➡ The text discusses the importance of Lent and the use of the Hallow prayer app to aid in spiritual transformation through repentance. It also delves into the politics of the National Review magazine, highlighting the influence of donors and the financial dependence of its founder, William F. Buckley. The text further explores the controversial topic of immigration and the changing views within the magazine, as well as the personal and professional relationships between various figures associated with the publication.

➡ The speaker discusses a book event where he had a negative interaction with the author, Matthew Cartanetti, who refused to inscribe his book. The speaker also discusses his views on immigration, stating that mass migration is reshaping the West and that he believes it’s destroying it. He also discusses his views on Israel as an ethnostate and criticizes those who deny this fact. Lastly, he talks about Stephen Miller’s strategy for the Republican Party to restabilize America’s ethnic balance and reduce immigration.

➡ The text discusses the speaker’s views on immigration in America, arguing that it has changed the country’s racial balance and political landscape. The speaker also mentions their work with VDARE, a controversial organization, and the legal challenges they faced from the New York Attorney General. They also discuss a product called the Grid Dr., a backup power supply system. Lastly, they express concern about the potential exposure of their anonymous donors and writers due to legal subpoenas.

➡ The text discusses a legal struggle faced by an unnamed group, who were sued and had to provide a large number of documents for investigation. They believe this was politically motivated and an attack on their First Amendment rights. They also discuss a case where they were denied police protection for a conference, which they see as a violation of their rights. They feel that the legal system is biased against them and operates in an anti-white manner.

➡ The speaker discusses various topics, including the influence of white and non-white governments, the cultural prerequisites for capitalism, and his personal experiences with Rupert Murdoch. He suggests that systems created by whites are more efficient and fair, and questions why capitalists support policies that could undermine capitalism. He also shares his positive personal experiences with Rupert Murdoch, despite disagreeing with the editorial direction of Murdoch’s media outlets.

➡ The text discusses a person who enjoys winning and is not deeply tied to ideological details. He has allowed others to do much of the thinking for him. The text also mentions a legal situation involving a foundation that ran out of money and is now being sued over technical issues. The text further discusses the political strategies of the Republican party, focusing on their reluctance to appeal to the white vote and their fear of being labeled as racist. It ends with a discussion on Trump’s appeal to working-class whites, despite not being explicitly white nationalist or Christian nationalist.

➡ The text discusses the political shift in states like Virginia and West Virginia, where Republicans have become dominant. It also highlights the issue of immigration, with the author suggesting that legal immigration is still high and needs to be addressed. The author mentions several bills that could help control immigration but notes that they are not being pushed by the White House. The text ends with the author expressing frustration over the lack of action on immigration and the need for change for the sake of future generations.

➡ The article discusses the perceived political divide in the United States, with states like New York and Minnesota seemingly opposing federal government actions. The author suggests that this could lead to drastic measures such as invoking the Insurrection Act and impeaching judges. The author also expresses hope for a political miracle, citing unexpected events in history like the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of Trump. The article ends with a discussion on social media censorship, suggesting that some voices are being suppressed.

Peter Bremlow, 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 slaugh. Remember, if non whites openly hate white men while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they’re a majority over whites.

White solidarity is the only way to survive. Okay, that’s on the Internet. Elon Musk retweets it and says 100%. And then Elon Musk writes this. If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct, exclamation point. All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it. But I read that and I thought, here’s the world’s richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things saying this. And Peter Brimlow, who I know, who’s a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for that than that.

So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that. It feels kind of tingly on the one hand. Tingly. I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction. And the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on vdare.com, which was my website, my birthright citizenship, and so on are 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, Letitia James. As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that, you know, I’m a longtime spite of my accent.

I’ve been here for 55 years, and I’m a longtime financial journalist. I work for Forbes and, and. And. And Fortune and the Barons and so on. And. And I work for National Review. I wrote for National Review a lot. And I wrote an A piece on immigration in 1992 saying, Time to rethink immigration. That sometimes credits with kicking off the. The modern debate. And there was a brief civil 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 Wharf Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and they’ve gone on about the need for amnesty and there was no way to combat it.

So I set up a website which I named vdare.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child, not white Shad, as they always say, born in the new world. And over a period of about 25 years we built up into quite a force until about two years ago it was destroyed by the New York Attorney General Letitia James, who just basically subpoenaed, subpoenaed us to death and has in fact now sued us personally, as in the foundation and through the foundation. So we’re a bit like General Flynn. You know, no middle class family can stand up to this.

General Flynn had to sell his house and we’re going to face been driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess. It’s a horrifying story. I’ve kept abreast of it through your wife who texts me as a wonderful person. And I know that you’re a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need and I’m grateful to have. So. The whole thing is shocking and so revealing. But I’d like, if you don’t mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review. 1992, you said you wrote this piece saying time to rethink immigration, which I remember well at the time National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative.

So that was a significant piece at the time. And then you said Bill Buckley, the then editor, William F. Buckley Jr. Stabbed you in the back. Can you tell a story what happened exactly? Oh sure. I was never on staff at Nash, 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. It’s about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the editor then. He was just circling around in the background. But the then editor, John o’ Sullivan went with this story and for about five years we basically directly challenged the, the, the official conservative line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, illegal immigration is very good.

That’s what the Wall Street Journal said and still saying as far as. And then at the end of five years, in 97, Bill just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O’ Sullivan and purged the magazine of Immigration Patriots and basically told us to shut up Batists 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 Pernuru and so on and so for them for two or three years you couldn’t get even the basic facts about immigration out the public. But then the Internet came along and you know, rescued us and I started vda.com may I ask you to pause and explain why that happened? Why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John o’ Sullivan run it, another Brit I think yes indeed, who now lives in Budapest.

Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation specifically? Well of course I’ve had 20 odd years to think and the answer is over the time my ad has evolved. At the time I thought he was just jealous. This is actually a thing you see. I was a financial journalist for a long time. It’s the 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. Your jealousy. I think the congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors.

And I think that was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the than Republican majority in the House. So the Republican leadership didn’t like it. Newt Gingrich, etc. Who was ascendant, came in in 94 to much, much fanfare achieved, not a lot. But they’re the ones who pressured Bill Buckley, you believe? I think that was true. But I also think that the neocons in New York hated it, hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the neoconservative people like Norman Potorus and so on. And I think they pressured him to. I mean I know they pressed him to get rid of John.

Now why would they care? Oh, because at that point the neoconservatives were predominantly Jewish faction. They had this sort of Ellis island view of America. They wanted to that extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self conscious because they feel as Jews that it will leave them out in the cold. Despite the fact there’s never been any real anti Semitic movement in the United States. There’s no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they’re white is a threat to Jews. I don’t know where that comes from. Right. And I actually think there’s a certain sort of jealousy there.

You know, they didn’t like. I mean if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism. But here was a non neoconservative fact. We would have then described ourselves as paleo conservatives coming up with the whole idea and the whole issue. Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when the Hart Cellar act kicked in until the early 90s, but there was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Reviews 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 real what was going on. Why? I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the US and so it just wasn’t an issue to them. And what happens with. It’s like an academic life. We have an academic theory. It’s not that it conquers the other theorists 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. A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. And I include Ronald Reagan in that. I mean. I mean it simply wasn’t an issue when he was growing up. And that’s why he was haunts while go by this the URQUHART Amnesty in 1986. He actually genuinely thought that the ruling of the permanent government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement. Whereas in fact he just took the amnesty and didn’t enforce the law against illegally immigration at all. Christmas feels like just yesterday, but in fact, it’s already time to think about Lent.

Lent. Lent is a great chance to step back, examine our lives and decide whether or not we’re headed somewhere worth going this Lent. We strongly recommend the world’s top number one prayer app. It’s called Hallow. Its Lent prayer challenge starts February 18th. It’s called Pray 40 the Return. Transformation does not start with improvement. No transformation starts with repentance. The courage to admit that you are lost and change direction. Pray 40 forces you to confront that responsibility, forgiveness, and what it means to truly repent and live a life of meaning by following Jesus every day. Enjoy simple, deliberate prayer.

No spectacle, no performance. Just silence, honesty, and one small step toward renewal. This is not about fixing your life overnight. It’s about beginning the journey home. Pray 40 the return starts Wednesday, February 18th and runs right through Easter. Download Hallow for free@halloween.com Tucker but I’m a little bit fixated on William F. Buckley because he was such a dominant force. Let me just Back up again, please. What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor driven, of course, and we weren’t aware of that in the 90s. I wasn’t even aware. I didn’t think about the donors role in politics really until some years later than that.

We thought that people just got up and argued and you just simply didn’t realize how dominant, how important the donors are. I think now, looking back at him, particularly given Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. And he depended on National Review financially to a considerable extent, finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent. And I think. But he depended on the magazine. Yeah, yeah, I think that’s true. 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 Strad and the sailing across the Bermuda Race. I don’t know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine in any case. He just didn’t want to disrupt the donor flow. And the more I think about that, the more I think that probably was the reason. Interesting. So that’s basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code, I mean it’s intellectual fraud. It’s your making the case that you believe these things because they are true, when in fact you’re taking money to say them.

I think Bill, actually, my experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When he went to his dinners, he used to put on 73 73rd Street. It was very hard to get him to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. And you can see that in the way he lived his life latterly. I mean, writing these books and so on. He just basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics initially. He was very. I have a letter from him actually saying how wonderful my immigration story was. Really? Yes.

And it was, you know, I forget what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that sort of stuff. He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just 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 or just how he was about drug legalization. He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about it. Him, huh? Why? I guess he was balancing a number of a Number of issues.

In the case of immigration, he, you know, I, I think he’s done as immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the. I remember. And, and I think as we, as we were talking earlier, I. I was watching Ben Shapiro on. On, uh, Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly, yes. And he was attacking you for some reason or other. I forget what. And he was saying that. Then he suddenly says, but Tucker’s good on some things. He’s good on immigration. Well, as I understand that you’re interested in the idea of immigration moratorium and so on, of course, this is news to me.

That’s what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. I mean, just about five or six years ago in National Review, he called me a white supremacist, basically for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction. And those days, if you’re back in the ear days, if you advocated immigration control, you immediately suspect that. You immediately suspect of being anti Semite, even though there’s no direct connection at all. And now they’ve changed their mind on this. They’ve fallen back. I mean, Norman, before he died, I was very friendly with Norman. He didn’t talk to me for the last 10 years of his life.

But he died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95. But just before he died, he gave an interview in which he said he changed his mind on immigration. He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed. And he credited John o’, Sullivan, the Edge of National View 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 Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight and of course was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue.

Well, he’s certainly a lightweight. It’s hard to know what he believes or doesn’t, but he certainly. I mean, if Jonah Goldberg is like your intellectual force, then you’ve been degraded. Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, you’ve got to stop calling National Review the Goldberg Review because it sounds anti Semitic. Actually, my understanding is that Goldberg is not technically Jewish. His mother was a gentile. I knew her. She was a great person. Actually, I replied and said that. And he didn’t get back. But he just gradually suspected more. He suspected more and more of Thought crime.

And Norman was an extremely passionate man. He didn’t famously, he didn’t socialize with opponents. I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry that. No, there was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways. It was kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion. And I actually owe his wife, Midge Dexter, a lot because she was the chair thing of the Philadelphia Society, which is a conservative affinity group. And she invited me to speak on immigration in, I guess, 2005.

And that’s where I met my first wife, had just died. And that’s where I met my current wife, Lydia, who, of course was running the VDF foundation with me. She was the publisher, r.com and you’ve had her on, of course. Oh, of course. And I’m. 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? I. 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? Because. What? Yeah, well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book.

That was because John was very popular with 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, I had to write a book and resigned to write the book. And we basically never really spoke to each other after that. I was constructively dismissed from National View. I got a letter telling me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very important in the National View world because it was run like a fraternity, and if you were senior, 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 parties. And he put the Washington bureau in charge of the magazine. 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, you know, mud sticks. Yeah. And by this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and anti Semite for raising these issues, it sticks.

And it has stuck so that, you know, even though Ben Shapiro is now in favor of just talking about immigration. I don’t see him apologizing to me. No, well, of course not. He doesn’t care about you at all. Or other people at all. I had a really interesting experience recently. Lydia and I were at ISI book event and I bought Matthew Cartanetti’s book. I mean, I actually bought it. I put down my. It’s a rotten awful book about the conservative movement. Says that I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn’t. He’s a silly. I mean, it’s all.

This is Bill Crystal’s son in law. Bill Crystal, son in law. That’s the point. I took it up to him. I like to collect inscribed books. In fact, I forgot to bring your book. I’m sorry. And he wouldn’t sign it. He wouldn’t inscribe it. He said, I have nothing to say to you. And the really weird thing about this is 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, Carnet is a convert, of course, so he’s probably very particularly ardent.

But the weird thing about this was that Carnetti had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think who his father in law is. But he said to your face, I won’t inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you. Essentially. Yes, that’s right. He signed it, but he wouldn’t inscribe it. And then he said, I had nothing to say to you. Wow. Yeah, I mean, it’s kind of surprising. And 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 kind of the difference, I think. I mean, we’re commanded to believe in forgiveness and to treat people as human beings. Norman didn’t believe that. No, I’m very aware of that. I’m very aware of that. It was a principal position with him. Yeah, it’s a principle, but it’s a satanic principle that you can’t forgive other people. 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 behind his Grant I couldn’t give it back, get my money back. Whereas conversely, Yoram Hazoni was also there and as you know, banned us from his National Conservative Conference because he said he didn’t think we were appropriate. And we had a series of bitter exchanges in Vidya. But Ozoni was perfectly friendly and he signed the book and inscribed it and we chatted about children and grandchildren and so on. Yor Mazzoni is a very courtly man, a very charming and warm person. I’ll say. I had lunch with him once and I don’t agree with him on a lot, but I liked him.

It’s hard not to like him. I think he’s very good. A lot of the stuff he says about conservatism isn’t exactly accur, but I think that’s right, 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 Americans to have ethnostate. He wants them to be a civic nationalist state. What do you mean won’t admit? I mean, Israel is by its own description and ethnostic. Yeah, but he keeps arguing that that’s not an attack, by the way, at all.

Well, you know, I’ve never been able to get him to explain how. You cannot say that there’s a racial component to Israel when the whole. When, of course, the Jewish religion is racially based. I mean, that’s why they have the matrilineal principle where you’ve got to have a Jewish mother. And I’ve never seen him respond to that, and I don’t think he can because he doesn’t want to encourage straight up white national. 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. 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 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 ethnostate. 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. Again, I have no problem with that at all.

That’s their country. But to say it’s not an ethnostate is not only a lie, but it’s like a ludicrous lie. And he won’t admit that. That’s my reading of what he wants, as only it’s 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 But a lot of things he says about immigration to the US are excellent. Right? I agree, and I’m not attacking Yoramizoni at all, whom I like, but that’s dishonest, because Israel is an ethnostate and you should just tell the truth about.

Especially about obvious things. Right. Well, it’s what Orwell calls doublethink, isn’t it? It’s doublethink. You got to believe two contradictory things at once, and it’s necessary to operate in large parts of the political world. Interesting. But why wouldn’t people who support an ethnostate in Israel want one here? I mean, why would they object to that so strongly? I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate. They’re overwhelmingly pro immigration. However, having said that, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know there are going to be people on the other side and some people 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 mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who of course is an aide to Trump, I think he’s the deputy chief of staff or something, he’s going to be the first Jewish president. I say this because the prospect horrifies people so much. But he’s liked Israeli in Britain. Benjamin Disraeli, of course, was Jewish, but convert 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 invented the Conservative Party. Reinvent the Conservative party in the 19th century.

Came up with 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 80 or 90 years. A couple of generations in Britain with the Nationalist Party and because of being a Nationalist party, got a very substantial working class vote because it is the blue collar workers who are the patriots. And the Conservative Party was able to tap into the House. Miller’s done the same thing. He’s invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party which he desperately doesn’t want to take up because it’s run by cowards and fools, but he thinks they should move towards restabilizing America’s ethnic balance and basically eliminating this immigrant inflow which is causing all kinds of problems with lower skilled workers and ultimately change, changing the racial balance.

And he’s not afraid to admit that. And, and not only that, but I don’t think anyone afraid cunning to survive the Kushner White House. Yes. I mean that was really extraordinary because Jared Kushner, of course played exactly the opposite. He’s basically a liberal New York Jew. But for some reason, Miller was able to survive with. Survive with him. I couldn’t have done that. So, so, and, and, and I wouldn’t have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did. Sessions was his close aide and, and then Miller abandons him when Trump turns against him. I couldn’t have done that either.

But then he’s in the White House and 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 demographic project. I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white. They’ll say that it’s not controversial. I mean, you could prove it on video or didn’t even bother to because I think most people watching this already know that it’s architects starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965 basically just said, ultimately admitted. The whole point is to make America less white. A non majority white country.

Why is it so hard for conservatives to say the same? If Democrats are saying we want America to be non white, why can’t conservatives say that? That’s what their motive is. I have to say that Kennedy didn’t say that when he was at first. Yes. When he was the floor manager of the Hart Cellar. He gave a very explicit assurance, he loved to quote saying that this will not alter the racial balance of America and it will not mean a million people a year will be coming in. Whereas in fact a million people a year are coming in, of course.

And that’s one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having VDA, even though I have Peter Brimmel. Peter peterbrimo.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 we’re not doing anything on 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 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 alienation that flowed out of my cover story, the 95 book, which HarperCollins refused to reprint. I quoted a man called Earl Raab who was 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. I didn’t use the term neo Nazi, but that’s what he meant. You know, party in the. In America. Impossible. In fact it does the exact opposite.

It makes it more like. Well, exactly. Well, he did say that. He quite calmly said that this is why most Jews favor. Well, it’s also made the rise of hard edged anti Israel politics. And I’m not pro Israel especially, but I don’t hate Israel. A lot of people who hate Israel are immigrants. So look at the New York’s New York Marathi race. Well, exactly. Van Damme 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 for. Against Mandami.

Exactly. So they’ve really screwed themselves up. This hasn’t worked. I mean, if your interest was to keep anti Semitism and really kind of crazy anti Israel sentiment to a minimum. And I agree with that. I’m against anti Semitism, I’m against basing your life on hating Israel. It seems kind of lunatic if that was your goal. I mean, you literally achieved the opposite result. Is that fair to say? But not for the first time. Yeah, 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.

But. Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can’t be analyzed intellectually. There’s just a whole series of reflexes or spiritual. But, you know, one of the reasons we know that the New York Attorney General’s attack on us was basically instigated by the Anti Defamation League, because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit this, that they had gone to Letitia James and told her to take PDA out. And we say to ourselves, why us Jews? What have we ever done to you? You know, we have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we’re not allowed to have conference anywhere else.

The donor was Jewish. We had all kinds of Jewish donors, all kinds of Jewish writers, blah. Doesn’t make any difference to the ideal, 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 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 Dr. It’s a 3300 watt battery backup system built to keep your entire household running when everything else stops. It powers full size appliances, medical devices, essential tools. You can use it indoors. It’s totally safe. There’s no fuel, there are no fumes, there’s no noise. We have one at home and it’s awesome. It’s got 15 output ports. It charges from the wall when you have power, from your car when you don’t.

It’s got a solar panel so the sun can charge it. It’s built to withstand EMPs, lightning, solar flares. It is durable as hell. So taking care of yourself and the people you love, the people you’re responsible for, is your job. Get power you can trust. Always get the grid, doctor. Today, at our very own lastcountrysupply.com our business. This is the power supply that we use. Lastcountrysupply.com now to what happened to you and to Vider. So you’re expelled both from National Review and You leave your old life as a financial journalist behind. I think it’s a fair summary.

And then you create this organization called vdare, named after Virginia Dare, the first British child born in the Americas. And it becomes successful, it becomes big. And it’s not anti semitic, it’s not racist. It’s against changing America’s population through immigration. Is that a fair summary? Yeah. I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. VDA was kind of a moonlighting 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, which became Dow Jones Market Watch.

In both cases, it was in. It was during turndowns in the markets. But I happened to be the one, you know, they chose to find me rather than people who were, frankly, less valuable to them. So. So it did. It did, in the end, terminate my career in the mainstream media. But on the other hand, you know, we were developing video very rapidly and it became quite a big deal. And 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. Was suspended two years ago and I resigned. So, you know, I’m supporting the family now on. On pension. 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. So tell the story, if you would. You’re running vdare and somehow Letitia James, who’s the. She’s the Attorney General. Attorney General of New York. Vidair is a 501C3 charity and is registered in New York in 1999 entirely because our 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 Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of Lawfare. Nobody heard the idea of Lawfare. This kind of exploitation of regulatory power never occurred to anybody at that point. Well, because we registered in New York, even though we don’t operate in New York, she was able to demand. We one day woke up and found we got these massive subpoenas demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email going back to 2016. Of course, that was a huge problem because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and our anonymous pseudonymous writers.

And I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they would have Been fired. May I ask him what? Okay, so you’re not domiciled New York, you’re not operating in New York, nothing. We registered in New York, that’s the key point. But the 501 CT is registered in New York, but you’re not. And you can’t get out. You’ve got to have her permission to get out. And you know you can’t change states. No, we can only with her permission. And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 501C3 and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets and she could claim jurisdiction of that.

It’s a huge mess and we had very expensive lawyers looking at it for a long time, even before she came along and hit us with this. But 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 accurate, I should say Lydia did in 2000 because as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen. 15 conferences cancelled, hotels would accept a booking, then they would cancel as soon as they came under pressure from the left.

And we realized we were never going to be able to have a conference. So we bought our own venue. And she wants to investigate that. Well, of course all that purchase was very carefully lawyed 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 really Killian thing froze, was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents. The real killing thing was demanded the email because we know if she got the right to names and the donor’s name, she would release them.

She did that with Nikki Haley. They leaked her the donors to her pack and the paper, the paper that. The papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley’s daughters were actually the latter head was New York Attorney General’s office. But of course nobody ever came after for her. I’m just confused. Did she have evidence you committed a crime know 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, but I would. 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 things. Let me back up a second. One wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprising journalist actually dug up a speech made to the adl.

They had a conference called Taking Hate to Court by Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James operatives, and he is the one who’s leading the charge against us. And he said to this conference that hate speech, that’s us Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. But there are ways around that. All you have to do if it’s a charity and you have jurisdiction is to start issuing subpoenas. He said it sucks to be sued. Just subpoenaed him 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 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. Is political. It’s not because of somebod 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 again 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 or staff are admitting they’re destroying you because they disagree with your opinions, it seems to me that any federal court would take that up because that’s a foundational question. That’s what we thought. But in fact, they didn’t. The first time we did it, the courts simply dodged on a technical issue. They came up with a technical excuse to dodging and we have trying again now, but we just have to hope for the best. I think one of the things that that is clear to me, I mean from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerable, it goes far beyond this situation and other cases I’m aware of, is that there seems to been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that’s quote unquote in a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary.

In our case, the classic example is we had a tell cancel on us in Colorado Springs and they, while Cora was not with them because they paid up the liquidated damages like men and it was a lot of money, but they cancelled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a Rhino, John Sullivan, had said he wouldn’t extend police protection to the conference when, you know, in other words, antifa would go in and he wouldn’t extend police protection. Yes, that’s right. Now this is an issue that he’s threatening to kill you. That’s right. That’s right. And who is this? His name was John Southers.

He was the mayor of. He was the Republican John Southers. 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, local government have to extend protection to people’s First Amendment rights. In other words, in those days, the black demonstrators would go into it, would have meetings in the city and the local whites would be angry about it. Well, those whites had to be kept away.

The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings. Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court, which refused to take the issue up. And 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. 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. Our 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 victory and we would have, we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way. And our initial Lyon card or Springs was so keen on this, it was so obviously open and shut case case that he took it on contingency, you know, but as soon as he realized that the, 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, in before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess.

This was Volo. It’s called the Volo case v. U L L O. And this was a case where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA and the NRA force it. And he won. And in the decision, Catenzi Jackson says the NRA’s case is strong, but essentially I’m paraphrasing, it’s not as strong as Vida’s case where they were denied police, where the state agency basically discriminates against them on political grounds. What’s this? We never heard about this. Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to reject our attempt to sue 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 90 which of course does us absolutely no good whatever because we’re out all that money and are forced to memorize they’re not protected. I mean, in other words, there’s a real determination on the part. The NRA is apparently more palatable 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.

Doesn’t make any sense. Speak for myself, I’d rather live in a deracialized world where people think about it less because it does cause problems. But as long as you’re encouraging identity politics, why do whites not get to have it? What is the answer? Well, it’s completely hypocritical. It’s because the people running the society are anti white and they’ve been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in an anti white wing. 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 it.

Like Declaration of Independence. Yeah, I did know that. And the purpose of the project, like big picture again. I keep going back to this, but I’m just, I am a little bit confused because this is the defining fact of our lives is that whites around the world are being eliminated. And I would like to know why. Do you have any guesses? As I say, I think, Dr. I think it derives from emotion rather than a kind of rational calculation. I mean, if you look at what’s happened in South Africa or for that matter in every big American black city that’s majority black, I mean they can’t want it to be, to get into a situation where the water, water is putrid and nothing works and all that kind of thing.

But they do that. What you know, the purpose of a system is, is what it does. And that’s right. And the purpose of, of, you know, non white governments is to produce non white government and non white results. Unless of course you’re Chinese. I mean, because Singapore’s run Japanese Singapore, they’re on 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. Yes, 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 I did. 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 fire breathing libertarian. But he actually thought about this question and he said that, you know, he said capitalism has really only ever worked in 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.

What economists call a meta market. A framework operates. So the question is why are these capitalists bringing, why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H1B 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, 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, the malign influence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

A whole generation of business people actually believe all this nonsense, it’s very hard to get out of their heads because they’re never allowed, I mean, they’re never allowed criticism of immigration on the editorial page. So you’ve referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also to HarperCollins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family. What’s been your experience with the Murdochs? Well, you know, I. I spent well over a year working for Rupert in, I think that’s 1990, on ghosting his autobiography, which was never published for verse, really 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 when that.

When I guess I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when you came under attack because somebody had. Somebody looked into people on the payroll and they found that this thought criminals on the payroll. So at that point I was dropped. But he’s always personally been extraordinarily generous to me. That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch in my life. And, you know, it’s not the case with a lot of these characters. It’s not Robert Maxwell and so on. I remember Rupert tell me once that he thought that Maxwell, Maxwell, as you know, fell off his yacht off the Canary Islands and was found dead.

Rupert’s theory was this guy is such a jerk that the crew probably couldn’t stand him anymore. That is one theory. That is one theory. His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked. I don’t know the truth of it, but he certainly had a lot of enemies and a lot of suspects in that crime. But, I mean, he was personal in place. And that’s not the case with Rupert. He’s not cruel, he’s not vindictive. Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I’ve ever met in my life. I mean, he has perfect manners.

He’s truly Anglo in that way. 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 healthcare, too. God bless you, Rupert Murdoch. It was very good. I mean, 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 of what he was asking.

But I have no complaints about Ruth and Murdoch. Yes. No, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years. But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley, that, and Rupert has great personal decency and I’ve seen it. But the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American, basic American interests. 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, against America’s interests.

So why, why is that, do you know? Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of a News Corporation or 21st Century Fox, whatever it’s called. Whatever it’s called now, to the neoconservatives. And so he took on a lot of neoconservative baggage at that point. I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment, they shall be open born us. You know, I mean, it was really lunatic. And, 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. You know, but that was then, this is now, and they have just simply haven’t made, made the transition. But that, that’s, that’s a major reason. I know suites operating in New York. And, you know, he was under a lot of suspicion there and, and has been a. You know, he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy. And he’s, and he’s showing that it’s genuine, though, with Rupert, I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the, the initial Iraq War, the Gulf War.

And he said, well, you know, it goes back to, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli. You know, his father played a major role in discrediting the GPID expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by W. Winston Churchill. They’re trying to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia to help Russia join the war. He said, so. So I’m just, I guess I’m just basically anti Arab. I said, those aren’t Arabs, the Turks. Well, exactly, yeah, exactly. Yeah. They’re all the same. Yeah. The Ottoman Empire is gone and they’ve done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who help finance his companies.

So. So it’s kind of a strange answer. His father was a famous journalist in Australia who broke the news of the disaster at Gallipoli, as he said, and he was very proud of that. But that’s not much of an answer, is it? Well, you know him better than I do, Tucker. I don’t 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. Somebody once, one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist, and his father’s a journalist.

You want to be a businessman? Because he did found a published empire in Australia, of course. Sir Keith Murdoch. I think there’s a lot in that. I mean, I think that you and I are ideologues, professional ideologues. Well, Ruben’s not a professional. No, that’s. He’s somebody who spends all of his time looking at. Nothing. Numbers. He’s a fantastic memory for numbers. He knows all he can. I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number he’s ever dialed, you know, and. And that running an operation like. Like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and a tremendous application to the.

Going on, 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. Like. He likes. Yes. You know, he likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing. But then he let’s go into Australian football matches, too. So I think it’s kind of a similar thing. That is a very smart analysis. I think you’re. Exactly. I think you just answered the question. He’s outsourced a lot of the thinking to others.

It’s transactional. He’s not tightly wedded to ideological details at all, but he’s really allowed the Wall Street Journal editorial page to become a force of destruction. Well, I have to admit, it’s many years since I bothered to read the Wall Street Journal. 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 is National Review still in existence, apparently, so it has the Republican establishment to support. It’s like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and. What do you know, the editor of National Review.

I have the. Have the. I mean, Rich Lowry, he’s got. He’s gone for some Time now. Isn’t he isn’t. Isn’t. He hasn’t even done there somebody else? I haven’t the faintest idea. But did you know him? You know, I sat in rooms with him and I went to Bacchus parts with him. Absolutely no memory of him at all. He never said anything at all of significance. And I think that’s why Bill hired him because he was completely malleable. Yeah, I think that sounds right. 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 Vider. Vide 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 ram. If I, as I say we’re being sued personally and, and as a foundation. On what grounds are you being sued? Oh, there’s a whole bunch of things, fundamentally technical issues to do with. 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 a refiling and stuff like that. Well, they’ve not found any evidence of. Of a misappropriation of funds. 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 to sue. Oh, yes, that’s right. Enormous. They’ve spent a great deal of money on this. They also very weirdly subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of all our dealings with Facebook.

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 had not, hadn’t had any deal with Facebook for more than two years when they came out after us. And. 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, I think they genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the rotation Russians or something to run bat 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 one of the things about Democrats is that they really do believe their own propaganda. They do think that the middle America’s 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 that. Right. 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 Vdell is we discussed and documented what we call the sale of strategy as opposed to the Rove 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, W. Bush got. 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 potential 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 would say, 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 Winiski. Do you remember Jude Winisky? Very well supplied therapy. He said, peter, you’ve gone too far. In other words, appealing to the white vote is not allowed. And look, it’s just a question. Arithmetic. You know, there’s more of them than there are of minorities. Any case, to this day, the Republicans still. Still not done that. They’ve done it tactically. Why was Jude Winiski mad? 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 think it’s somehow illegitimate and they still do think it’s illegitimate. For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election, you know, this youngkin who’s a complete cipher as far as the Wall street cypher, as far as I can see chooses has his success in the a candidate who was 1, an immigrant, 2 a woman and 3 black, she’s a black Jamaican immigrant. And this is how he’s going to appeal to the white vote. They’re going to get people in the 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 votes. I think the tell was in the ability. So this was in, you know, I’m not saying a bad person, but winsome Sears was not a good candidate. It was kind of an incapable candidate and hard to deal with. So, like, they chose her because she was black. That’s right. Despite the fact that she wasn’t good at her job. I mean, this is epidemic in the Republican Party.

Well, it’s epidemic in the country. They’ve chosen some. No, but Republicans in particular. They’ve chosen so many black countries. It’s about to adhere in Florida. The netsko Montoro can tell is likely black, unless a miracle occurs. Why is that? They are just pixelated by this, transfixed by this. I’m trying to find the right word. Hypnotized by this phenomenon, 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 that they’d rather lose their black white candidate than run a candidate who appeals to whites. Trump did appeal to whites.

Not enough. But he does it in some kind of really implicit way. If you actually look at what Trump said, in spite of all the rhetoric, he’s not said anything that’s explicitly white nationalists or anything. I see no sign that he’s only a civic nationalist. But for some reason he’s made some connection. I mean, all through West Virginia for that, while Biden was president, you would see these signs supporting Trump and saying very rude things about Biden. And these are outside trailhomes. Very rude things about Biden. Yeah. I mean, you know, this is a poor area, these rundown 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 voters. Why do you think that that was which part of it that he was able. Working class whites love Trump. Trump is not a racist. I never seen any sign of that at all. And not a white nationalist at all, and hardly a Christian nationalist. But he for some reason had an emotional connection with these voters. Why do you know, there’s a concept in sociology called the implicit community.

You know, communities that represent or appeal to some people without actually saying it explicitly. The classic example with nascar, for example, why is NASCAR a white stronghold or everybody watching NASCAR is white. And the NASCAR operatives don’t like this and they can’t hate it. Yeah, they constantly try and diversify. Republican Party is a classic example of this. I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it. The Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia. And you and I both remember then when the Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia. You know, I forget when the last Republic, I always keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to carry West Virginia was, but it might have been, it might have been Clinton.

And now it’s just the Democrats have ceased to exist in West Virginia, even though this is a very poor state. Republicans prevailed by simply by virtue of not being Democrats. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Virginia. That’s how much has changed. Right. So there’s something that’s going on at a very deep psychological level, some kind of implicit signaling. It’s baffling. Now, of course, he did say, you know, when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration, and never looked back. So he obviously struck a nerve there.

So he did enough to strike a nerve. And simply by raising immigration in the sort of rather, you know, I’m sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar and 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, and we, there’s, 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 overwhelming that immigration’s 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 republic that immigrants don’t go on welfare to the same extent than native born to which is completely wrong. It’s completely reversal truth. And it was back then it was obvious that they were going back onto into welfare in disproportionate numbers. But people didn’t know. And the Wall Street Journal’s not telling them. Well, the Wall Street Journal still isn’t telling them, but they do know now. And maybe we played A role in that? Well, yeah, and it’s, and it’s had a, you know, such a complex and degrading effect on the native population.

It hasn’t been, it’s not just a matter of competition in the job market or my, you know, my tech job went to an Indian or something. It’s, it’s way more complicated than that. And 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 at higher rates also. So it just, it, 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 my own website.

Peterbrynmore.com now what I’m interested in is legal immigration. Legal immigration is still running at a million a year. No, that puts the fact that the foreign born population in the US has fallen by two and a half million in the last, just joined this year. That’s an absolutely extraordinary number. I used to track every day 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 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 foreign. Two and a half million foreign born population. Even though we know a million, a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% of them color by the way, only about 10% white. So what we really need is an immigration moratorium. And I’m delighted to say that there is a bill proposed by Chip Roy in, in the, in the, in the House called, it’s called the Pause act, called calling for moratorium and there’s several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on birthright citizenship and if you look at my list of here secure the border.

In other words, they should codify Trump’s activities, tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on the southern border because we know that when the Democrats get in they’ll reverse it. But they won’t be able to do that if it’s in the law. They’ll have to pass a law and have to admit what they’re doing. The problem is that the White House seems to be, be, 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, you know, it’s just going to lie.

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 Insurrection act and that kind of thing. And it keeps. Keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that and sinking ships and stuff. I mean, which. It must be very entertaining. But I would really rather than focus on ending this immigration disaster. You know, it’s. Whatever it is. 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review. I’m 78. I can’t wait much longer.

I think that you just get on with it. And you have a number of children who will inherit the country. Well, that’s. That’s really the point. You know, people occasionally. Yeah, people say, okay, I get attacked all the time for, for not being. For being an immigrant. My position is you, 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’s going to be like by the time she’s a grown woman. Are you bitter? I’ve been extremely blessed in my personal life, even though my first wife died.

So I. 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 what 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. So I’m. I’m shocked, always shocked to hear your story. I am. I guess I am bitter. Conservative movement people in the conservative movement, people I’ve known for. For 30 and 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 Looma, your friend Laura Loomer. So that. That just shows how ecumenically we are. So Loomer helped you? Oh, yeah. She. She. She supported us on. On Twitter when we were. Good for her, when we were trying to raise money for. To defend ourselves. And she made. I have a gift saying goal, which I, I just launched before Christmas, frankly, to help us personally, because, of course, we’re now facing tremendous legal costs personally, and I believe he’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 can’t stand Letitia James, quite rightly. And they’ve made various attempts to bring her to book for various crimes, for one thing. I mean, she’s clearly guilty of massive mortgages fraud going back over 14 years. But, you know, the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats is joint notification by Democrats. They’ve been unable to indict it because, because, basically because judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand juries won’t, won’t, 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, 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 get, try to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor. I mean, what’s happening is these Democrats senators not only have the power to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also have the power apparently to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors. And they’re apparently taking the position that they won’t, they won’t allow the appointment of a federal prosecutor if he’s likely to prosecute Letitia James or any other Democrats.

You know, 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 essentially seceded and Minnesota essentially seceded from the union. The, 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 fact, New York and is seceding from the union. And that’s why I think all the, ultimately we’re going to have to go to the Insurrection act and we’re going to go, have to go to wholesale impeachment of judges. I mean, 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, all the others of women and people of color and so on, and they delivered in the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law. Ultimately, it’s going to have to be a purge of the judicial, of the judicial system.

Trump. When that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the third branch of government. But it’s been completely destroyed long before Trump. Right, right. My last question to you, Peter Berlin, thank you so much for doing this, is, are you hopeful? I have. One of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015, is that miracles happen quite often in politics. Yes. I mean, nobody expects Soviet Union collapse. Are you old enough to remember that? I’m 56. Yeah. I remember it like it was yesterday. 30 years ago.

I know, 30 years ago. I mean, that’s literally true. Nobody, either on the left or the right, expect the Soviet collapse. On the other hand, I don’t think they expected the Catholic Church going the direction it went. Vatican ii, and, and on the third hand, nobody expected Trump. And he has been a miracle. I mean, he’s changed the situation 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 Democrat politicians are openly quite calling on people to disobey federal law, disobey law, prevent ICE from. From deporting illegals, that’s more extreme than. Than ever happened in the south during the desegregation. Much more. It’s more extreme than. Than what the south did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is. This is insurrection. Actual insurrection. It’s insurrection. That’s right. That’s right. It’s insurrection. And, and of course, we, we, Eisenhower, Howard and Candy did use the Insurrection act to impose him integration. He sent the 101st Airborne to a high school. Yeah, right, right. With the total applause from.

From the mainstream media. She was then, of course, completely oligopolistic. I mean, it was dominant at least now we have. We have Twitter. Even if we are shadow banned on Twitter. Are you still shadow banned? Oh, yeah. Well, as far as we can see, we are. Ann Calder, you know, her fellowship has not risen for like six years. It’s been 2.1 million for six years. Doesn’t go up, it doesn’t go down. I mean, it’s obvious. You can see from an engagement that there’s. There’s something. There’s something very strange going on. It’s all the Indians he has in there.

He hasn’t been able to root him out yet. Peter Roma. Thank you very much. Thank you. T. Sa.
[tr:tra].

See more of Tucker Carlson Network on their Public Channel and the MPN Tucker Carlson Network channel.