The Tucker Carlson Show - Peter Brimelow on the Invasion of America, Who’s Behind It, and How Long Until Total Collapse

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right. (00:00) It's Time to Rethink Immigration (15:05) Why Brimelow Was Pushed Out of National Review (21:27) Is Israel an ethnostate? (27:23) The Effort to Make America Less White (33:33) Why Letitia James Is Trying to Destroy Brimelow Paid partnerships with: Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker TCN: Watch 'Replacing Europe: Following the World's Deadliest Migration Route,' dropping January 20 only on https://TuckerCarlson.com Last Country Supply: Real prep starts with the basics. Here’s what we keep stocked: https://lastcountrysupply.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brimlow, thank you so much for doing this. I thought of you last week when I read this, I don't know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast. Okay, so here's one. This is a tweet from last week less than a week ago from basically an anonymous account, and I'm quoting,

if white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they're a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive. Okay, that's on the internet. Elon Musk retweets it and says,

100%. And then Elon Musk writes this. If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct, exclamation point. all of that, in my opinion is obviously true. And I think most people know it. But I read that.

I thought, here's the world's richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things, saying this. And Peter Brimlow, who I know, who's a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for that than that. So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that. It feels kind of tingly. On the one hand,

tingly? I'm happy that the debate has moved in that direction and the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on VDAIR.com, which was my website, by birthright citizenship and so on, and how in the public debate. On the other hand, you know, we've been ruined and we're facing personal ruin, of course,

because of this attack on us by the New York Attorney General, Leticia James. As nobody knows who, I am Tucker, I should say that, you know, I'm a long time, it's part of my accent, I've been here for 55 years, and I'm a long time financial journalist, I work for Forbes and, and Fortune and the Barons and so on, and I work for National Review, I wrote for National Review a lot, and I wrote on immigration in 1992 saying time to rethink immigration, that sometimes credit was kicking off the modern debate. And there was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost,

and Buckley stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of Immigration Patriots and for the next while the war's journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and they've crying on about the need for amnesty and there's no way to combat it. So I set up a website which I call it, I named V-Dare.com after Virginia Dare,

the first English child, not white chad as they always say, born in the new world. And over a period of about 25 years were built up into quite a force until about two years ago. It was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, the Chief James,

who just basically subpoenaed us to death, and has, in fact, now sued us personally and as in the foundation, and through the foundation. So we're a bit like General Flynn, you know, no middle class family can start up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house, and we're going to face,

driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess. It's a horrifying story. I've kept abreast of it through your wife who text me as a wonderful person. And I know that you're a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need. And I'm grateful to have. So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing. But I like if you don't mind to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review.

1992 you said you wrote this piece saying time to rethink immigration, which I remember well. At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative. So that was a significant piece at the time. And then you said Bill Buckley, that then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back. Can you tell a story? What happened exactly? Oh, sure. I was never on Stafford, National.

Right. but I was what they called a senior editor and I roll for it a lot and in 992 I wrote this very long cover story is about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the editor then. He was just circling around in the background

but the then editor, John Osolvent went with this story and for about five years we basically directly challenged the official conservative line which was that immigration is good, more immigration it's better, illegal immigration is very good, that's what the Walshers

general said and still saying as far as I can tell. Yes. And then at the end of five years in 97, Bill just abruptly without any warning at all fired or Sullivan and purged the magazine of Immigration Patriots and basically told us to shut up butt. It's told them all to shut up butt immigration, which of course they all eagerly did. He put the Washington Bureau in charge of Rich Lowry and Pannuru and so on. And so for them for two or three years, you know, you couldn't get even the basic

facts about immigration out to the public. Well, then the internet came along and, you know, rescued us. And I started Vidaer.com. But, but ask you to pause and explain why that happened? Why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired in letting John O'Sullivan run it, another Brit, I think. Yes, indeed. Who now is in Budapest. Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation

specifically. Well, of course, I've had 20 odd years to think about that. And the answer is, over the time, my answer has evolved. At the time, at the time, I thought he was just jealous. This is actually a thing you see. I was a financial journalist for a long time. It's a thing you see often in the corporate world, entrepreneurs will come back and purge the fire the managers that they put into replace themselves. Yes, exactly. I feel jealousy. I think the congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors. And, and, you know, I think that was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then-republican majority in the House.

So the Republican leadership didn't like it, Newt Gingrich, etc., who was ascendant, came in a 94 to much, much fanfare, achieved not a lot. But they're the ones you pressure Bill Buckley, you believe. I think that was true, but I also think that the neocons in New York. hated it, hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neil Conservatives, people like Norman Porrhus and so on. And I think they pressured him to, I mean, I know they pressured him to get rid of John. Now, why would they care? Oh, because at that point, the Neil Conservatives, who predominantly Jewish faction, they had this sort of Ellis Island view of

of America. They wanted to, they're extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they feel as Jews that it will leave them out in the cold. Despite the fact

there's never been any real anti-Semitic movement in the United States. There's no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they're white is a threat to Jews. I don't know where that comes from. Right. And I actually think there's a certain sort of jealousy there, you know.

They didn't like, I mean, if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconsolivism. But here was a non-neoconservative fact. We would have then described ourselves as paleo-conservatives coming up with a whole idea and a whole issue. Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when the Hartzell Act kicked in until the early 90s. But there was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Review's archives, and I found that they hadn't discussed immigration at all

between the passage of the 65 Act until the early 90s. People simply didn't realize what was going on. Why? I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that, you know, there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the US.

And, you know, and so it just wanted to. wasn't an issue to them. And you know what happens with the, it's like an academic life. They have an academic theory. It's not that it conquered an other theorist by being better and better arguments. It's just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off and they're replaced by younger. And that's true for politicians too. The whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. And I include Ronald Reagan in that. I mean, it simply wasn't an issue when he was growing up. And that's why he was honed swaggered by this, the Urquat Amnesty. He actually genuinely thought that the ruling of the permanent government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement,

whereas in fact it just took the amnesty and didn't enforce the law against illegal immigration at all. Christmas feels like just yesterday, but in fact it's already time to think about Lent. Lent is a great chance to step back, examine our lives and decide whether or not we're headed somewhere worth going. This Lent, we strongly recommend the world's top number one prayer app. It's called Hallow. Its Lent Prayer Challenge starts February 18th. It's called Pray 40, the Return. Transformation does not start with improvement. No, transformation starts with repentance,

the courage to admit that you are lost and change direction. Pray 40 forces you to confront that, responsibility, forgiveness, and what it means to truly repent and leave. live a life of meaning by following Jesus. Every day, enjoy simple, deliberate prayer. No spectacle, no performance, just silence, honesty, and one small step toward renewal. This is not about fixing your life overnight. It's about beginning the journey home.

Pray 40, the return starts Wednesday, February 18th, and runs right through Easter. Download Hallow for free at hallow.com's. It's the golden moment. Triumph on the podium, golden hand. But with Corona Serro, golden moments go beyond the Winter Olympics. They're enjoying sunsets, time outside, reconnecting with nature, and laughs shared with friends. For every golden moment at the Winter Olympic Games, enjoy your own with Corona Serro, 0% alcohol and a source of vitamin D.

Corona Cerro, the official non-alcoholic beer of Milano Cortina, 2026. So the New Year is here, but that does not mean you've got to overhaul your whole life, despite claims to the contrary. You don't have to take drastic measures. Make a few changes here and there, and you'll be a lot better off. And you can start with the snacks in your pantry. Now, products from standard American chip brands are, let's be honest, pretty repulsive, filled with chemicals that make you feel heavy and bloated. They don't even taste that good. They're not good for you.

We recommend an upgrade with Masa chips. Masta is the easiest way to eat clean without feeling like you're on a diet. The chips contain three ingredients. That's it. Organic corn, sea salt, 100% grass-fed beef towel, and that is it. No seed oils, no mystery chemicals, just food, actual food. And they're amazing, and you feel great after. You don't feel weighed down.

We particularly enjoyed the Kobanero flavor lately. But they're all great. You want to give them a try? Visit MasaChips.com, M-M-A-chips.com slash Tucker. use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order, or you can clink the link in the video description, or you can scan the QR code to claim this outstanding offer. And if you don't feel like ordering online,

you can buy them nationwide at your local Sprout supermarket. Stop by and pick up a couple of bags before somebody else does. Flash Tucker. But I'm a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force. Let me just back up with skin. What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it's obviously donor-driven.

Oh, of course. And we weren't aware of that in the 90s. I wasn't even aware. I didn't think about the donors' role in politics, really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued, and you just simply didn't realize how dominant how important the donors are. I think now, looking back in it, particularly given,

I mean, Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. And he depended on National Review, financially to a considerable extent. It financed his lifestyle to a considerable extent. And I think... But he depended on the magazine? Yeah, yeah. I think that's why. I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended on him.

Yeah. That's what he wanted you to think. But in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent. And... The winters and shod and the sailing across the Bermuda race and... I don't know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expense. to the magazine. In any case,

he just didn't want to disrupt the donor floor. And the more I think about that, the more I think that probably was the reason. Interesting. So that's basically a species of fraud. I don't mean against the tax code. I mean, it's intellectual fraud. It's you're making the case that you believe these things

because they are true, when in fact, you're taking money to say them. I think Bill actually, my experience for Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When he went to his, those dinners used to put on 73, 73rd Street, it was very hard to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. And you can see that in the way he lived his life, Lately. I mean, writing these books and so on.

He just basically didn't do any serious thinking about politics. Initially, he was very, I have a letter from him, actually, saying how wonderful my immigration story was. Really? Yes. And it was, you know, if I get what he said,

but he said it was beautifully organized and they beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that sort of. He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just said, told them to stop covering it. But the official line of the paper of the magazine was that immigration was questionable.

They just didn't do any journalism on it. Which is how he was about drug legalization. He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about him. Huh. Why? I guess he was balancing a number of issues. In the case of immigration, I think he's done. Immigration was a very unfashionable subject. I remember.

And I think as we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on. Megan Kelly, yes. And he was attacking you for some reason, or that I forget what. And he was saying that, then he suddenly says, but Tucker's good on some things, he's good in immigration.

Well, as I understand that, you're interesting idea of immigration moratorium and so on. Of course. This news to me that's what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. I mean, just about five or six years ago,

in National Review, he called me a white supremacist, but basically because for no other reasons than advocating immigration reduction. And those days, back in the other days, if you advocated immigration control, you're immediately suspect that you would meet the suspect of being anti-Semite,

even though there's no direct connection at all. And now they've changed their mind on this. They've fallen back. I mean, Norman before he died, I was very friendly with Norman. He didn't talk to me for the last 10 years of his life. But he died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95. But just before he died,

he gave an interview, said he changed his mind in immigration. He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed. And he credited John Osloven, the edge of National Review, for helping change his mind. He didn't mention me. Why didn't he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life? Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character. And I deviated on the immigration issue.

And he suspected, I had the habit of calling the National Review, the Goldberg Review, because at that stage briefly it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think he's a complete fraud and lightweight. And of course, it was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue. Well, he's certainly a lightweight. It's hard to know what he believes or doesn't, but he certainly, I mean, if John and Goldberg is like your intellectual force, then you've been degraded.

Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, you've got to stop calling National Review the Goldberg Review because it sounds anti-Semitic. Actually, my understanding is that Goldberg is not, is not technically his mother was, his mother was a, was a gentile.

So I knew her, she was a great person, actually. I replied, I replied and said that and he didn't get bad. But he just gradually suspected more, he suspected me more and more of thought crime.

And Norman was an extremely passionate man. He didn't. So famously. He didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't socialize with, with,

with, with, with, with, with, with, with, with, I miss him. I,

I, I, I, I, I, , I, I, I, I, I, I was sorry. No, there was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways,

kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion. And actually, all his wife, Mitch Decker a lot, because she was the chair thing of the Philadelphia Society, which is a conservative affinity group, and she invited him to speak on immigration in, I guess, 2005, and that's where I met. My first wife had just died,

and that's why I met my current wife, Lydia, who of course was running the Vida Foundation with me. She was the publisher of VDAI.com. And you've had her on, of course. Oh, of course, and I'm a fan. She's a brave woman and a smart one. May I ask what happened to your relationship with Bill Buckley? When he fired John Sullivan,

I was the only one of the entire staff who went in and asked, why did you fire him? What? Yeah, well, the official line, was John had resigned to write a book. That was because John was very popular with the National Review base, and the immigration issue was very popular. And so he didn't want to admit that he was dumping them both.

So he got really ruffled because he wasn't used to being challenged and said, he resigned to write a book and resigns to write a book. And we basically never spoke to each other after that. I mean, I was constructive dismissed from National Review. I let to tell me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very, very important in the National Review world because it was run like a fraternity, and if you were seniority,

you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that kind of thing. And I never wrote for it again. Why did they dismiss you, do you think? Oh, well, I'm sure that. The Washington Bureau was always upset with the immigration issue because it embarrassed them, It embarrassed them in Washington cocktail partners, you know, and he put the Washington Bureau in charge the magazine, so I'm sure they would be happy to do it.

And they didn't want to write about immigration. And I think also, you know, mud sticks, Tucker. Mud sticks, yeah. And by this constant whispering campaign of how that I was a racist and anti-Semite for race in these issues, it sticks. And it has stuck. So that, you know, even though Ben Shapiro is now in his picture, of just talking about immigration. I don't see him apologizing to me.

No, well, of course not. He doesn't care about you at all or other people at all. I had a really interesting experience recently. Lydia and I were at an ISI book event, and I bought Matthew and Cottonett's book. I mean, I actually bought it. I put down my, it's a rotten, awful book about the conservative movement. Since I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn't.

Well, he's a silly. I mean, it's all. This is Bill Crystal Sun-in-Loy. The point, I took it up to him. I like to collect inscribe books. In fact, I forgot to bring your book, I'm sorry. And he wouldn't sign him. He wouldn't inscribe him.

He said, I have nothing to say to you. And the really weird thing about this is that... On what ground? I mean, I don't think you've ever said that I'm aware of an anti-Semitic thing in your life. I don't think you're an anti-Semite. Well, Connett is a convert, of course, so he's probably very, you know, particularly ardent. But the weird thing about this was that Contonet had actually been some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think of his father-in-law is.

But he said to your face, I won't inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you? Essentially, yes, that's right. He signed it, but he wouldn't inscribe it. And then he said nothing to say to him. Wow. Yeah, I mean... It's kind of surprising. I mean, we live out there in Eastern Pinehandler, West Virginia, and we don't have to face this stuff.

But I guess when you in D.C., you faced it all the time. Yeah, well, I laughed. But I also believe in forgiveness, and that's kind of the difference, I think. I mean, we're commanded to believe in forgiveness and to treat people as human beings. Norman didn't believe them. No, I'm very aware of that. I'm very aware of that. It was a principal position with him.

It's a principle, but it's a satanic principle that you can't forgive other people. That is, you're not forgiven if you don't, so that's my view. Wow, that's amazing. So you were just cast out. Well, the thing is, he'd already signed the books. I couldn't give it. He signed it, but I couldn't give it back. Get my money back.

Whereas conversely, Yeram Hazzoni was also there. And, you know, Hizomi, as you know, bandals from his National Conservative Conference because he said he didn't think we were appropriate. And so we had a series of bitter exchanges in VD, but Zoni was perfectly friendly. And he signed the book and inscribed it,

and we chatted about children and grandchildren, so on. Yom Hazzoni is a very courtly man, a very charming and warm person, I'll say. I had lunch with him once and I don't agree with him on a lot, but I liked him. It's hard not to like him. I think he's very good. A lot of the stuff he says about concerns him is exactly accurate.

I think that's right. He's moving it away from being classical liberalism. The problem, of course, is that he's caught in this bind because he doesn't want to admit that Israel is an ethno state because he doesn't want the Americans to have an ethno state. them to be a civic nationalist state. What do you mean, won't admit, I mean, Israel is by its own description in an ethno state. Yeah, but he keeps arguing that.

That's not an attack, by the way, at all. Well, you know, I've never been able to get them to explain how you cannot say that there's a racial component to Israel. When, of course, the Jewish religion is racially based. I mean, that's why they have the matter of, the material. principle where you've got to have a Jewish mother. And I've never seen him respond to that. And I don't think he can't because he doesn't want to encourage straight up white nationalism in America. For years you've been told this is not happening and you're a bigot for thinking it is,

but it is happening. Mass migration is reshaping the West completely. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. Different people live here now. You're not a racist for noticing that. You're just using your senses. Again, it's not a theory. It's the biggest fact of this or any generation in a thousand years.

The replacement is real. European governments aren't just tolerating mass migration. They're encouraging it. They're funding it. They hate their populations and they want new populations. We've got a new documentary on this called Replacing Europe, following the world's deadliest migration route. Our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see. They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public is never told. It's not ideological.

It's reality. This is happening. It's destroying the West. And our cameras caught it. Replacing Europe. That's the doc only on TCN now. I just want to be clear about my own views, not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely, I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethno state. It's their country.

You have whatever state you want, as far as I'm concerned. But it is an ethno state by definition. The people who founded it were not religious. A lot of them were atheists. And they identified as Jewish racially. Again, I have no problem with that at all. That's their country. But to say it's not an ethno state is not only a lie,

but it's like a ludicrous lie. And he won't admit that. That's my opinion of what he wants, as only is saying. But it's one of the situations where his civic nationalism is so intense that it might as well be ethnic nationalism, if for the U.S. But a lot of things he says about immigration,

the U.S. are excellent. Right, I agree. And I'm not attacking Yoramazone at all, whom I like. But that's dishonest because Israel is an ethno state and you should just tell the truth about, especially about obvious things, right? Well, it's what I'll call

double think, isn't it? A double think, you've got to believe two contradictory things at once. It's necessary to operate in large parts of political world. Interesting. So, but why wouldn't people who support an ethno state and Israel want one here.

I mean, why would they object to that so strongly? I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate. They're overwhelmingly pro-immigration. However, I haven't said that, you know, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know the

people on the other side, and some people are very hard on the other side. Oh, and I know a lot of them. That's why I would never be anti-Semitic, because I mean, you can't generalize, you know, because I mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who of course is an aid to Trump, I think he's the deputy chief of staff or something.

He's going to be the first Jewish president. I say this because it's hard to suspect horrifies people so much. But he's liked Israeli in Britain. Benjamin Israeli, of course, was Jewish. Yes. Convert to Episcopalianism. He was converted by his father to very early age. His father took the whole family over to being Episcopalians.

He basically invented the Conservative Party, reinvented the conservative party in 19th century, he came up with a in Britain, he came up with a complete grand strategy for it based on the empire and imperial patriotism and so on. And that really carried the party through for the next eight to ninety years. A couple of generations, the Kurdish party was a nationalist party and because of being a nationalist party, got a very substantial working class vote because it is the blue-collar workers with the Patriots.

And the Concordiapos is ever to tap into them. Miller's done the same thing. He's invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party, which he desperately doesn't want to take up because it's run by cowards and fools. But he thinks they should move towards, you know, restabilizing America's ethnic balance and basically

eliminating this immigrant inflow which is causing all kinds of problems for lower skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance and he's not afraid to admit that and not only that I don't think anyone should be afraid cunning to survive the Kushner White House

I mean that was really extraordinary because Jared Kushner of course bleed exactly the opposite he's basically a liberal New York Jew but for some reason Mill was able to survive with him I couldn't have done that So, and I wouldn't have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did. The sessions was his close aid and his mentor, and then Miller and Miller abandons him when Trump turns against him.

I couldn't have done that either, but then he's in the White House and I'm not. Yeah, no, I think those are all fair and true observations. It's interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a, is a demographic project. I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white. They'll say that. It's not controversial.

I mean, you could prove it on video, didn't even bother to because I think most people watching us already know that. Its architects starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965 basically just said, ultimately admitted this, the whole point is to make America less white and non-majority white country. why is it so hard for conservatives to say the same?

If Democrats are saying we want America to be non-white, why can't conservatives say that that's what their motive is? I have to say that Kennedy didn't say that. At first. Yes, when he was the flaw marriage of the hard sell, he gave a very explicit assurance. You love to quote saying that this will not alter the racial balance of America, and it will not mean a million people you will be coming.

in fact, a million people you are coming in. Of course. And that's one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having Vida. Even though I have my own Peter, peterbrimo, peterbrimo dot com, substack, that's not the same kind of voice, because we've got to get legal immigration into the debate here. I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more remarkable than people realize,

but they're not doing anything else on legal immigration. But I'm sorry, that means I'm not answered the question. What was your question? Well, my question was, The whole point of the project was not to feed a desperate need for low-skilled labor. That definitely no longer exists now with AI. And it wasn't to improve America. It's completely destroyed America.

It destroyed the state of California. Well, when I was writing the book I wrote on Immigration Alien Nation that flowed out of my cover story, the 95 book, which Harper Collins refused to reprint, I quoted a man called Earl Robb, who is a Jewish activist. and so on. And he explicitly said that the Jews were in favor of mass non-white immigration because it makes the rise of a, he didn't use the term neo-Nazi, but that's what he meant, you know, party in America impossible. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It makes it more like... Well, exactly. But he did say that. He quite calm. He said that this is why most Jews favor... Well, it's also made the rise of hard-edged.

anti-Israel politics. And I'm not pro-Israel, especially, but I don't hate Israel. A lot of people who hate Israel are immigrants. Look at the New York's New York Marathi race. Well, exactly. Bandami won because the immigrant vote. Exactly.

Exactly. The native-born American New Yorkers, and God knows, look at who they are, for God's sake. I mean, but they voted against Mandami. Exactly. So they have really screwed themselves. This hasn't worked. I mean, if you're in.

interest was to keep anti-Semitism and really kind of crazy anti-Israel sentiment to a minimum. And I agree with that. I'm against anti-Semitism. I'm against like basing our life on hating Israel. That seems kind of lunatic. If that was your goal, I mean, you literally achieve the opposite result. Is that fair to say? Not for the first time. Yeah. That's fair. Fair. So you think maybe that wasn't the goal. I don't know. I'm just guessing here. Maybe there was another goal that we don't understand. Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can't be analyzed intellectually. It's just a whole series of reflexes.

Or spiritual. But, you know, one of the reasons, we know that the New York Attorney General's attack on us was basically instigated by the Anti-Defamation League because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to a national. admit this, that they'd gone to Letitia James and told her to take, if he dare out. And we say to ourselves, why us Jews? What's we ever done to you? You know, we have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought us a conference venue because we're not allowed to have conference anywhere else. The dawner was Jewish.

We had all kinds of Jewish donors and all kinds of Jewish writers. But that doesn't make any difference to the ADL apparently. So what are you going to do when the power goes out, not theoretically. but actually in real life. Most Americans used to think total power failure only happened in unstable countries, places without functioning governments, places you only went to on vacation. This is the U.S. people would say that could never happen here. Okay.

Well, then it did. Remember Texas during the deep freeze? The grid collapsed. People were left without heat. Some froze to death in their own homes. So the truth is obvious now. The government can't guarantee you electricity. And when things go wrong, no one's coming to save you.

That's why Last Country Supply offers the grid doctor. It's a 3,300-watt battery backup system built to keep your entire household running when everything else stops. It powers full-size appliances, medical devices, essential tools. You can use it indoors. It's totally safe. There's no fuel. There are no fumes.

There's no noise. We have one at home, and it's awesome. It's got 15 output ports. It charges from the wall when you have power, from your car when you don't. It's got a solar panel so the sun can charge it. It's built to withstand EMPs, lightning, solar flares. It is durable as hell. So taking care of yourself and the people you love,

the people you're responsible for is your job. Get power you can trust always. Get the grid doctor today at our very own, lastcountry supply.com. Our business, this is the power supply that we use. Lastcountry supply.com. Now to what happened to you and to Vder. So you're expelled,

both from National Review and you leave your old life as a financial journalist behind I think it's a fair summary and then you create this organization called VDARE named after Virginia Dare, the first British child born in the Americas and it becomes successful, it becomes big and it's not anti-Semitic, it's not racist,

it's against changing America's populations for immigration. Is that a fair summary? Yeah, I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. VDARE was kind of a moodlighting project How'd you pull that off? It was very difficult, and of course, eventually became impossible.

And I was fired both from Forbes and from CBS, what used to be CBS Market Watch, became Dow Jones Market Watch. In both cases, it was joined turn downs in the markets, but I happened to be the one, you know, they chose to fire me rather than people who were frankly less valuable to them. So it did in the, end, terminate my career in the mainstream media. But on the other hand, you know, we were

developing VEDA very rapidly and it became quite a big deal. And in 2019, we raised nearly $4 million, which enabled us to buy the castle and do all kinds of all things. Of course, we've, you know, we've, it's been utterly destroyed now. I've been, I've been out of it for, you know, it was suspended two years ago and I resigned. So, you know, I'm supporting the family now on on the pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family. I have minor children, so it's kind of irritating. Irritating doesn't begin to describe it.

So tell the story, if you would. You're running Vider and somehow Letitia James, who's the... She's the Attorney General of New York. VDER is a 5-1C3 charity and it was registered New York in 1999. Entirely because I then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York and therefore that it was convenient for him.

And this was when, you know, there was a public governor in New York and nobody heard of lawfare, nobody heard it. The idea of lawfare, this kind of exploitation of regulatory power, it never occurred to anybody at that point. Well, because we registered New York, even though we don't operate in New York, she was able to demand, we one day woke up and found we got these massive subpoenas. demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email, going back to 2016. Of course, that was a huge problem because if she got that,

she would have the names about donors and our anonymous, pseudonymous writers. And I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were even far. I mean, I ask them what, okay, so you're not domiciled in New York, you're not operating in New York. Well, we're registered in New York. That's the key point. But the 501C is registered in New York. Yes, that's right. But you're not. And you can't get out. You've got to have her permission to get out.

You can't change states? No. We can only with her permission. And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 5-1C3 and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets. She could claim jurisdiction over that. It's a huge mess. And we had very expensive, a lot of looking at it for a long time, but even before she came

along and hit us with this. May I ask on what grounds she should subpoenas to you? She doesn't have to give grounds. But what she said was she wanted to investigate the castle purchase. which we did in 2000, or more I should say, Lydia did it in 2000. Because, as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen 15 conferences canceled. Hotels would accept a booking,

then the council as soon as they came under pressure from the left. And we realized we were never going to be able to have a conference. So we bought our own venue. And she wanted to investigate that. Well, of course, all that purchase was very carefully lowered, precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it. But it doesn't make any difference. She demands that.

She demanded that and she demanded all kinds of other things. The real killing thing, Fros was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents. We, the really killing thing was demanded the email because we know if she got the writer's names and the donor's name, she would release them. She did that with Nikki Haley. They leaked the donors to her pack.

And the paper that, the papers that you saw that gave the, the names of Nikki Haley's dollars were actually, the leadhead was in New York Attorney General's office. But of course, nobody ever came after for it. I'm just confused. Did she have evidence you committed a crime? No, she was looking for evidence. And she's not found it, but she's charged us anyway.

Well, she hasn't charged us. It's not a criminal thing, but she's suing us anyway over him. My impression, my guess, my guess is that the Trump administration will begin to ignore the courts in some cases. And people will say that this is the beginning of fascism and a takeover of the destruction of our legal system. And, you know, that's a fair point. No, it's not a fair point.

Well, exactly. That's exactly what I'm about to say. Exactly. It has already been destroyed. And when the attorney general of the state you don't live or operate in can destroy you because she doesn't like your opinions, then we don't have a functioning legal system, period.

And this happened before Trump. So I just want to say that. The wonderful, I mean, one of the wonderful thing, back up a second, one wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprising journalist actually dug up a speech made to the ADL. They had a conference called Taking Hate to Court by Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James operatives. And he is the one who's leading the charge against us.

and he said to this conference that hate speech, that's us, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, but there are ways around that. All you have to do if it's a charity and you have jurisdictions to start to win subpoenas.

He said it sucks to be sued, just subpoenaed them to death. And of course that's exactly what he's done to us. You know, they inflicted over a million, nearly a million and a half dollars in out of pocket costs for lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that lady had to spend digging through documents and so on, which meant that she couldn't fundraise or do any of the work.

They just destroy you through the process of the punishment. They just destroy you that way. So he's actually openly admitting this. So when we saw this, we thought, oh, it's all over. They've obviously admitted that what they're doing is not, it's political. It's not because of some regulatory concern. But we've been totally unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this. We're trying again.

Now we have what they call 983 action. against Letitia James and the operatives personally, and we're trying to raise this First Amendment question there. But the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it. I mean, if the Attorney General and her staff are admitting they're destroying you because they disagree with your opinions, it seems to me that any federal court would take that up because that's a foundational question.

That's what we thought. But in fact, the first time we did it, that caught simply dodged on the technical issue. They came out with a technical excuse to dodge in. And we have a try and again now, but we just have to hope for the best. I think one of the things that is clear to me, I mean, from looking at our litigation experience,

which is now considerably goes far beyond this situation. And all the cases I'm aware of is that there seems to have been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that's quote and quote on a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary. In our case, the classic example is we had an hotel cancelance in Colorado Springs. And they, well, Coro was not with them because they paid up with liquidated damages like men and it was a lot of money. But they canceled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a rhino, John Souther,

had said he wouldn't extend police protection to the conference when when they you know in other words antifac would go in and he wouldn't extend police protection yes that's right now this is an issue that's been he's threatening to kill you that's right and who is this his name was john suthers he was the mayor of he was the republican john suthers the mayor of colorado springs basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you

if you went to his that's right now this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the civil rights era. And the point was made very clear that by the courts, that the local authorities, the law governments have to extend protection to people's First Amendment rights. In other words, in those days, the black demonstrators would go into it, would have meetings in the city and the local, the local whites would be angry about it, but those whites had to be kept away. The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings. Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court, which refused to take the issue up.

And there was, the appeals court in Colorado rejected us. And I believe it had at least one, we had one good judge there who said this is obviously attack on First Amendment rights and, but the other two who I think were Republican appointees to vote against us. So we lost. And we weren't able to, our initial lawyer, you know, civil rights litigation is extremely damaging if you're on the wrong side of it. I mean, there's enormous damages involved. So it was, it would, we would have, it would have been a huge. sort of victory and we would have we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way and our initial lawyer in card of springs was so keen on this it was so obvious open and a

short case that he took it on contingency you know but as soon as you realize that the city was going to resist he ran away and we had to start paying our paying lawyers to litigate him well anyway subsequently there was a case in before the supreme court new york i guess it was volo it's called the volo case of u l-l-o and this was a case where where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to ensure the NRA and the NRA fought it and it won. And in the decision, Kattendi Jackson says the NRA's case is strong but it's essentially in powerfacing, it's not as strong as VDA's case where they were denied police,

but where the state agency, you know, basically discriminates against the most them on political grounds. What's this? We never heard about this. Well, it turns out that 16 Attorney General had signed an amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to reject our attempt to sue Colorado Springs on a civil rights theory, and that it was wrong for the following reasons, and for that reason, the Supreme Court should take up the NRA's case against NRA versus Volo, I guess it was called. And the Supreme Court did take it up. and ruled against the state of New York, 9-0, which, of course, does us absolutely no good whatever

because we're out all that money and, you know, I first have memorized so not protected. I mean, in other words, there's a real determination on the part of it. The NRA is apparently more partable than we are. I'm a little bit confused, just conceptually, with the idea that white self-awareness is effectively illegal in the United States, whereas ethnic self-awareness in every other group is encouraged.

Like, it doesn't make any sense. Speak for myself. I'd rather live in a deracialized rule where people think about it less because it does cause problems. But as long as you're encouraging identity politics, why do whites not get to have it? What is the answer? Well, it's completely hypocritical.

It's because the people run in the society or anti-warrant. And they've been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in anti-white way. Anti-white in this case really means anti-American. I mean, because the whites are Americans. That's who Americans are. The people who sign there are declaration of independence. Yeah, I did know that.

And the purpose of the project, like big picture, again, I keep going back to this, but I am a little bit confused because this is the defining fact of our lives is that whites around the world are being eliminated. And I would like to know why. Do you have any guesses? As I say, I think, Tucker, I think it derives from emotion rather than a kind of rational calculation.

I mean, if you look at what's happened in South Africa, or for that minute, in every big American black city, that's majority black. I mean, they can't want it to be able to get into a situation where the water is putrid and nothing works and all that kind of thing. But they do. that what the purpose of a system is what it does. And the purpose of, you know, non-white government is to produce non-white government and non-white results. Unless, of course, you're Chinese. Because Singapore's run Japanese.

They're run very efficiently. They are. It's just interesting that people move here because it's a white country. You see it to run it into the ground. Well, all of us benefit white and non-white benefit alike from systems created by whites because they're more humane. they're more just, they're more fair, and they're much more efficient and cleaner,

obviously. You know, I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you, I was looking at an interview, somebody sent me, an interview I did for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedman. And I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism?

And he said, yes, I think, and as you know, he's a very, a fire-breathing libertarian, but he actually thought about this question. And he said that, you know, he said, really only have a word in the English-speaking countries. I don't know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted.

There's some kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism. I sometimes, what economists call a metamarket, a framework. The market operates. So the question is, why are these capitalists bringing, you know, why is the Chamber of Commerce sue in to keep the H-1B flow coming? When they know it's going to, when it's obviously going to produce people who don't do it, like Mandami, who don't support capitalism and in fact hate it. What are the capitalists doing?

Well, they're doing what Lenin said. They will sell us the rope with which we hang them. And I mean, that's demonstrable. It was true in 1917. It's true in 2006. Do you think it's the product of short-term thinking? Oh, in the case of business people, of course it did. The malign influence of the Walser's journal editorial page.

A whole generation of business people actually believe all. this nonsense. It's very hard to get out of their heads because they're never allowed. I mean, they're never allowed criticism of immigration on the editorial page. So you've referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also Harper Collins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family. Right. What's been your experience with the Murdox? Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert in, I think that's 1990, on a ghosting his autobiography, which was never published for various really changed his mind about it. But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally,

and he continued to be extraordinarily generous until very recently. I guess I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time, and they dropped me when you came under attack, because somebody had somebody looked into people on the payroll, and they found that there's thought criminals on the payroll. So at that point, at that point I was dropped. But he's always been, he's always been extraordinarily generous to me. That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch.

And you know, it's not the case with a lot of these characters. It's not. It's not. It's not. No. Robert Maxwell and so on. I remember Rupert tell me once that he thought that Maxwell, as you know, fell off his yacht after the Canary Islands and was found dead.

Rupert's theory was, this guy is such a jerk that the crew probably couldn't stand him anymore. That is one theory. That is one theory. His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked. I don't know the truth of it. But he certainly had a lot of enemies and a lot of suspects in that crime.

But I mean, he was personal in place. And that's not the case of Rupert. He's not cruel. He's not vindictive. Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I've ever met in my life. I mean, he has perfect manners. He's truly Anglo in that way.

And I never had a bad time with him. Always agree. Even when he fired me, I talked to him after. He couldn't have been nicer. So I strongly agree with your assessment. But he kept you on the payroll for decades? Yeah. So I had five children born on his health care.

I had some born on his health care too. God bless you, Rupert Murdoch. It was very good. No, it's a, I mean, I don't know. The truth should be told, good and bad. So essentially, I was a consultant for him, and he didn't consult me at all. because, of course, I would have told him to do the exact opposite what he was asked.

But I have no complaints about Rupert Murdo. Yes, no, I just want to say out loud. I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years. But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley, then, you know, Rupert has great personal decency and I've seen it. but his the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American basic American interests. So like, what is that? This guy likes America.

He treats people around him well. There's a lot good to say about Rupert. But the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Harper Collins, all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America's interests. So why? Why is that? Do you know? Well, I think he handed over the, the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of news corporation,

or 21st century, Fox is it called, whatever it's called now, to the neo-conservatives. And so he took on a lot of neo-conservative baggage at that point. I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment, they shall be open borders, you know. I mean, it was really lunatic. And I believe that's still the case.

But why would he do that? First of all, because they're very good. They're extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy. They were extremely good in the Cold War. They were, that's correct. But that was then and this is now, and they have just simply made the transition. But that's a major reason.

I know, so he's operating in New York, and, you know, he was under a lot of suspicion there, and he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy. And he's showing that. It's genuine though with Rupert. I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initially Iraq war, the Gulf War. And he said, well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli.

You know, his father played a major role in discrediting the Gallipid expedition, which was this attack, orchestrated by Winston Churchill. They're trying to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia, to help Russia join the war. He said, so I'm just, I guess I'm just. just basically anti-Arab. I said, those aren't Arabs, the Turks. Well, exactly. Exactly.

They're all the same. Yeah, the Ottoman Empire's gone, and they've done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who helped finance his companies. So it's kind of a strange answer. His father was a famous journalist in Australia who broke the news of the disaster at Gallipoli. And he was very proud of that.

But that's not much of an answer. Is it? Well, you're doing better than I. I don't know. I just, it's, you know, he said such an effect on the world and on my life. And as I said five times, I've always liked him and still do. But it does, it's a mystery. Somebody said to me once, one of his, his henchmen in Australia said to me that,

Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist. And his father, as a journalist, do you want to be a businessman? Because he did found a published empire in Australia, Sir Keith Murdoch. I think there's a lot in that. I mean, I think that you and I are ideologues, professional ideologues, but Rupert is not a professional dialogue. No, that's, that's... He's somebody who spends all this time looking at numbers.

He's a fantastic memory for numbers. He knows all... I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number is ever dialed, you know. And running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail, and tremendous application to going over pages and pages and pages, of figures. And I don't know that he spends a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a

sporting sense. I mean, he likes to be, he likes to, you know, he likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing. But then he likes going to Australian football matches too, so I think it's kind of a similar thing. That is a very smart analysis. I think you're, I think you're exactly, I think you just answered the question. He's outsourced a lot of the thinking to others it's transactional he's not tightly wedded to ideological details at all but he's really allowed the Wall Street

Journal editorial page to become a force of destruction well I have to admit it's many years since I've bothered to read the Wallst Journal I rely on people sending me things and they don't send much from the Wall Street Journal or for that matter from National Review very well seem to

Is National Review still in existence? Apparently so it has it has the Republican, you know, establishment to support. It's like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz and what, do you know the editor of National Review? I have the, have the, I mean Rich Lurie? He's gone for some time now, isn't he, isn't he hasn't even done there somebody else? I have it the faintest idea. But did you know him? You know, I sat in rooms with him and I went to Bucket's parts with him. I have absolutely no memory of him at all. He never said anything to all of significance. And I think that's why,

why Bill had him because he was completely malleable. Yeah, I think that sounds, that sounds right. Sad, how much has been lost. So speaking of lost, what happened in the end, and I interrupted your story, my apologies, but to V-DARE. V-Dare is suspended, suspended in July of 2024 because we just ran out of money. The foundation is still in existence,

and Lydia is still, she's not paid, but she's still paying lawyers and dealing with the legal. situation which continues to ramify as I say we're being sued personally and and as a foundation and what grounds are you being sued oh there's a whole bunch of things fundamentally technical issues to do with to do with whether we had the right number of directors vote on the right number of things it's all paperwork stuff it's all stuff that could would normally resolve with the phone call and possibly refiling and stuff like that

they're not found any evidence of a misappropriation of funds and And in fact, we moved to dismiss on this basis, although they huff and puff a lot, I mean, the 60-odd pages of rhetoric, but the actual charges, they haven't got anything. Who is suing you? This is New York State. So they're using tax dollars still?

Oh, yes, that's right. Enormous. They've spent a great deal of money on this. They also, very weirdly, subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of all our dealings with Facebook. Well, Facebook banned us in 2020, as part of Zuckerberg's campaign to defeat Donald Trump. They thought we were pro-Trump.

So we actually hadn't had any deal with Facebook for more than two years when they came after us. But nevertheless, they got all these records off of Facebook, but they've done nothing with them. Because, of course, there's nothing there. I think they genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the Russians. The Russians?

To run bat farms, you know. If you remember, that was the allegation, with interference in the 2016, that the Russians were financing tiny little Facebook pages, and that's how they were manipulating the election. I think they genuinely believe that. I think the one of the things about Democrats is that they really do believe their own propaganda.

They do think that the middle America's full people wearing pointed hats. Oh, we'll be at war with Qatar by the end, just because they've talked themselves into believing Qatar secretly controls America as they did with Russia. Then we went to war with Russia, and we're still at war with Russia. there. Right. The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda too, which is why they want, for example, appeal to the white vote. One of the things we did at Vida,

is we discussed and documented what we call the sailors' strategy as opposed to the Roves' strategy. In 2000, Karl Rove was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities. And it makes no sense statistically because I think George Bush judge, W. Bush got like 51% of the white vote. It's appalling performance. So Steve Saylor, who's one of our writers who we've had on, pointed out that if they could just increase that percentage proportion of the white vote

to what his father got, which was like 57-58%. That was swamp and overwhelm any possible it's conceivable gain among minority voters. So we were saying you should go for the white vote. And now this caused a great deal of trouble for us. I remember got a letter from an email from Jude Wynicki. Do you remember Jude Wyneski? Very well.

He said, Peter, you've gone too far. In other words, appeal to the white vote is not allowed. Look, it's just a question arithmetic. You know, there's more of them than there are of minorities. Any case, to this day, the Republicans have still not done that. They have done it. Why was Jude Wyneski mad? Jude was a liberal, you know, way back when he was a liberal Democrat,

and he still had a lot of these. reflexes. But it was just thought to be, people just got very emotional about it. You know, they, they think it's somehow illegitimate and they still do think it's illegitimate. For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election, you know, there's a Yonkin who's a complete ciphers far as the Wall Street ciph as far as I can see, chooses his success in the Gobbon and trial race, a candidate who was one, an immigrant, two, a woman and three black, she's a black Jamaican immigrant. And this is how it's going to appeal to the white vote.

They're going to get people in the south or the halls of southwest of Virginia out to vote for this white, black immigrant. It's ridiculous. And of course, they got a terrible share of the white vote. It was like 53 percent, and that's why they lost. But they were rather loose than to make a full out appeal to white vote. I think the tell was in the ability. So this was in, you know, I'm not saying a bad person, but when some Sears was not a good

candidate. It was kind of an incapable candidate and hard to deal with. So, like, they chose her because she was black. That's fine. Despite the fact that she wasn't good at her job. I mean, this is epidemic in the Republican Party. What's epidemic in the country? They've chosen so many, but the Republicans in particular, they've chosen so many black candidates. It's about to do it here in Florida. The next governmental candidate is like to black unless America occurs. Why is that? They just, they're just, they're just, They are just pixelated by this, transfixed by this,

I'm trying to find the right word, hypnotised by this phenomenon, by the whole race question. They're just racewhips is what it comes down to. They're just so afraid of being called racist that they'd rather lose with a black candidate than run a candidate to appeals to whites. Trump did appeal to whites, not enough,

but he does it in some kind of really implicit way. If you actually look at what Trump said, in spite of all the rhetoric, He's not said anything that's explicitly white nationalists or anything. I see no sign that he's an old than a civic nationalist. But for some reason, he's made some connection. I mean, all through West Virginia, while Biden was president, you would see these signs supporting Trump

and saying very rude things about Biden. And these are outside. Very rude things about Biden, yeah. I mean, you know, this is a poor area. These run-down trail homes that you see with these Trump signs on them. For some reason, Trump made a connection with them. And it's eerie. Now, on the other hand, he also made a disconnection with the other side.

So you get this Trump derangement syndrome. But he was able to mobilize the white vote. Why do you think that was? Which part of it? That he was able, working class whites love Trump. Trump is not a racist. I've never seen any sign of that at all. and not a white nationalist at all,

and hardly a Christian nationalist, but he, for some reason, had an emotional connection with these voters. Why? Do you know? There's a concept in sociology called implicit community, you know. Communities that represent or appeal to some people without actually saying it explicitly.

The classic example, with NASCAR, for example, why is NASCAR a white stronghold? Or everybody watching NASCAR is white. And the NASCAR is white. operatives don't like this. They hate it. Yeah. The cost and try and diversify. Republican Party is a classic example of this. I mean, without ever, without ever doing anything to deserve it,

the Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia. And you and I both remember then when the Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia, you know, I forget when the last Republican, I also keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to Cai West Virginia was, but it might have been Clinton. And now it's just, they're just, the Democrats have ceased to exist to exist. in West Virginia, even though this is a very poor state. The Republicans prevailed by simply by virtue of not being Democrats. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia.

That's how much has changed. Right. So there's something that's going on at a very deep psychological level, some kind of implicit signaling. It's baffling. Now, of course, he did say, you know, when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican. and never look back.

So he obviously struck a nerve there. So he did enough to strike a nerve. I simply by raising immigration in this sort of rather, you know, I'm sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar. And if it's constantly forgets his lines and says the wrong thing, way that Trump does talk about immigration. But he did raise it.

And of course, until then, it's been driven out of Republican politics completely. I know we wrote about it for 16 years. You were fired over it. Right. Just, you know, there's almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up. But then when he did the damn broke, and now what a big difference that I found, Tucker, is if you speak to grassroots Republicans, as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus is overwhelming that immigration has got to be ended. The consensus is overwhelming. Whereas when I got involved in this in the early 90s, a lot of Republicans never heard of this question.

And they would assume, for example, that Republicans don't go on welfare to the same extent that native born do, which is completely wrong. It's completely reverse the truth. And it was back then. It was obvious that they were going back into welfare in disproportion numbers. But people didn't know. And the Wall Street Jones is not telling them. Well, the Wall Street Jones still isn't telling them, but they do know that. And maybe we played a role in that.

Well, yeah. And it's had such a complex and degrading effect on the native population. It hasn't been. just a matter of competition in the job market or my, you know, my tech job went to an Indian or something. It's way more complicated than that. As, you know, immigrant communities became totally dependent on federal benefits, it changed the incentive structure for native-born communities, and a lot of them started going on it. Right. Right. It higher rates also. So it just, it created a vortex that's hurt everybody, I think, especially the whites. Where does it go from here?

The big thing that has to, the next, if I was still running Vida and on my own website, peterbrammoor.com now, I, what I'm interested in is legal immigration. Legal immigration is still running at a million a year. No, that puts the fact that the foreign-born population in the US has fallen by like two and a half million in the last, and they just joined this year. That sounds extraordinary number. I used to track it VEDA at the foreign-born population because it's the way of tracking the impact of immigration. It's very rarely goes negative. It went negative briefly when Trump first

got in because they were frightened of him and a lot of legal eagles left. And then towards the end, before COVID, it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken, the administration taking to tighten up on both legal immigration and illegal immigration. Now, now it's two and a half million, gone to fall in two and a half million, the foreign-born population. Even though we know a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% of them colored, by the way, only about 10% wide. So what we really need is immigration moratorium. And I'm delighted to say that there is a bill proposed by Chip Roy in the house. It's called the Paws Act, calling for a moratorium.

And there's several other very interesting bills. It's a very good bill on both rights citizenship. and let me see you look at my list here, secure the board. I mean, in other words, they should set in codify Trump's activities, tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on the southern border because we know that when the Democrats get in, they'll reverse it. But they won't be able to do that if it's in the law. They thought they'll have to pass a law and they have to admit what they're doing.

The problem is that the White House seems to be is not pushing any of these bills and unless they do, I don't think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything. It's just going to, you know, it's just going to lie low. And I don't know why the White House

is pushing these bills. Of course, it's got his hands full in Minnesota where they clearly need to declare the Interaction Act and that kind of thing. And they keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that and thinking ships and stuff. I mean, which is be very entertaining, but I would

really rather than focus on ending this immigration disaster. You know, it's whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review. I'm 78, I can't wait much longer.

I think that you just get home with them. And you have a number of children who will inherit the country. That's really the point. You know, people occasionally... Yeah, people say, I get attacked all the time for not being, for being an immigrant. My position is, you know, I'm an immigrant doing a dirty job that Americans won't do. Talk about immigration.

But the real reason is I have children here. My youngest child is 10 years old. And God knows what the country has got to be like by the time she's a grown woman. Are you bitter? I've been extremely blessed in my personal life, even though my first wife, So I don't think, I think things could have worked out differently for me professionally. But in my personal life, I'm very blessed. You don't seem angry.

I mean, because my read on it is what happened to you is grotesque and is evil. And not the kind of thing I thought would ever be allowed here. So I'm shocked, always shocked to hear your story. I guess I am bitter at the conservative movement people in the conservative movement people I've known for 30 and 40 years who basically haven't helped us haven't defended us

the most prominent people who have defended us are you and Laura Luma your friend Laura Luma so that just shows how we come into line like we are so Lumer helped you Oh yeah she supported us on Twitter when we were Good for her.

When we're trying to raise money to defend ourselves. And she may have a give and go, which I just launched before Christmas, frankly, to help us personally. Because, of course, we're now facing tremendous legal costs personally, and I believe she's helped us with that. Have you received any help for the Department of Justice? We know that there are people in the Department of Justice who are not directly. on the other hand, Trump caught Stan Letitia James, quite rightly, and they've made various attempts to bring her to book for various crimes. For one thing, I mean, she's clearly guilty, massive mortgage fraud going back over 14 years.

But, you know, the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats, it's joined notification by Democrats. They've been unable to indict it because, basically because judges will keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand jury won't indict, won't indict Democrats. So I don't know where that's where that stands. They also have an investigation into her deprivation of Trump's civil rights in these scandalous cases. And, you know, this hush money case and the fraud case and so on. We should never have been allowed to go to court.

The judges should have started. But, of course, the judges are on the other side. And a judge is just trying to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor. I mean, what's happening is these Democrats senators not only have the power, to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also have the power, apparently, to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors. And they're apparently taking the position that they won't allow

the appointment of a federal prosecutor if he's likely to prosecute Latisha James or any other Democrats. And God knows there are enough Democrats out there that need prosecuting. That's how they're protecting them. Many respects, you know, we're looking to slow-motion civil war here. I mean, New York and essentially, Sicilia and Minnesota, have essentially succeeded from the union. The whole legal systems are opposed to what the federal government is doing.

Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is the land that law forgot because normal legal norms simply don't apply there. What happens is what the Democrat operatives want. And of course, this is not a government under law. So in effect, New York is seceding from the union. And that's why I think ultimately we're going to have to go to the insurrection act. And we're going to have to go to the wholesale impeachment of judges. All these judges brought him by Biden.

I think he had one or two white men, both of whom were gay, something like that. All the others are women and people of color and so on. And they deliver in the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law. Ultimately, it's going to have to be purged of the judicial system. Trump, when that happens, Trump will be attacked. as destroying the third branch of government, but it's been completely destroyed long before Trump. Right, right.

My last question to you, Peter Berlone, thank you so much for doing this, is, are you hopeful? I have a, I have a, one of the things I wanted to remember for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015, is that miracles happen quite often in politics. Yes.

I mean, nobody, Nobody expect the Soviet Union collapse. Are you old enough to remember that? I'm 56, yeah. I remember like it was yesterday. 30 years ago. I know. 30 years ago.

I mean, that's literally true. Nobody, nobody, after all the right, expect the Soviet collapse. On the other hand, you know, I don't think they expected the Catholic church going direction. It went in Vatican 2. And on the third hand, nobody expected Trump. And he has been a miracle. I mean, he's changed the situation in so many ways. not of which I think he has probably thought about,

but he does it anyway. So I'm hopeful because I think miracles happen in politics frequently, but we need one. The situation right now, we're heading a very, very bad direction. And in the situation where, you know, Democrat politicians are openly calling people to disobey federal law,

disobey law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals, that's more extreme than ever happened in the South it joined deserogation. Much more. It's more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is insurrection, actual insurrection. That's right. That's right.

It's insurrection. And of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use the interaction actually in Paul's integration. He sent the 101st Airborne, a high school. Yeah. Right, right. With the total applause from the mainstream media,

which was then, of course, completely oligopolistic. I mean, it was dominant. At least now we have Twitter, even if we are Shadowband on Twitter. Are you still Shadowban? Oh, yeah. Well, as far as we can see, we are. Anne Calder, you know, her follow ship has not risen for like six years.

It's been 2.1 million for six years. It doesn't go up, it doesn't go down. I mean, it's obvious, you can see from an engagement that there's something very strange going on. It's all the Indians he has in there, hasn't been out of the root him how he had. Peter Romo. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tom.