Transcript of Peter Brimelow on the Invasion of America, Who’s Behind It, and How Long Until Total Collapse

Wow. Hast du den gesehen? Ey, das ist ja der absolute Wahnsin. Einfach nur perfekt. Nice. Manchmal merkt man sofort, dass es passt. So wie bei den neuen Balance-Sondermodellen von Skoda. Mit bis zu 3. 200 Euro Preisvorteil, vielen Extras und 5 Jahren Garantie. Mehr Infos und weitere attraktive Angebote beim Skoda-Buffet am 24. Januar. Bei allen teilnehmenden Skoda-Partnern oder auf skoda.

De. Skoda. Peter Well, 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 of exchanges that suggested to me that things were 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%. 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. All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it. But I read that and I thought, Here's the world's richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things saying this. 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.

I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.

It feels 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 vida. Com, which was my website, both my citizenship and so on. And Now in the public debate, on the other hand, we've been ruined and we're facing personal ruin, of course, because of this attack on us by the New York attorney general, LaTisha James. As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that I'm a long time... It's part my accent. I've been here for 55 years and I'm a long time financial journalist. I work for Forbes and Fortune and the Barons and so on. I work for National Review. I wrote for National Review a lot. I wrote a piece on immigration in 1992, saying, Time to Rethink Immigration. That's sometimes credit with kicking off the modern debate. There was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost. Buckley established in the back and purged the magazine of Immigration Patriots. For the next while, the Wolf Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and they were going on about the need for amnesty and there was no way to combat it.

I set up a website, which I named videa. Com after Virginia Dair, the first English child, not white child, as they always say, born in the new world. Over a period, about 25 years, it built up into quite a force until about two years ago. It was destroyed by the New York attorney general, Thetisha James, who basically subpoenaed us to death and has, in fact, now sued us personally and through the foundation. We're a bit like General Flynn. No middle class family can stand up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house, and we're going to face been 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. I know that you're a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the immigrant we need and I'm grateful to have. The whole thing is shocking and so revealing. But I'd like, if you don't mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review. 1992, you said you wrote this piece, saying, Time to Rethink Immigration, which I remember well. At the time, National Review really was a forum for Conservatives to through what it meant to be Conservatives. That was a significant piece at the time. And then you said Bill Buckley, the then editor William F. Buckley Jr, stabbed you in the back. Can you tell us, Tori, what happened exactly? Sure.

I was never on staff at National, but I was what they called a senior editor, and I roll for it a lot. And in 1992, I wrote this very long cover story, it's about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the editor of the then. He was just circling around in the background. But the then editor, Jonal Solvent, went with this story. And for about five years, we basically directly challenged the official conservative line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, at least Eagle immigration is very good. That's what the Wall Street Journal said and still saying as far as I can tell. Yes. Then at the end of five years in '97, Bill just abrupt without any warning at all fired O'Sullivan and purged the magazine of Immigration Patriots and basically told us to shut up, it's told them all to shut up about immigration, which, of course, they all eagerly did. He put the Washington Bureau in charge of Rich Lowry and Pinuro and so on. And so for them, for two or three years, you couldn't get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public. But then the internet came along and rescued us, and I started videa.

Com.

May I ask you to pause and explain why that happened? Why Why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O'Sullivan run it, another Brit, I think.

Yes, indeed.

Who now lives in Budapest. Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation, specifically?

Well, of course, I've had 20 odd years to think about that. And the answer is, over the time, my answer has evolved. At the time, I thought he was just jealous. This is actually the 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 in to replace themselves. Yes, exactly. Sure. Jealousy. I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upset the donors. I think that was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then Republican majority in the House.

The Republican leadership didn't like it, Newt Gingrich, et cetera, who was ascendant, came in in 94 to much, much fanfare, achieved not a lot. But they're the ones who 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 neoconservatives, people like Norman Porrhoris and so on. And I think they pressured him to... I know they pressured him to get rid of John.

Now, why would they care?

Because at that point, the Nail Conservatives, a predominantly Jewish faction, they had this Ellis Island view of America. They wanted 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 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.

I actually think there's a certain jealousy there. They didn't like... If you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservitism. But here was a non-neoconservative fact. We would have then described ourselves as paleo-conservatives, coming up with a whole idea on the whole issue. Because the immigration was completely dormant from 1968 when the Heartseller Act kicked in until the early '90s. But there was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Reviews Archives. 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 there was a pause in immigration from 1924 before, to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the US. And so it just wasn't an issue to them. And you know what happens with... It's like an academic life. We have an academic theory. It's not that it conquers the other theories by being better and better arguments. It's just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off and they're replaced by younger. That's true for politicians, too. A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. And I include Ronald Reagan in that. It simply wasn't an issue when he was growing up. And that's why he was haunt swogged by this, the irk an amnesty in 1986. He actually genuinely thought that the government 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. 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. It's Lent prayer challenge starts February 18th. It's called Pray 40, the Return. Transformation does not start with improvement. No, transformation starts with repentance, the courage to admit that you are lost and change direction. Pray 40 forces you to confront that, responsibility, forgiveness, and what it means to truly repent and live a life of meaning by following Jesus. Every day, enjoy a 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, runs right through Easter. Download Hallow for free at Hallow. Com. America, the best to ever do it. We landed on the moon and invented the microchip.

Now, with China out spending us two to one in the race for fusion, we can't wait.

Our jobs, our communities, and our national security depend on American energy. And when we go all in, we win. It's what we do. So tell President Trump and Congress to deliver a new era of American greatness. Fund Fusion. Make America first again. Paid for by Built for America. 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. Masa 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. They're amazing, and you feel great after. You don't feel weighed down.

We particularly enjoyed the Cobonero flavor lately, but they're all great. You want to give them a try? Visit masachips. Com, M-A-S-A, chips. Com/tucker. Tucker. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order, or you can click the link in the video description, or you can scan the QR code to claim this outstanding offer. 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 McBuckley because he was such a dominant force.

Let me just back up and scan What I think now is, I think looking at national view now, it's obviously donor-driven. Oh, of course. We weren't aware of that in the '90s. I wasn't even aware. I didn't think about the donors and role in politics. We But 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, and particularly given... 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, I think that's where- I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended on him. Yeah, that's what he wanted you to think. But in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent.

The Winters in Shad and the sailing across the Bermuda Race.

I don't know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine. In any case, he just didn't want to disrupt the donor 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 with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When he went to his dinners he used to put on 73 73 Street, it was very hard to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. You can see that in the way he lived his life, Latterly, in 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 I was. Really? Yes. I forget what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that stuff. 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 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.

Why?

I guess he was balancing a number of issues. In the case of immigration, I think he's done. Immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the other-I remember. I think as we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on... Megan Kelly. Megan Kelly, yes. He was attacking you for some reason, Arthur, I forget what. He was saying that... Then he suddenly says, But took us good on something, he's good in immigration. Well, as I understand that you're in the idea of immigration moratorium and so on. Of course. This news to me, that's what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. Just about five or six years ago, in National Review, he called me a white supremacist, but basically for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction. In those days, Back in the early days, if you advocated immigration control, you immediately suspect that you immediately suspect to be an 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 had died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95.

But just before he died, he gave an interview in which he said he changed his mind on immigration. He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed. And he credited John Oslo, the head 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 John Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight, and of course, was absolutely bone-headed 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 Goldberg is your intellectual force, then you've been degraded.

Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, You've got to stop calling Nationalview the Goldberg review because it sounds antisemitic. Actually, my understanding is that Goldberg is not technically Jewish. His mother was a Gentile.

I knew her. She was a great person, actually.

I replied and said that, and he didn't get bad, but he just gradually suspected me more and more of thought crime. Norman was an extremely passionate man. He didn't- So famously. He didn't But you didn't socialize with opponents. I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry.

No, there was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot ways, repulsive in others. But certainly, he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion.

Actually, his wife, Mujdat a lot because she was the chair thing of the Philadelphia Society, which is a concertive affinity group. She invited me to speak on immigration in, I guess, 2005. And that's where I met my first wife had just died. And that's where I met my current wife, Lydia, who, of course, was running the Vida Foundation with me. She was the publisher of vida. Com. And you've had her on, of course.

Oh, of course. I'm a fan. She's a brave woman and a smart one. May I ask what happened to your relationship with Bill Buckley?

When he fired John O'Sullivan, I was the only one of the entire staff who went in and asked, Why did you fire him?

What?

Yeah. Well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book. That was because John was very with the National Review base and the immigration issue was very popular. 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, I He was very nice, very nice book and we basically never spoke to each other after that. I was constructive, dismissed from National Review. I got a letter telling me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very important in the National Review world because it was run like a fraternity. If you were senior, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that thing. 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 Parties. And he put the Washington Bureau in charge of the magazine So I'm sure they would be happy to do it. And they didn't want to write about immigration. And I think also mud sticks, Tucker. Mud sticks, yeah. And this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and anti-semi for race in these issues, it sticks. And it has stuck. So that even though Ben Shapiro is now in favor of just talking about immigration, I don't see him apologizing to me.

No, well, of course not. He doesn't care about you at all or other people at all.

I had a really interesting experience recently. Lydia and I were to an ISI book event, and I bought Matthew Cotinetti's book. I actually bought it. I put down my... It's a run awful book about the conservative movement says that I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn't.

He's silly. This is Bill Kristol's son-in-law.

Bill Kristol's son-in-law. That's the point. I took it up to him when I like to collect and inscribe books. In fact, I forgot to bring your book, I'm sorry. And he wouldn't sign him. Why? He wouldn't inscribe him. He said, I have nothing to say to you. The really weird thing about this is that- From what ground?

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, Cotinette is a convert, of course, so he's probably particularly ardent. But the weird thing about this was that Cotinette had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think of his father-in-law.

But he said to your face, I won't inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you?

Essentially, yes, that's right. He signed it, but he wouldn't inscribe it. Then he said, nothing to say to you.

Wow. Yeah, I mean- It's surprising We live out there in Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, and we don't have to face this stuff.

But I guess when you're in DC, you faced it all the time.

Yeah, well, I left. But I also believe in forgiveness, and that's the difference, I think. I mean, we're commanded to believe in forgiveness and to treat people as human beings.

And Norman didn't believe them.

No, I'm very aware of that.

I'm very aware of that. It was a principle 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. But wow, that's amazing. So you were just cast out.

Well, the thing is, he'd already signed the book, so I couldn't give it. He signed it and described it. I couldn't give it back. I couldn't get my money back. Whereas, conversely, Yuram Hazzoni was also there. Hazzoni, as you know, bandled from his National Concertive conference because he said he didn't think we were appropriate. And we had a series of bitter exchanges in Vida. But Hazzoni was perfectly friendly, and he signed a book and inscribed it, and we chatted about children and grandchildren, and so on.

Hormezoni 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 I think he's very good. A lot of the stuff he says about consumerism 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 ethnostate because he doesn't want the Americas to have ethnostate. He wants them to be a civic-national state.

What do you mean, won't admit? I mean, Israel is, by its own description, an ethnostate.

Yeah, But he keeps arguing that- That's not an attack, by the way, at all. Well, I've never been able to get him 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 matrilineal principle where you've got to have a Jewish mother. I've never seen him respond to that. I don't think he can because he doesn't want to encourage straight up white nationalism in America.

For years, you've been told this is not happening, and you're a bigot for thinking it is, but it is happening. Mass migration is reshaping the West completely. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. Different people live here now. You're not a racist for noticing that. You're just using your senses. Again, it's not a theory. It's the biggest fact of this or any generation in a thousand years. The replacement is real. European governments aren't just tolerating mass migration. They're encouraging it. They're funding it. They hate their populations, and they want new populations. We've got a new documentary on this called Replacing Europe, Following the World's Deadliest Migration Route. Our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see. They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public has never told. It's not ideological, it's reality. This is happening, it's destroying the West, and our cameras caught it. Replacing Europe. That's the Doc only on TCN now. I just want to be clear about my own views, not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely, I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethno-state. It's their country. You have whatever state you want as far as I'm concerned.

But it is an ethnostate. By definition, the people who founded it were not religious. A lot of them were atheists, and they identified as Jewish racially. I have no problem with that at all. That's their country. But to say it's not an ethnostate state is not only a lie, but it's a ludicrous lie. And he won't admit that?

That's my opinion of what he wants, as only as saying. But it's one of the situations where his civic nationalism is so intense that it might just as well be ethnic nationalism for the US. A lot of things he says about immigration to US are excellent.

Right, I agree. And I'm not attacking Yoram Hizony at all, whom I like. But that's dishonest because Israel is an ethnostate, and you should just tell the truth, especially about obvious things, right?

Well, it's what I would call double think, isn't it? It's double think. You got to believe two contradictory things at once. It's necessary to operate in large parts of the political world.

Interesting. But why wouldn't people who support an ethno-state in Israel want one here? Why would they object to that so strongly?

I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate. They're overwhelmingly pro-immigration. However, having said that, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know they're going to be people on the other side. And some people are very hard on the other side.

And I know a lot of them. That's why I would never be anti-Semitic because you can't generalize I have a hunch that Steven Miller, who, of course, is an aid to Trump, I think he's a Deputy Chief of Staff or something.

He's going to be the first Jewish President. I say this because it's hard. That prospect horrifies people so much. But he liked Israeli in Britain. Benjamin DiSraeli, of course, was Jewish, but converted to Episcopalianism. He was converted by his father to a very early age. His father took the whole family over to being Episcopalians. He basically reinvented the Consulting Party in the 19th century, came up in Britain. He came up with a complete grand strategy for it based on the empire and imperial patriotism and so on. That really carried the party through for the next 80, 90 years. A couple of generations, the Consulting Party in Britain 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 of the Patriots. And the Concerned Party was able to tap into that. Miller has done the same thing. He's invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party, which he desperately doesn't want to take take up because it's run by cowards and foules. But he thinks they should move towards restabilising 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, but-I don't think anyone should be afraid. He has a cunny of He was cunning to survive the Kutner Whitehouse. I mean, that was really extraordinary because Jared Kutner, of course, bleed exactly the opposite. He's basically a liberal New York Jew. But for some reason, Miller was able to survive with him. I couldn't have done that. I wouldn't have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did. Sessions was his close aid and was 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.

No, I I think those are all fair and true observations. It's interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a demographic project. I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white. They'll say that. It's not controversial. I mean, you could prove it on video. It didn't even bother to, because I think most people watching this already know that. It's architects starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965, basically just said, ultimately admitted this, the whole point is to make America less white, a non-majority white country. Why is it so hard for Conservatives to say the same? If Democrats are saying we want America to be non-white, why can't Conservatives say that that's what their motive is?

I have to say that Kennedy didn't say that when he was- At first? Yes, when he was the floor manager of the Hartt's Salar. He gave it very That's a 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, whereas in fact, a million people you are coming in. Of course. And that's one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having to be there, even though I have my own peterbrummo. Com substack. That's not the same voice because we've got to get legal immigration to the debate here. I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more than people realize, but they're not doing anything legal immigration. But I'm sorry, that means I've not answered your question. What was your question?

Well, my question was, the whole point of the project was not to feed a desperate need for low-skilled labor. That definitely no longer exists now with AI. 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 alienation that flowed out of my cover, so the '95 book, which Harper Collins refused to reprint. I quote in a man called Earl Rob, who is a Jewish activist and so on. And he explicitly said that Jews were in favor of mass non-white immigration because it makes the rise of a... I didn't use the term neo-nazi, but that's what he meant, a party in America, impossible. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It makes him more likely. 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.

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, Mirachi, right? Well, exactly. Van der Merhe won because the immigrant vote.

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 up.

This hasn't worked. I mean, if your interest was to keep anti-Semitism and really crazy anti-Israel sentiment to a minimum, and I agree with that. I'm against anti-Semitism. I'm against basing your life on hate against Israel. That seems lunatic. If that was your goal, I mean, you literally achieved the opposite result. Is that fair to say?

Not for the first time. Yeah, it's fair.

Fair. So you may think maybe that wasn't the goal. I don't know. I'm just guessing here. Maybe there was another goal that we don't understand.

Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can't be analyzed intellectually. It's just a whole series of reflexes.

Or spiritual.

But one of the reasons... We know that the New York attorney general attack on us was were basically instigated by the Anti-Defamation League because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit this, that they had gone to Leticia James and told her to take if he dare out. And we say to ourselves, why us Jews? What have we ever done to you? We have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we're not allowed to have conference anywhere else. The donor was Jewish. We had all kinds of Jewish donors, all kinds of Jewish writers. But that doesn't make any difference to the ideal apartment.

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 US 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 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. Taking care of yourself and the people you love, the people you're responsible for, is your job. Get power you can trust always. Get the grid doctor today at our very own lastcountrysupply. Com. Our business, this is the power supply that we use.

Lastcountrysupply. Com.

Now to what to you and to Vida. 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 Vida, named after Virginia Dair, the first British child born in the Americas. And it becomes successful. It becomes big. And it's not anti-Semitic. It's not anti-Semitic, it's not racist, it's against changing America's population through immigration. Is that a fair summary? Yeah.

I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. Vida was a Moonlighting project.

How did you pull that off?

It was very difficult. And, of course, it eventually became impossible. And I was fired both from Forbes and from a CBS It was what used to be CBS Market Watch became Dow Jones Market Watch. In both cases, it was turned downs in the markets. But I happened to be the one... They chose to fire me rather than people who were, frankly, less valuable to them. So it did in the end, terminate my career in the mainstream media. But on the other hand, we were developing Vida 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 other things. Of course, it's been utterly destroyed now. I've been out of it. It was suspended two years ago and I resigned. I'm supporting the family now on the pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family. I have a mind of children, so it's irritating.

Irritating doesn't begin to describe it. So tell the story, if you would. You're running Vidaire, and somehow, LaTisha James, who's the- She's the attorney general of New York.

The Green Area is a 5113 charity, and it was registered in New York in 1999. It's entirely because I then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York, and therefore That it was convenient for him. This was when there was a public governor in New York and nobody ever heard of law fair, nobody heard. The idea of law fair, this exploitation of regulatory power, it never occurred to anybody at that point. But because we're registered in New York, even though we don't operate in New York, she was able to demand. We one day woke up and found we got these massive subpoenas demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email, going back to 2016. Of course, that was a huge problem, because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and our anonymous pseudonymous writers. I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were far.

Let me ask them, okay, so you're not domiciled in New York, you're not operating in New York.

We're registered in New York. That's the key point.

But the 501(C)(3) is registered in New York. 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 501(C)(3) and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets, and she would claim jurisdiction over that. It's a huge mess. And we had very expensive lawyer looking at it for a long time, even before she came along and hit us with this.

May I ask on what grounds she issued subpoenas to you?

She doesn't have to give grounds. But what she said was she wanted to investigate the castle purchase, which we did in 2000, or more, I should say, Lydia did in 2000. Because as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen, 15 conferences canceled. Hotels would accept a booking, then the councilors, as soon as they came under pressure from the left. We realized we were never going to be able to have a conference. We bought our own venue and she wanted to investigate that. Well, of course, all that purchase was very carefully lured precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it. But it It doesn't make any difference. She demands that, and she demanded that, and she demand all kinds of other things. The really killing thing for us was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents. The really killing thing was demanding the email because we know if she got the writer's names and the donor's names, she would release them. She did that with Nikki Haley. They leaked the donors to her pack. The papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley's donors were Obviously, the letterhead was New York attorney general's office.

But of course, nobody ever came after for it. I'm just confused. Did she have evidence she committed a crime?

No, she was looking for evidence. And she's not found it, but she's charged as anyway. Well, she hasn't charged it. 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. 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. 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. This happened before Trump. 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 enterprises 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 LaTisha James operatives, and he is the one who's leading the charge against us. 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, start issuing subpoenas. He said it sucks to be sued, just subpoena them to death. And of course, that's exactly what he's done to us. They inflicted over a million, nearly a million and a half dollars in out-of-pocket costs for the lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that lady had to spend digging into 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 courts to pay attention to this. We're trying again now we have what they call a 983 action against Laetitia 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, the courts simply dodged on a technical issue. They came up with a technical excuse to dodging. 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 is from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerably goes far beyond this situation. Another case I'm aware of is that there seems to be some message gone out from Judge central that anything that's a quote and a 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 cancel in Colorado Springs, and they... Well, Cora was not with them because they paid up a 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 Sothers, had said he wouldn't extend police protection to the conference. In other words, an antifact would go in and-He wouldn't extend police protection? Yes, That's right.

Now, this is an issue that- He's trying to kill you. That's right.

And who is this? His name was John Sothers. He was the mayor of... He was a Republican.

John Sothers, the mayor of Colorado Springs, basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his city. 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 by the courts that the local authorities, the local government have to extend protection to people's first 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 white would be angry about it. But those YTS 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. The appeals court in Colorado rejected us, and I believe it had at least one. We had one good judge there who said, This is obviously an attack on First Amendment rights, but the other two, who I think were Republican appointees, to vote against us. So we lost. We weren't able to... Our initial lawyer, civil rights litigation is extremely damaging if you're on the wrong side of it. There's enormous damage was involved. So it would have been a huge victory, and we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way.

Our initial lawyer in Cardo Spring was so keen on this. It was so obvious, open and shut case that he on contingency. But as soon as you realized that the city was going to resist, he ran away, and we had to start paying our paying lawyer to litigate him. Well, anyway, subsequently, there was a case before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess this was Volo. It's called the Volo case, V-U-L-L-O. This was a case where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to ensure the NRA, and the NRA fought it, and it and it won. In the decision, Katenty Jackson says, The NRA's case is strong, but it's essentially in power factoring. It's not as strong as Vida's case, where they were Deny police where the state agency basically discriminates them on political grounds. What's this? We never heard about this. Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to to to to to reject our attempt to to 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 Vullo, 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. Our first amendment rights are forced to memorize, they're not protected. In other words, there's a real determination on the part. The NRA is apparently more partible 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. It doesn't make any sense. I speak for myself, I'd rather live in a deracialized world. People think about it less because it does cause problems. But as long as you're encouraging identity politics, why do Whites not get to have it? What is the answer?

Well, it's completely hypocritical. It's because the people running the society are anti-white, and they've been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in an anti-white way. Anti-white in this case really means anti-American. Because the Whites are Americans. That's who Americans are. The people sign it as Declaration of Independence.

Yeah, I did know that. 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 derives 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 rational calculation. I If you look at what's happening in South Africa, for that matter, in every big American black city, that's where that's majority of black. They can't want it to get into a situation where the water is putrid and nothing works and all that thing. But they do. The purpose of a system is what it does. That's right. The purpose of non-white government is to produce non-white government and then the non-white results. Unless, of course, you're Chinese, because Singapore is run Japanese. They run very efficiently.

They are. It's just interesting that people move here because it's a white country and we see to run it into the ground. Well, all of us benefit white and nonwhite 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.

I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you. I was looking at an interview. Somebody sent me an interview. I did it for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedmann. I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism? He said, Yes. As you know, he's a fire breathing libertarian, but he actually did thought about this question. He said that capitalism has really only ever worked in the English speaking countries. He said, I don't know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted. There's some a cultural underpinning for capitalism. What I sometimes, what columns call a meta-market framework The market operates. So the question is, why are these capitalists? Why is the chamber of commerce suing to keep the H1B flow coming? When it's obvious it's going to produce people who don't do it like Mandami, who don't support capitalism and in fact, hate it. What are the capitalists doing? Well, they're doing what Lenin said. They will sell us the rope with which we hang them.

And I mean, that's demonstrable. It was true in 1917. It's true in 2026. 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 the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a whole generation of business people actually believe all this nonsense. It's very hard to get out of their heads because they're never allowed. I mean, they're never allowed criticism of immigration on the editorial page.

So you've referred repeatedly the Wall Street Journal and also to Harper Collins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family. Right. What's been your experience with the Murdochs?

Well, I spent well over a year working for Rupert in, I think that's 1990 on ghosting his autobiography, which was never published. For various reason, he changed his mind about it. But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally, and he continued to be extraordinary 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 looked into people on the payroll and they found that this thought criminal is on the payroll. At that point, I was dropped, but he's always been extraordinary generous to me.

That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch.

That's not the case with a lot of these characters.

It's not. A lot of these people, Robert Maxwell and so on.

I remember Rupert tell me once that he thought that... When 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. 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. 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. I strongly agree with your assessment. But he kept you on the payroll for decades? Yeah.

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, 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 asking. But I have no complaints about Rupert Murnaugh.

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 Rupert has great personal decency, and I've seen it. But the editorial product is aggressively opposed to basic American interest. So 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 interest. So why? Why is that? Do you know?

Well, I think he handed over the intellectual, the thinking part of a news corporation or 21st century, whatever it's called now, to the Neoconservatives. So he took on a lot of Neoconservative baggage at that point. They used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment, there shall be open borders. It was really lunatic. I believe that's still the case.

But why would he How did that?

First of all, because they're very good. They're extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy. They're extremely good in the Cold War.

They were.

That's correct. But that was then, this is now. And they just simply haven't made the transition. But that's a major reason. I know him, he's operating in New York, and he was under a lot of suspicion there. He had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy, and he's showing that. It's genuine, though, with Rupert. I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initial Iraq war, the Gulf War. He said, Well, it goes back It goes back to my father and Gallipoli. His father played a major role in discreeting the Gallipoli expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by Winston Churchill. They're trying to break through the Dardenels to get to Russia to help Russia join the war. He I said, I guess I'm just basically anti-Arab. I said, those aren't Arabs, they're Turks.

Well, exactly. Exactly.

They're all the same.

Yeah, the Ottoman Empire is gone, and they've done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who helped finance his company. It's a strange answer. His father was a famous journalist in Australia who broke the news of the disaster at Gallipoli, as I said, and he was very proud of that. But that's not much of an answer, is it?

Are you doing better than I do talk about?

I don't know. He said, such an effect on the world and on my life. I said five times I've always liked him and still do, but it's a mystery.

Somebody said to me once, one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist, and his father is a journalist who wants to be a businessman? Because he did found a publishing empire in Australia, Keith Murdoch. I think there's a lot in that. I I think that you and I are ideologs, professional ideologs. But Rupert is not a professional ideolog. No, that's- He's somebody who spends all his time looking at numbers. It's a fantastic memory for numbers. I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number he's ever dialed. Running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and a tremendous application to going over pages and pages and pages of figures. I don't know that he spends a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a sporting sense. He likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that thing. But then he likes going to Australian football matches, too. I think it's a similar thing.

That is a very smart analysis. I think you just answered the question. He's outsourced a lot of the thinking to others. It's transactional. He's not tightly wedded to ideological details at all. But he's really allowed the Wall Street Journal editorial page to become a force of destruction.

Well, I have to admit it's many years since I've bothered to read the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Yeah, me too. I rely on people sending me things. And they don't send much from the Wall Street Journal, or for that matter, from National Review. Very rarely seen me.

Is National Review still in existence?

Apparently so. It has the Republican establishment to support.

It's like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz. Do you know the editor of National Review?

Me and Rich Lowry, he's gone for some time now, hasn't he? He hasn't even done that with somebody else.

I have the faintest idea. But did you know him?

I sat in rooms with him and I went to Bucca's Part with him. I have absolutely no memory of him at all. He never said anything of significance. I think that's why Bill had him, because he was completely malleable.

Yeah, I think that sounds right. Sad, sad, sad. How much has been lost? So speaking of lost, what happened in the end? And I interrupted your story, my apologies, but to Vida.

Vida is suspended, suspended in July of 2024 because we just ran out of money. The foundation is still in existence. And Lydia is still... She's not paid, but she's still paying lawyers and dealing with the legal situation, which continues to ramify, as I say, we're being sued personally and as a foundation.

On what grounds are you being sued?

Oh, there's a whole bunch of things. It's fundamentally technical issues to do with whether we had the right number of directors vote on the right number of things. It's all to work stuff. It's all stuff that would normally resolve with a phone call and possibly refiling and stuff like that. They've not found any evidence of misappropriation of funds. And in fact, we moved to dismiss on this basis. Although they huff and puff a lot, 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 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 dealings 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 bot farms. Do 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. Oh, 100 %. They do think that the middle America is full of people wearing pointed hats.

We'll be at war with Qatar by the end just because they've talked themselves into believing Qatar secretly controls America as they did with Russia. Then we went to war with Russia and we're still at war with Russia over there.

The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda, too. Which is why they won't, for example, appeal to the white vote. One of the things we did at Vida is we discussed and documented what we call the Sayler's strategy, as opposed to the Roe's strategy. In 2000, Karl Rove was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities. It makes no sense statistically because I think George Bush, W Bush got 51% of the white vote. It's appalling performance. Performance. So Steve Saylor, one of our writers who we've had on, pointed out that if they could just increase that percentage of the proportion of the white vote to what his father got, which is like 57, 58 %, that would swamp and overwhelm any possible conceivable gain among minority voters. So we were saying, you should go for the white vote. Now this caused a great deal of trouble for us. I remember got a letter from an email from Jude Wyneske. Do you remember Jude Winnisky? He said, Peter, you've gone too far. In other words, appeal to the white vote is not allowed. And look, it's just a question of arithmetic.

There's more of them than there are of minorities. In any case, to this day, the Republicans still not done that.

They had done it- Why was Jude Wyneske had.

Jude was a liberal 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. 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, there's a Yonkin who's a complete cipher as far as a Wall Street cipher, as far as I can see, chooses his success, has his success in the government trial race. A candidate who is, one, an immigrant, two, a woman, and three, black, she's a black Jamaican immigrant. 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 Virginia out to vote for this black immigrant. It's ridiculous. And of course, they got a terrible share of the white vote. It was like 53%, and that's why they lost. But they would rather lose than make a full out appeal to white vote.

I think the tell was in the ability. So this was an... I'm not saying a bad person, but Winsor Sears was not a good candidate. It was an incapable candidate and hard to deal with. So they chose because she was black.

That's right.

Despite the fact that she wasn't good at her job.

This is epidemic in the Republican Party.

It'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 it here in Florida. The next government, our candidate What does it look like to a black unless a miracle occurs? Why is that? They are just pixelated by this, transfixed by this. I'm trying to find the right word. Were hypnotized by this phenomenon, by the whole race question. They're just race whips, is what it comes down to. They're just so afraid of being called racist. 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 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 a civic nationalist, but for some reason, he's made some connection. 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 trail- Very rude things about Biden.

Yeah.

I mean, this is a poor area. These run down trailer homes that you see with these Trump signs on them. For some reason, Trump made a connection with them. It's eerie. Now, on the other hand, he also made a disconnection 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 socialist at all, and hardly a Christian nationalists. But he, for some reason, had an emotional connection with these voters. Why? Do you know?

There's a concept in sociology called the implicit community. 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. The Nascar operatives don't like this. They hate it. Yeah. They're constantly trying to diversify. Republican Party is a classic example of this. I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it, the Republicans become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia. And you and I both remember then when Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia. I always keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to carry West Virginia was, but it might have been Clinton. And now it's just Democrats have ceased 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 implicit signaling. It's baffling. Now, of course, he did say when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration, and never looked back. He obviously struck a nerve there. He did enough to strike a nerve. Simply by raising the immigration in this rather... I'm sure it drives Steven Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar. And if his council 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 had been driven out of Republican politics completely. I know we wrote about it for 16 years.

You were fired over it.

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

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

The big thing that has to... If I was still running Vida and on my own website, peterbrimwell. Com now, what I'm interested in is legal immigration. Legal immigration is still running at a million a year. No, that puts the The fact that the foreign-born population in the US has fallen by two and a half million in the last... And they just joined this year. That's an extraordinary number. I used to track it, if you dare, the foreign-born population because it's the way of tracking the impact of immigration. It's very rare It goes negative. It went negative briefly when Trump first got in because they were frightened of him and a lot of eagles left. And then towards the end, before COVID, it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken, the administration had taken to tighten up on both legal and illegal immigration. Now it's two and a half million gone four and two and a half million, the foreign born population. Even though we know a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% of them color, by the way, only about 10% wide. What we really need is an immigration moratorium.

I'm delighted to say that there is a bill proposed by Chip Roy in the house. It's called the Pause act. Calling for a moratorium. There's several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on both rights citizenship. Let me see, we'll get my list here. Secure the board. In other words, they should codify Trump's activities, 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 have to pass a law and they have to admit what they're doing. The problem is that the White House is not pushing any of these bills. And unless they do, I don't think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything. He's just going to lie low. And I don't know why the White House isn't pushing these bills. Of course, it's got his hands full in Minnesota, where they clearly need to declare the Interaction Act and that thing. And they keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that and sinking ships and stuff, which it must be very entertaining.

But I would rather rather focus on ending this immigration disaster. It's whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this international review. I'm 78. I can't wait much longer. I think that you just get on with it.

You have a number of children who will inherit the country.

That's really the point. People occasionally People say, okay, I get attacked all the time for being an immigrant. My position is 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. God knows what the country God's going to be like by the time she's a grown woman.

Are you bitter?

I've been extremely blessed in my in my personal life, even though my first wife died. So I don't think... I think things could have worked out differently for me, professionally. But in my personal life, I'm very blessed.

You don't seem angry. Because my read on it is what happened to you is grotesque and is evil and not the thing I thought would ever be allowed here. 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, 40 years who basically haven't helped us, haven't defended us. The most prominent people who have defended us, Tucker, are you and Laura Lumer, your friend Laura Lumer. That just shows how ecumenical we are.

So Lumer helped you?

Oh, yeah. She She supported us on Twitter when we were- Good for her. When we were trying to raise money to defend ourselves. I have a give thing goal, which I just launched before Christmas. Frankly, it's there to help us personally because, of course, we're now facing tremendous legal costs personally, and I believe she's helped us with that.

Have you received any help from the Department of Justice?

We know that there are people in Department of Justice who are not directly On the other hand, Trump caught Stan LaTisha James, quite rightly, and they made various attempts to bring her to book for a various crimes. For one thing, she's clearly guilty, massive mortgage fraud going back over 40 years. But the obverse of law fair run by Democrats is your notification by Democrats. They've been unable to indict it basically because judges keep disalowing the prosecutors and because the grand juries won't indict Democrats. We I don't know where that stands. They also have an investigation into her deprivation of Trump's civil rights in these scandalous cases, this Hush Money case and the fraud case and so on, which would never been allowed to go to court. The judges should have started, but of course, the judges are on the other side. A judge is just trying to try to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor. What's happening is these Democrats senators not only have the power to to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also have the power, apparently, to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors. They're apparently taking the position that they won't allow the appointment of a federal prosecutor if he's likely to prosecute Laetitia James or any other Democrats.

God knows there are enough Democrats out there that need prosecuting. That's how they're protecting them. In many respects, we're looking to slow motion civil war here. I mean, New York, essentially, and Minnesota have essentially seceded from the Minnesota, essentially seceded from the Union. The whole legal systems are opposed to what the federal government is doing. Jonathan Turley, who is a first amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is the land that law forgot because normal legal norms simply don't apply there. What happens is what the Democrat operatives want. And of course, this is not a government under law. So in effect, New York is seceding from the Union. And that's why I think And 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 in by Biden. I think he had one or two white men, both of whom were gay, something like that. All the others are women and people of 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 of the judicial system.

When that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the third branch of government, but it's been completely destroyed long before Trump.

Right.

My last question to you, Peter Berlin, and thank you so much for doing this, is Are you hopeful?

I have a... One of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015 is that miracles happen quite often in politics. Yes. Nobody expected the Soviet Union collapse. Are you old enough to remember that?

I'm 56. Yeah, I remember it like it was yesterday.

Thirty years ago. I know. Thirty years ago. That's literally true. Nobody, either on the left or the right, expected the Soviet collapse. On the other hand, I don't think they expected the Catholic Church going direction. It went in Vatican II. On the third hand, nobody expected Trump, and he has been a miracle. He's changed the situation in so many ways, not all of which I think he has probably thought about, but he does it anyway. I'm hopeful because I think miracles happen in politics frequently, but we need one. The situation right now, we're heading in a very bad direction. And in the situation where Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals, that's more extreme than ever happened in the South during the desergation.

Much more. It's more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is insurrection, actual insurrection.

It's insurrection. That's right. It's insurrection. And of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use the Insurrection Act to impose integration.

He sent the 101st Airborne to a high school. Yeah.

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 a shadow band on Twitter.

Are you still Shadow Ban? Oh, yeah.

Well, as far as we can see, we are. Anne Colder, her followership has not risen for six years. It's been 2. 1 million for six years. It doesn't go up, it doesn't go down. You can see from an engagement that there's something very strange going on. It's all the Indians he has in there. He hasn't been able to root them out yet.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tom.