thing was make Tijuana great again when they didn't want all the immigrants pouring over the border.
	You got presidents in Panama, presidents in El Salvador voicing opposition to these migrant chains that the Biden administration is financing.
	But one of my other favorite solutions you recommended is just like I think there needs to be accountability for a lot of people that did wrong stuff during COVID.
	There needs to be accountability for the Biden administration flagrantly, openly violating existing federal law and constitutional principle on a daily basis throughout on the issue of immigration.
	And they need to be criminally prosecuted.
	No, absolutely.
	We need to.
	And that, you know, it's really easy to say that on a campaign trail, but we absolutely need to do it.
	I mean, that needs to be prosecuting people, not because there are political enemies, but because...
	They broke really serious laws flagrantly and with full knowledge.
	And there has to be serious legal accountability for it or they're just going to, you know, eventually they'll be a Democrat president again and we'll be back in the same sort of situation.
	So I think you absolutely have to do that.
	You absolutely have to argue that, as Texas and other states are arguing right now, that, I mean, essentially the very dubious...
	Tactic that the Democrats have used, particularly starting with Obama, for why they don't enforce immigration laws is, oh, well, it's just priorities and resources.
	And for them to say, for the states to say, okay, well, you know, we understand.
	You don't have the resources to do it.
	But we do.
	And we're just going to follow.
	We're not making our own laws here.
	We're just enforcing U.S. laws because you don't have the time to do it.
	But we all agree that that's the law.
	So we're just going to step in.
	And again, that's about, like, are you going to...
	Take the person over the border.
	Are you going to have the flight?
	Are we going to have third-party migrant agreements with other countries where we just deport folks?
	And by the way, as soon as you show that you're serious about doing this, the migrant flows, the illegal immigrant flows will stop.
	They really will.
	Jeremy, Robert, I discovered this earlier today with my first interview of the day with Chris Martinson, who drew my attention to Alejandro Mayorkas' ties to the board of directors of the HIAS.
	Yeah.
	This is the man who's in charge of the border who's...
	I don't know if he's still on the board of directors of the HIAS, which stands for...
	Hold on, what does it stand for?
	Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
	Try to make sense of that in a way that's not going to enrage me and other people.
	That you have the border czar who was or is or is or was on the board of directors of an organization that specializes in getting people...
	Yeah, well, these are resettlement agencies, and they're connected.
	That one's a very prominent one connected with the Jewish community, but there's plenty that are connected with Catholic charities or Protestant churches, and they really are mostly religious.
	And I say religious in quotes because there's all sorts of ways in which they're basically financial shakedown rackets, and it's really horrible.
	But obviously, these are the last people you should have running.
	The border.
	And actually, one great thing, and one of the reasons why people like me were so aggressive about defending Ken Paxton out in Texas, just today he announced a lawsuit against one of these groups, I think it was a Catholic group, where he basically said, your group is effectively intentionally trafficking illegal aliens into the country.
	And so now he's gone after this group legally.
	And I think, just as a matter of public record, I hope we get Paxton in a little bit of trouble here.
	I said, Paxton and I follow each other on Twitter.
	I said, that's great.
	I'm so pleased you're doing this, but this doesn't end until these guys go to jail.
	And Paxton liked that tweet.
	So I think, I mean, that's great.
	He should.
	This is not vindictive.
	There's nothing he's saying that's wrong.
	It's just like people who are engaged in immigrant smuggling just because the New York Times likes it.
	Should go to jail.
	It doesn't matter if New York Times likes it.
	It's human trafficking with the utmost of disastrous and dire consequences.
	The only reason I'm picking on Mayorkas and the Hebrew...
	Immigrant AIDS Society.
	The one I'm picking on that one is because A, you've got an activist as a border czar, and B, you've got him invoking his...
	You know, World War II family history to somehow rationalize his neglect of the border of the country that he's supposed to be representing.
	It's egregious.
	It's terrible.
	Look, he should be in prison.
	What do you want me to say?
	I mean, in a real country, let's be clear, he'd be facing a capital trial, okay, if America were a truly serious country.
	And again, I don't say that lightly.
	I mean, obviously, we don't want to generally set a precedent in which we are prosecuting political opponents and much less putting them on trial for capital crimes.
	But like at a certain point, you just go so far, like if Donald Trump, as much as I think this outlawed lawfare against him, And so that's, I think, metaphorically what we've got with these guys like Mayorkas.
	They're taking a machine gun to the rule of law, and they need to be held accountable for them.
	The charge specifically, I don't want to go with dereliction of duty.
	What, human trafficking?
	It's a federal crime to aid illegal human trafficking at any level.
	I mean, this is going to the Supreme Court on what intent you have to prove.
	Because organizations were trying to say that it was okay under this exception or that exception.
	It's not.
	I mean, this is illegal human trafficking done at scale.
	I mean, Brett Weinstein went down and saw it, witnessed it live.
	And so this is clearly, this is systemic.
	This is organized.
	This is institutional.
	These are not people randomly showing up and just taking a trip.
	You know, this isn't the movie El Norte.
	This isn't people just, you know, hopping a train, seeing what can happen.
	The drug cartels are involved.
	The United Nation is involved.
	Biden administration is involved.
	Systemically.
	Systematically.
	It's organized crime.
	It's truly the Biden crime family, right?
	I mean, that's, you know, I hate to use these cliches of, like, the most sort of radical kind of critiques that you'd find on real raw news, but, like...
	That's where we are.
	I mean, like, it's just like, I mean, I'm not going to pretend that this 2024 election is not already rigged by the lawfare against Trump.
	I'm not pleased about that.
	I hate that.
	I wish it weren't rigged.
	I still think we can win.
	But that doesn't mean I think the Democrats can win free and fairly.
	And I think it's important to raise those stakes.
	And I've done that with a few journalists in the regime media just to sort of take their temperature on it, because I think it's important for us to speak really frankly about stuff like that.
	Someone shouldn't be indicted just because they're your political opponent, but every treasonous, seditionist is a political opponent, and that fact doesn't make them any less a seditionist treasoner, and that's what these people are.
	Amen.
	Where can people, as we wrap up, where can people find your book, and what do you teach at Claremont?
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Before you get there, let me do a few things here.
	The movie PCU highlighted the silliness of PC culture early on.
	PCU, I remember that, with Jeremy Piven.
	Bravo to all you gents.
	And hold on, I think, Jeremy, I think there might have been a couple of questions for you over on the Rumbles.
	I forgot to switch off on Rumble.
	On YouTube, BC's NDP passes a law potentially revoking landowners' rights to keep their land via new Haiti land agreement.
	Rebel News covered this.
	Okay, that's not related to the subject of the night.
	Love you guys.
	King of Biltong says good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Meat.
	Free shipping on your Biltong using code VIVA on BiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.com.
	Who Biltong, I believe I saw in the chat, is a member of the Boer tribe or a descendant of the Boer tribe.
	Biltong, perfect for your long days working on settling new lands.
	And then I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I am genuinely glad I came across your content just before COVID started.
	You have come a long way and unfortunately have also seen how bad evil some people can be.
	Only members of government.
	Okay, so there was no specific question for you.
	But yes, now, for everybody asking, I had the link in there.
	The book is called The Unprotected Class.
	Tell us, Jeremy, what does the Claremont Institute do?
	Yeah, so we do a number of things.
	We teach a lot of people and a lot of some of the most...
	Conservative judges and members of the administration come through these fellowship programs that we teach.
	Law students.
	We teach young people.
	We teach sort of mid and upper career professionals.
	We have a sheriff's fellowship, which has set the left into absolute paroxysms of rage.
	We bring these really base sheriffs and their cowboy hats out and we teach them about the Constitution and various principles.
	And I'm going to be teaching in that along with the Publius Fellowship for younger people this year.
	I'll be teaching a lot about immigration, but our different fellows teach different.
	So we do that.
	We have publications.
	We have the Claremont Review of Books, which I think I can say without undue bias is probably the best high-end kind of publication about books on the right.
	We have the American Mind, an online site.
	We do a lot of legislation that is actually...
	We advise on legislation.
	We have a legal arm that John Eastman...
	Who's now the victim of this horrible lawfare from the left, has run for many years.
	So we do a lot of different things at Claremont.
	And I'm just a fellow.
	I spend most of my time writing and then sometimes doing policy advice.
	But for the book, which I think Bob was getting at, it's out.
	It's been doing sensationally.
	I'm not going to toot my own horn too much about that, but everybody's just been really pleased.
	And I've been, I don't want to say surprised, but it's done about as well as I thought it could have.
	Possibly done.
	It came out a couple weeks ago.
	You can buy it at Amazon.
	You can probably get it at a lot of your local bookstores or Barnes& Noble or wherever you want to shop.
	You can follow me on x at realjeremycarl or on my substack, The Course of Empire, and would love it.
	If you're interested in this subject, even if you're like, I don't know about this Carl guy, I think Viva and Barnes are much smarter than him.
	Even if you just are interested in this subject, what you do when you buy a book like this is, trust me, you don't give me very much money.
	Everybody knows about the book trade.
	You make very little money doing books, but it does send a signal to publishers that, hey, there's a demand to talk about subjects like this.
	And so you can send a real signal that matters so that we can see more people discussing this book so that I won't have all these people coming up saying, wow, you're so brave to write about this, but that it's just something that should be part and parcel of our political discussion in America.
	You should have called it It's Okay to Be White.
	Damn it, you should have insisted.
	If it could have been up to me, we would have, believe me.
	I pushed really hard.
	No, it's amazing.
	It is on Audible?
	Yeah, we have an audiobook too, and that's also sold really, really well.
	It's like a 12-hour audiobook, and if you're like my friends who do it at 3x speed, then it's a 4-hour audiobook.
	It's an afternoon of fishing.
	Jeremy?
	It's been fantastic.
	Send me all of your links and I'm going to put them in the pinned comment and pin it up just so people can find it.
	This has been fantastic.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Do you want to leave with one last piece of advice for the crowd?
	Well, it's okay to be white.
	I think that's the thing.
	And I think when that statement becomes the non-controversial statement like it is for every other ethnicity, then we'll know we really made progress in this country.
	I expect to get cancelled tomorrow, but that'll be fun.
	Alright, let's wake up to the tweets.
	Everybody, thank you all for being here, and I'll see you tomorrow.
	Maybe not tomorrow.
	I'm in transit.
	Robert, what do you have for the rest of the week?
	We'll probably do a bourbon tomorrow.
	Okay, good.
	Bourbon with Barnes tomorrow.
	Stay tuned, everybody.
	Jeremy, thank you very much.

▲