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

Peter Bromall, thank you so much for doing this. I thought if you last week, when I read this, I don't know how much you follow acts, but there are 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 minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they're a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive. Okay, that's on the internet. Elon Musk retweets it and says 100%. And then Elon Musk writes this. If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct exclamation point. All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true. And I think most people know it. But I read that and I thought, here's the world's richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things. Saying this, and Peter Bromall, 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 is both my website, both my citizens and the people of the zone, and how 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, the Tisha James. As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that I'm a long-time, part of 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 balance and so on. And I worked for National Viewer, I wrote for National Viewer a lot and I wrote an immigration in 1992, saying time to rethink immigration, that sometimes credit was kicking off the modern debate. And there was a brief civil war within the conservative moment at that point, which we lost and buckled the staggers in the back and put them in the magazine of immigration patriots. And for the next while, the War of the Journalist's editorial page was absolutely dominant and difficult. And I'm going on about the need for honesty and there's no way to combat it. So I set up a website, which I call a name vdair.com after Virginia Dair, the first English child, not white child, 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, Tisha James, who just basically subpoenaed the subpoenaed as to death. And having fat now, a pseudo supposedly and as in the foundation and through the foundation. So we're a bit like General Flynn, no middle class family can start up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house and we're going to face, we're going to put some bankruptcy, I guess. It's a horrifying story. I've kept a breast of it through your wife who text me as a wonderful person. And I know that you're a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need. And I'm grateful to have. So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing. But like if you don't mind to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review, 1992, you wrote this piece saying time to rethink immigration, which I remember well. At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative. So that was a significant piece at the time. And then you said Bill Buckley that then editor William F. Buckley Jr. stabbed you in the back. Can you tell a story what happened exactly? Oh, sure. I know there was never on staff at National Review. Right. But I was what they called a senior editor and I wrote for it a lot. And in 1992, I wrote this very long cover stories by 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the editor of that. He was just circling around in the background. But then editor John Swarve and Ron with the Gwen with this story. And from about five years, we basically directly challenged the official conservative line, which was that immigration is good. More immigration is better. Illegal immigration is very good. That's what the Washington said. And still saying as far as I can tell. Yes. And then at the end of five years in 1997, Bill just to brought without any one of the tall five or so of them and put it to the purge the magazine of immigration pages. And basically told us to shut up but 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 re-slowing and pinnacle 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, and rescue does. I started VDAR.com. Yes. And explain why that happened. Why do you think Bill Buckley who was retired in letting John and Sullivan run it? Another Brit I think. Yes, he did. Who now is in Budapest? Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation specifically? Well, of course, I've had 20 years to think about that. And the answer is, over the time I had just evolved. At the time I thought he was just jealous. This is not 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 into the place. Yes, exactly. And she was jealous. 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 then Republican majority in the house. And I think. The Republican leadership didn't like it, Newt King Ridge, etc. Who was ascendant, came in in 1994 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 Neil Conn's in New York hated it. He did the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neil Conservatives. People like Norman Pajoris and so on. And I think they pressured him to, I mean, I know they pressured him to get rid of John. Now why would they care? Because at that point, the Neil Conservatives, who predominantly Jewish faction, they had this sort of Ellis Island view of America. They wanted to, the extremely frightened of the white majority of America becoming self-conscious because they feel as Jews that they will leave mountain to cold. Despite the fact there's never been any real antisemitic movement in the United States, there's no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that their white is a threat to Jews. I don't know where that comes from. Right. And I actually, there's a certain sort of jealousy though, you know, they didn't like, I mean, if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them are originated out of Neil Conservatism, but here was a non-Neil Conservative fact. We would have, we would have then described ourselves as peril conservatives coming up with the whole idea and the whole issue because the immigration she was completely dormant from, from 1968 when the hearts of our 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, between the passage of the 65 act until the early 90s. People simply didn't realize what was going on. Why? I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that, you know, when there was a pause in immigration from the 20th from 1924 to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was, essentially, no immigration at all into the US. And, you know, and so they just wanted, it wasn't an issue to them. And you know, what happens with the, it's like an academic life, where they have an academic theory. And it's not that it conquers an illiteracy by being better and better arguments. It's just that the people who hold the early theories die off. And they're replaced by younger. And that's true for politicians too. That's true. A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. And I include Ronald Reagan in that to me. I mean, it simply wasn't an issue when he was growing up. And that's why he was haunts while going by this, the Erke Anastay in 1936. He actually genuinely thought that they would, they would, they would, they would, the permanent government would exchange Anastalfan of the serious enforcement. In fact it just took the Anastalfan and didn't enforce the law against the legal 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 length, we strongly recommend the world's top number one prayer app, it's called HALO. Its Lent Prayer Challenge starts February 18th, it's called Pray 40, the Return. Transformation is 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 HALO for free at hello.com's. This episode is brought to you by Spreaker, the platform responsible for a rapidly spreading condition known as podcast brain. Symptoms include buying microphones you don't need, explaining RSS feeds to confused relatives, and saying things like, sorry I can't talk right now, I'm editing audio. If this sounds familiar, you're probably already a podcaster. The good news is, Spreaker makes the whole process simple. You record your show, upload it once, and Spreaker distributes it everywhere people listen. Apple podcasts, Spotify, and about a dozen apps your cousins swears are the next big thing. Even better, Spreaker helps you monetize your show with ads, meaning your podcast might someday pay for, well, more microphones. Start your show today at spreaker.com. Spreaker, because if you're going to talk to yourself for an hour, you might as well publish it. If a cyber attack hit this week, would you cope or scramble? Cohesity recently discovered only 6% can call themselves truly resilient. Get the playbook they're using. Cohesity, resilience everywhere. Flash Tucker. But I'm a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force. Let me just back up his camera. Yes. What I think now is, I think looking at National if you now, it's obviously donor driven. It's, of course. And we weren't aware of that in the 90s. And I wasn't even aware. I didn't think about the donors in the role in politics really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued and you just didn't realize I'd dominant to how I'm porting the donors. Oh, I think now looking back and particularly given Bill was not as wealthy as he laundered people to think and he depended on National Review of financial to a considerable extent. It finances lifestyle to a considerable extent. And I think that he depended on that. On the magazine? Yeah. I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended on him. Yeah. That's what he wanted you to think. But in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent. And the winters in strad and the sailing across the Bermuda race. And I don't know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expense to the magazine. In any case, he just didn't want to disrupt the donor flow. And then more I think about that, 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 dinner, he used to put on a 73-73rd street. It was very hard to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in a lot of directions. And you can see that in the way you lived his life, rattling, 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. I get what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and the beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that's just, he never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just said to all them to stop covering it. But the official line of the pet love of the magazine was that immigration was questionable. They just didn't do any journalism on it. Just how he was about drug legalization. He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he was very rare that the magazine write about him. Huh, why? I guess he was balancing a number of issues. In the case of immigration, you know, I think he's done. Immigration was a very unfashionable subject. I remember. And I think as we were talking earlier, I watched in Ben Shapiro on Megan Kelly, and Kelly asked, and he was attacking you for some reason or I forget what? And he was saying that then he suddenly says, but took his good on something. He's good in immigration. Well, I understand that you, your, your, your, your idea of immigration moratorium and so on. Of course. This in use to me, that's what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. Well, I mean, just about five or six years ago in national review, he called me a white supremacist for basically because for all the reason, then, then, then, then advocate immigration reduction. And those days, if you're back in the early days, if you, if you are, I'm advocating immigration control, you immediately suspect that you need the suspect to be not to semi, even though there's no direct connection at all. And now they've changed the mind on this, the foreign back. I mean, Norman before he died, I was, I was very friendly with Norman. He didn't talk to me for the last 10 years of his life. But he, he, he died just a few, a few weeks ago, at the age of 95. But just before he died, he gave an interview, which he said, he changes mind and immigration. He thought those are limited times immigration could be absorbed. And he credited John Assault in the edge of national review for helping change his mind. He didn't, he didn't mention me. Why didn't he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life? Well, I just, I think he just decided that that that was a suspicious character. And I deviated on the immigration issue and, and he suspected, I had the habit of calling the national review, the Goldberg review because that stage briefly was dominated by John John Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight. And of course, was absolutely born headed on the immigration issue. Well, he's certainly a lightweight. I, it's hard to know what he believes or doesn't. But he's certainly, I mean, if John Goldberg is like your intellectual force, then you've been degraded. Well, Norman, actually, email me and said you've got to stop calling national review, the Goldberg review because it sounds antisemitic. Actually, a man is telling me that Goldberg is not, is not technically true. His mother was a, his mother was a, was a Gentile. So I knew her. She was a great person. Right. I reply, I reply and said that he didn't get bad. But he just gradually suspected more, he suspected more and more, more of thought crime. And Norman was extremely passionate, man. He didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't socialize with, with, with, with, with, with the opponents. I miss him. I, I, I, I really liked him. I was so, I was sorry. No, there was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy. And I admired him in a lot of ways. It's kind of repulsive in others. But, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in, in motion and, and actually, oh, his wife, I'm a dictator a lot because she, she was the, the chair thing of the Philadelphia sat in, she, which is a conservative, finnety group. And she invited me to speak on immigration. Yes. And, in, I guess, 2005. And that's where I met, my, my first wife had just died. And that's where I met my current wife, Lydia, who of course was running the VDA foundation with me. She was the publisher of VDA.com. And he's had her own, 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? Um, I, uh, when he fired, John Sullivan, I was the only one of the entire staff who went to him and asked, why did you fire him? Or cause, where what? Yeah. Well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book. That was because John was very popular with, with the national review base and the immigration was, was, um, was very popular. And so he didn't want to admit that he was dumping them both. Uh, so he got really ruffled because he wasn't used to being challenged and, and said, uh, he's right, right, right, book and resound, right, book and, and, and, uh, we gave him a special, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, I was constructive dismiss from Nash review. I got a letter to him. I was no longer senior editor, which was actually very, very important in, uh, in, uh, the Nash review will because it, it was run like a fraternity and, and, uh, if you, if you were seniority, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that kind of thing. And, and, uh, I never wrote through it again. How, why did they dismiss you? Do you think? Well, well, I'm sure that the, the Washington Bureau was all upset with the immigration issue. Uh, it, it, it embarrassed them, it, it, it embarrassed them in Washington cocktail parties, you know, and, and, uh, and he put the Washington Bureau in charge of the magazine. So I'm sure they were happy to do it and, and, uh, uh, and they didn't want to write about immigration. And I think also, you know, uh, mod sticks, Tucker, so, you know, the sticks here and, and, and by this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and antisemite for raising these issues, it sticks. And, and it has stuck so that, uh, you know, even though Ben Shapiro's now in his favor of just talking about immigration, I, I don't see him apologizing to me. No, well, of course, not he doesn't care about you at all or other, other people at all. Um, either really it's an experience recently. We, we, we, Lidgen and I were to, um, I, I, I, I book event and I, I bought Martin Cousin. That's his book. I, my, my, it's, it's a rotten awful book about, about the conservative movement. It says that I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn't. Uh, and I still, he's a still, I mean, it's all, this is Bill Crystal son of a, Bill Crystal son of a, the point I took it up to him when I, I like to collect and describe books. I forgot to bring your book. I'm sorry, but, uh, uh, and he wouldn't sign it. He, he, he wouldn't inscribe it. He said, I have nothing to say to you. And the really weird thing about this is what come, what crap? I mean, I don't think you've ever said in it that I'm aware of an antisemite thing in your life. I don't think you're an antisemite. Well, uh, cognates as a convert, of course. So he's probably very, you know, particularly ardent, but, uh, uh, uh, the weird thing about this was that cognates had actually been some quite sensible things on immigration, uh, which is odd when you think of his father and lawyers. But he said to your face, I won't inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you. Essentially, that's right. That, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that he wouldn't, he signed it, but he wouldn't inscribe it. And then he said nothing to say to you. Wow. Yeah, you, I mean, it's kind of surprising. And we live out there in Eastern Panhandle, West Virginia. We don't have to face this stuff, but I guess when you in DC, you face it all the time. Yeah. Well, I, I, I left. Um, 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 and normal didn't believe them. No, I'm very aware of that. I'm very aware of that. It was a principle position with him. Yeah. It's a principle, but it's a, 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, um, wow, what a, 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 back. I couldn't give it back. Get my money back. Well, it's conversely. Uh, your own, his only was also there. And I, you know, his only as you know, bandals from his National Concerted Conference, because he said he didn't think we, uh, we were appropriate. And, uh, so we, I've, and we had a, a series of bits or exchanges and, and, and be there, but, but the zone, he was perfectly fine. And he signed the book and inscribed it and we chapped about, about children and grandchildren and so on. Your Amazonie 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, um, I, I, I was, I liked him. It's hard not to like him. I think he's very good. And so, yeah, a lot of the stuff he says about casserole is, it's actually accurate. I think that's right. Moving it away from being classical liberalism. Uh, the problem, of course, is that, that he's, he's caught in this, uh, a bind because he doesn't want to admit that Israel is an ethno-state, uh, because he doesn't want America to have ethno-state. He wants them to be, uh, to be, um, uh, cult, uh, civic nationalist states. Uh, what, what, what do you mean won't admit, I mean, Israel is by its own description in ethno-state. Yeah, but he keeps arguing that that, uh, there's not an attack by the way, at all. Well, you know, I've never been able to get into explain, uh, how you cannot say that there's a, a racial component to Israel when the whole, when, of course, the Jewish religion is, is, is racially based. I mean, that's why they have a mat, but the, the matrilineal principle where you've got to have a Jewish mother. And I've never seen him respond to that. Uh, and I don't think he can't because he, he, he, he, he, he doesn't want to encourage, uh, straight up white nationalism in America. Three 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 documentary on this called Replacing Europe. Following the world's deadliest migration route, our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see. They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public is never told. It's not ideological. It's reality. This is happening. It's destroying the West and our cameras caught it. Replacing Europe. It's the doc only on TCN now. The New Year is here, but that does not mean you've got to overhaul your whole life. Despite claims of the country, you don't have to take drastic measures. Make a few changes here and there and you'll be a lot better off. You can start with the snacks in your pantry. Products from standard American chip brands are, let's be honest, pretty repulsive. Fill with chemicals that make you feel heavy and bloated. They don't even taste that good. They're not good for you. You recommend an upgrade with mosa chips. Mosa 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 mistrichemicals, just food, actual food. They're amazing and you feel great after. You don't feel weighed down. We particularly enjoyed the co-binero flavor lately, but they're all great. If you want to give them a try, visit mosachips.com, M-A-S-A, chips.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order or you can link 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 a nationwide at your local Sprout supermarket. Stop by and pick up a couple of bags before somebody else does. 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 and we have whatever state you want as far as I'm concerned. But it is an ethno state. By definition, the people who founded it were not religious, a lot of them were atheists, and they identified as Jewish racially. I have no problem with that at all. That's their country. But to say it's not an ethno state is not only a lie, but it's like a ludicrous lie. He won't admit that. That's my reason of what he wants, that's only his saying. But it's one of the situations where he's civic nationalism is so intense that he might just as well be ethnic nationalism for the US. A lot of things he says about immigration to the US are excellent. Right. I agree. And I'm not attacking your own, it's only at all whom I like. But that's dishonest because Israel is an ethno state and you should just tell the truth about, especially about obvious things, right? Well, that's what I'll call double think, isn't it? Double think is you got to believe two constructs or things at once. It's necessary to operate in large, possibly political world. Interesting. But why wouldn't people who support an ethno state and Israel want one here? Why would they object to that so strongly? Of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role and the American immigration debate. They're all well-knownly pro-immigration. However, I haven't said that. Typically, if you know I'm not Jewish in election life, you know we're going to be people on the other side and some people very hard on the other side. Oh, and I know a lot of them. For example, I would never be anti-Semitic because I mean, 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 a deputy chief of staffers. He's going to be the first Jewish president. I say this because it's hard to justify people so much. He's like Israeli. In Britain, Benjamin, of course, was Jewish. But he was converted to Piscopalianism. He was converted by his father to very early age. His father converted to the whole family over to Pino Piscopalian. He basically invented the consultative party and reinvented the consultative party in 19th century. 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 eight to 90 years. A couple of generations, the kind of department with a nationalist party. Because of being a nationalist party, you've got a very substantial working class vote because it is the blue collar workers with the patriot. And the consultative was able to tap into the house. Miller's done the same thing. He's invented a grand strategy for the Republic 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 driving, eliminating this immigrant inflow, which is causing all kinds of problem for the fallow skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance. And he's not afraid to admit that. Not only that, but I don't think anyone can agree to survive the cushion of the White House. I mean, that was really extraordinary because Jarrah Kushner of course bleeds exactly the opposite. He's basically liberal New York, but for some reason Miller was able to survive with them. I couldn't have done that. So I wouldn't have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did with Sessions, because it was close to it and it was a mentor and then Miller abandoned 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. And 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 too because I think most people watching us 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 and on 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. So he was the floor manager of the hot seller. He gave a very explicit dishearing. Yes, he loved 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 a V-Dare. Even though I have my own Peter Bromall.com substock, that's not the same kind of voice because I've got to get legal immigration to the debate here. I thought what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more remarkable than people realize. But we're not doing it on legal immigration. But I'm sorry, that means I'm not answering your question. What was your question? 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 my book I wrote on immigration alienation that flowed out to my cover story, the 95 book, which Harper Garnes was used to reprint. I caught an amount called Earl Robb, who was a Jewish activist and so on. 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 now, Nancy, but that's what he meant. Partly in America, impossible. In fact, it was the exact opposite. It makes it more like... Well, exactly. What he did say that. He quite calm. He said that this is why I'm most Jews of 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 hate Israel or immigrants. So look at the New York's New York Marahachibans. Well, exactly. Bandami won because they were going to 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 Bandami. Exactly. So they have 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 and I'm against like 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? Off the first time. Yeah. That's fair. Fair. Um, assuming you think maybe that wasn't the goal. I don't know. I'm just guessing here. Maybe there was another goal that we don't understand. But well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can't be analyzed intellectually. Just a whole series of refluxes. Or spiritual. But you know, one of the reasons we know that the New York's Tony General attack on us was basically instigated by the anti-deformation league, because during the twin, who actually got the idea to admit that they had gone to the Lataean James and told it to take Fidera out. And we say to ourselves, why else? Jews? What do we have done to you? You know, we have the Berkis Brings Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we're not allowed to have conference anywhere else. The Don was Jewish. We have, we have, we had all kinds of Jewish donors, all kinds of Jewish writers. But that doesn't make any difference to the ideal partner. 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's 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. The power is 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 through a stand. 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. At Betweikersino, stake 20 pounds and get 150 free spins for new customers. 18 plus, TizenC's apply. Bet the responsible way. Gambleaware.org. Now to what happened to you and to VDR. 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 VDR, named after Virginia Day, the first British child born in the Americas. And it becomes successful. It becomes big. And it's not antisemitic. It's not racist. It's against changing America's populations from immigration. Is that a fair summary? Yeah, I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. VDR was kind of a moonlighting project. But you pull that off. It was very difficult. And of course, eventually became possible. And I was fired both from Forbes and from CBS. What was used to be CBS Markers became Dow Jones market watch. In both cases, it was joined, turned down in the markets. I happened to be the one, they chose to find me rather than people who were frankly less valuable to them. So it did in the end, to eliminate my career, the mainstream media. But on the other hand, we would develop and VDR very rapidly. And it became quite a big deal. And in 2019, we raised nearly four million dollars, which enabled us to buy the castles and do all kinds of other things. Of course, it's been totally destroyed now. I've been out of it for all, who was suspended two years ago and I resigned. So I'm supporting a family now on the pension, pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family. I have my own children. So it's kind of irritating. But you're a dating doesn't begin to describe it. So tell the story if you would. You're running VDR. And somehow the T-shirt James, she's the turn general of New York. The way there is a 512c3 charity and it was registered in New York in 1999 entirely because I then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York and therefore it was convenient for him. And this was when those Republican government in New York and nobody heard of law, they had nobody heard it. The idea of law, this kind of exploitation of regulatory power never occurred to anybody at that point. Well, because we're registered in New York, even though we don't operate in New York, she was able to demand that one day walk up and found we got these massive subpoenas, demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email going back to 2016. And of course, that was a huge problem because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and anonymous pseudonymous writers. And people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were fired. I mean, ask him what, okay, so you're not domiciled in New York and not operating in New York. Nothing. We registered in New York. 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 up right now to that, she would claim that we were transferring assets and she could claim jurisdiction over that it's a huge mess. And we had very expensive laws looking at it for a long time, but even before she came along, it hit us with this. But I mean, ask him what grounds she should subpoenas to you and what she doesn't have to give grounds. Well, what she said was she wants to investigate the castle purchase, which we did in 2000 or more, I should say, literally in 2000. Because as you know, we had maybe a dozen depends how you count, but a dozen 15 conferences canceled. The tells would accept a book and then the castle seems to come 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, all that purchase was very carefully allowed precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it, but it doesn't make any difference. She demands that. She demanded that. She demanded all kinds of other things. The real kill-in thing froze us demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents. We, we, the real kill-in thing was demanded email because we know if she got the writers names and the donors names, she would release them. She did that with Nikki Haley, they leaked her, her, the donors to her pack. And the paper that, the papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley's donors were actually the letterhead was New York Attorney General's office. But of course, nobody ever came after her. I'm, I'm just confused. Did, did she have evidence? You committed a crime? No. She was looking for evidence. And she's not found it, but she's charges anyway. But she hasn't charged it. It's not a criminal thing, but she, she, she, she's, she's a, she's a, she's a, suing us anyway, I'll friend. 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, of, of the destruction of our legal system. And you know, that's a fair point. No, but I would not affect that point. Exactly. But destroy it. 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, the one, well, you know, the one of the wonderful thing back up a second, one wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprise and journalists 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 the teacher James operatives. And he is the one who's leading the charge against us. And he said in this, in this, 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, it's a startish one in subpoenas. He said it sucks to be sued, just subpoena 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 holders of ours 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, they just destroy you through the process of punishment. They just destroy it that way. So he actually openly admitting this. So when we saw this, we thought, I always saw a lot of it. 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 told unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this. We're trying again now, we have a, we have a, what they call, 983 action against, against the teacher James and the operatives personally. And we're trying to raise the first amendment question there. But, but the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it. Well, I mean, if the attorney general and her staff are admitting they're destroying you because they disagree with your opinions, 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 court simply dodged an attack on the coalition. They have a, they came out with attack, let's keep the dodging. And we have a Troy trying again now, but, but, you know, we just have to offer the best. I think one of the things that is clear to me, I mean, is from looking at our litigation experience, which is not considerably goes far beyond the situation, and other case I'm aware of is that there seems to have been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that that's quote him, quote, in a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary. In our case, the classic example is we had an hotel, cancelons in Colorado Springs. And they were, our quarrel was not with them, because they paid up a liquidated damages like man. And it was a lot of money. But the canceled, because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a rhino, John Sullars, had said he wouldn't extend police protection to the conference. When, when, you know, in other words, an anti-fackel going on and, and, and, and, and, he wouldn't extend police protection. Yes, that's right. Now, this is an issue that's, he's trying to kill you. That's right. And who is this? His name was John Sullars. He was the mayor of, he was the Republican, or John Sullars, mayor of Colorado Springs, basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his city. Now, this is an issue, which has been extensive litigated in the civil rights era. And the point was made very clear that, that, that, that, that, that, that, the, the local authority, the 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, would have meetings in the city and the local, the, the local ones would be angry about it. But those whites had to be kept away. The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings. Well, we litigated this right up to Supreme Court, and, which were shoes to take, 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, who said this is obviously a attack on first amendment rights. And, and, but the other two, who I think were Republican appointees to vote against us. So we lost. And, and we weren't able to, our initial lawyer, and our civil rights litigation is extremely damaged, and if you're on the wrong side of it, there's enormous damages involved. So it was, it would, it would have, it would have been a huge sort of victory, and we would have, we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way. And our initial lawyer and card, our spring was so keen on this, it was so obvious, open and short case that he took it on contingency, you know. But as soon as you were out of the city was going to resist, you ran away and we had to start paying our paying lives to, to litigate him. Well, anyway, subsequently, there was a case in, in, before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess, the voters, the vote was called the vote OK, it's the VULLO, and this was a case where the commiss in New York were putting pressure on insurance commas, not to ensure the NRA and the NRA, NRA fought it and, and, and, and it won. And in the, in the, in the decision, Cotenti Jackson says, the NRA case is strong, but it's, it's, essentially, I'm powerfully, it's not as strong as VDA's case, where they, where they were, didn't I, please, where the state agency, you know, were basically, to, to scum it against them on political grounds. What was this? We, we never heard about this. Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an Amicus brief, saying that the, the, the Pills Court in Codd had been wrong to, to, to, to reject our attempt to, to, to, Sue Codd of Springs on a, 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, but NRA versus, Bolo, I guess it was called. And the, and I, they, they, they, the Supreme Court did take it up and ruled against the, the state of New York 90, which of course does, I was absolutely no good, whatever, because we were out of that money. And, you know, I first memorized it, not protected. I mean, in, in other words, there's a real determination on the part of it. The NRA is apparently, let more part of it than we are. I'm a little bit confused, just conceptually with the idea that white self-awareness is effectively illegal in the United States, whereas, ethnic self-awareness in every other group is encouraged. Like, doesn't make any sense. Speak for myself. I'd rather live in a deracialized role, people think about it less, because it's, 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? Why is it completely, completely illegal? It's because the people run a molecular society, or anti-warn, and they've been able to persuade or intimidate the entire, entire legal system to operate in anti-warn. Why do you want, in this case, really means anti-American? I mean, because the white is our Americans. That's who Americans are. You know, the people who sign it, I decrease them independence. Yeah, I did know that. And the purpose of the project, like, big picture, a guy, 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, Tucker, I think it derives from emotion, rather than a kind of rational calculation. I mean, if you look at what's happening in South Africa, or for that matter, in every big American black city, that's that's that's majority black. I mean, they can't want it to be to get into a situation where the water is is putrid and nothing works and all that kind of thing. But they do. That what the, you know, the purpose of the system is what it does, and that's right, and the purpose of, you know, non-white government, it's to produce non-white government and then non-white results. Unless, of course, you Chinese, I mean, because Singapore is one of Japanese, you're saying that they're one very efficiently. Of they are. It's just interesting that people move here because it's a white country, and we see it's around the sense of the ground. Well, all of us benefit white and non-white benefit alike from systems created by whites, because they're more humane, they're more just, they're more fair, and they're much more efficient and cleaner. Obviously, you know, I was looking at interview, if I can interrupt you, I was looking at at some dissent, and interview I did it for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedman. I asked him, are the cultural prerequisites for capitalism? And he said, yes, I think, and now he asked, you know, he's a very far-breathing libertarian, but he actually thought about this question. And he said that, you know, he said, capitalism is 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 kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism. I sometimes, what columns call a meta-market frame where they're working on it? Right. So the question is, why are these capitalists, you know, 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 do it like Mandarmy, who don't support capitalists, when in fact hate it, what are the capitalists doing? Well, they're doing what Lenin said. They will sell us the rope by 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 across the town. 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 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 Murdoch's? Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert in 1990 on a ghosting as autobiography, which was never published for various really changes 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 they when I guess I guess had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when when you came under attack because some some did, somebody looked into people on the payroll and they found that this thought comes on the payroll. So at that point at that point I was dropped, but he was always put him in extraordinary generous to me. So that is my experience with Rupert Murdoch. And I was not the case with a lot of these characters. That's not a lot of these moments. You know, I'm a Maxwell and so on. I'm a Rupert Tommy once that he thought that Max when Max was, you know, fell off his yacht after 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 that, but he certainly had a lot of enemies and a lot of suspects in that crown. But I mean, his personal place, that's not the case with Rupert. He's not truly, he's not vindictive. Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I've ever met in my life. I mean, his perfect man or his truly Anglo in that way. And I never had a bad time with him. Always a, 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, his healthcare. I had some born on his healthcare too. It was bless you, Rupert Murdoch. It was very good. I mean, no, it's I mean, I don't know the truth should be told good and bad. So essentially, I was a consultant for me and I didn't, 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 it. Yes, no, I, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience 25 years. So, but it does, it does raise the question as it does with Bill Buckley, then, you know, Rupert has great personal decency that I've seen it. But his, the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American, basic American interests. So like, what is that? This guy likes America. He treats people around him. Well, there's a lot good to say about Rupert. But the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Harper Collins, like all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America's interests. So why, why is that? Do you know? Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual the thinking part of news corporation or 21st century photo to what ever it's called now to the nail conservatives. So he took on a lot of nail-concorded baggage at that point. I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying that there ought to be a constitutional member that they shall be open borders. You know, I mean, it was really lunatic. And I believe that's still the case. But why would he do that? Well, because they're very good. I mean, they're extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy. They're extremely good in the Cold War. They were. That's correct. You know, but that was then, and this is now, and they have just simply haven't made the transition. Well, that's that's that's a major reason. I know our Swiss operating in New York, and you know, he was under a lot of suspicion there and and as been, you know, he had to show what he was, what gov it out called once okay guy. And he's showing them. It's genuine though with Robert. I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro, the initially rack war, the Gulf War. And he said, well, you know, it goes back to it goes back to my father and and Gallipoli, you know, father played a major role in in discrediting the Gallipid expedition, which was his attack, orchestrated by Wilson Churchill, they're trying to break through the data and else 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 are the Turks. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The Ottoman Empire is gone and they've done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who helped finance his companies. So it's kind of a strange answer. His father was a famous journalist in Australia who broke the news of the disaster Gallipoli. Right. And he was very proud of that. But that's not much of an answer. Is it? Well, you know about the night I do talk about it. I don't know. I just it's it's it, you know, he said such an effect on the world in my life. And as I said five times, I've always liked him and still do. But it does. Somebody's a mystery. One of his, his henchmen in Australia said to me that, Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist. And his father's a journalist who wants to be a businessman because he did found a published empire in Australia. Of course. It's a Keith Murdock. I think there's a lot in that. I mean, I think that we we you and I already logs. Professional. We're not a professional. No, that's somebody who spends all of his time looking at numbers. It's a fantastic memory for numbers. He knows all he can remember. I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number. He's ever dialed. You know, and and running an operation like like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and tremendous application to going out going over pages and pages of figures. I don't know. It's been a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a sporting sense. He likes to be like he likes, you know, he likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing. But then he likes going to Australia football matches too. So so is this. I think it's kind of a similar thing. That is a very sworn analysis. I think you're I think you're exactly I think you just answered the question. He's outsourced a lot of the thinking to others. It's transactional. He's not tightly wedded to ideological details at all. But he's really allowed the Wall Street Journal editorial page to become a force of destruction. Well, I have to admit, it's many years since I've bothered to read the Wall Street Journal. Yeah, I rely on people sending me things and they don't send much from the Wall Street Journal. All for that matter from National Review. Very rare. It's National Review still in existence. But finally, sorry, it has the Republican establishment to support. It's like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz. Do you know the editor of National Review? Have they have the main rich Lari? He's gone for some time now, isn't he? He's hasn't even done if somebody else. I have the famous idea. But did you know him? I know. I sat in rooms with him and I went to bucket spots with him. I absolutely know my memorabilia at all. He never said anything to all of significance. And I think that's why Bill had him because he was completely malleable. Yeah, I think that sounds right. Sad. How much has been lost? So speaking of lost, what happened in the end if you and I interrupt your story my apologies, but to V-Dare? V-Dare is suspended and July of 2024 because he 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 deal with the legal situation which continues to ramify. I had to say we're being sued personally and as a foundation and what grounds are you being sued? All of the whole bunch of things, fundamentally technical issues to do with whether we had the right number director vote on the right number of things. It's all paperwork stuff. It's all stuff that could would normally resolve with the phone call and possibly refiling and stuff like that. They've not found any evidence of misappropriation of funds and in fact we moved to dismiss on that basis. Although they have on puff a lot, I mean the 60 odd pages of rhetoric, but the actual charges, they haven't got anything. Who is suing you? New York State. So using tax dollars still to... Oh yes, that's right, enormous. They've spent a great deal of money on this. They also, very weirdly, subpoenaed Facebook through 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 an idea of 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 genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the Russians or some Russians to run bat farms. If you remember, that was the allegation with interference in the DS in 2016 that the Russians were financing tiny little Facebook pages. And that's how they'll manipulate in the election. I think they're, I think they generally believe that. I think there are things about Democrats, is that they really do believe they're on propaganda. They do think that the middle America is full of people who are in pointed hands. No, it will be at war with Qatar by the end just because they've talked themselves into relieving 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. So the difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda too, which is why they want, for example, appeal appeals to the white vote. One of the things we did at Vda is we discussed and documented what we call the sailors' tragedy as opposed to the Roves' tragedy. In 2000, Karl Roves was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities. And it makes no sense statistically because I think George Bush, George W. Bush got, got 51% of the white vote. It's a Paul in performance. So Steve Seller was one of our writers who we've had on pointed out that if they could just increase that potentially proportion of the white vote to what his father got, which is like 57, 58%, that was swamp and overwhelm any possible. She conceivable gained among minority voters. So we was saying you should go for the white vote. And now this causes a great deal of trouble for us. I remember that I left it from an email from Jude Winesky. Do you remember Jude Winesky? Very well. He said Peter, you've gone too far. In other words, appeals to the white vote is not allowed. And I walk, it's just a question, a arithmetic, you know, there's more of them than there are of minorities. And in case, to this day, the Republicans still not done that. Why was Jude Winesky mad? Jude was liberal. And way back when he was liberal, he still had a lot of these reflexes. But it was just thought to be, people just got very emotional about it. They think it's somehow legitimate. And they still do think it's illegitimate. For example, so we see in Virginia in the last election, you know, there's a young kid who's a complete cypher as far as they wash, she's cypher as far as I can see chooses success in the gubernatorial race. A candidate who was won an immigrant to a woman and freed back. She's a black Jamaican immigrant. And this is how it's going to appeal to the white vote. They're going to get people in the south, south, or the halls of southwest Virginia out to vote to the village white, oh, black immigrant, ridiculous. And of course, they got a terrible share of the white vote. 50% of the votes. 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 in and, you know, I'm not saying a bad person, but when some seers was not a good candidate who's kind of an incapable candidate and hard to deal with. So like they chose her because she was black. Despite the fact that she wasn't good at her job. And this is epidemic in the book and part of the book. It's epidemic in the country. It shows us so much. But the public is in particular chosen so many black candidates about to adhere in Florida. The Nascar Monterey candidate is like to black, unless a miracle occurs. Why is that? They're just pixelated by this, the transfixed by this, I'm trying to find the right hypnotized by this phenomenon by the whole race question. This race whip is what it comes down to. They're just so afraid of being called races that they'd rather lose with a black candidate. Then run a candidate to appeal to white. Trump did appeal to white, 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 a certain anything. That's explicitly why Nascar is to anything. I see no sign that he's an all-nacific 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. These are outside trail... Only rude things about Biden, yeah. This is a poor area. These run down trail homes, these Trump signs on them. For some reason, Trump made a connection with them. It's aery. On the other hand, they also had a disconnection with the other side. You get this Trump derangement syndrome. But he was able to mobilize the white voters. Why do you think that was? Which part of it? He was able to work in class, whites, love, Trump. Trump is not a racist. I've never seen any sign of that at all and not a white nationalist at all. And hardly a Christian nationalist. But he, for some reason, had an emotional connection with these voters. Why do you know? There's a concept in sociology called implicit community. Communities represent or appeal to some people without actually saying explicitly. The classic example, with a NASCAR, for example, why is NASCAR a white stronghold or everybody watching NASCAR as wide? And the NASCAR operatives don't like this. They hate it. Yeah. The constant time diversity. Republican parties, the classic example of this. Without ever doing anything to deserve it, Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia. And you and I both remember that when Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia, I forget when the last Republican Democrat to Cai West Virginia was probably 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. But the Republicans prevail by simply by virtue of not being Democrats. We'll Clinton lost California in 92 and 1 West Virginia. That's how much has changed. So there's something that's going on at a very deep psychological level, some kind of implicit, implicit signaling. It's baffling. Now, of course, you did say, you know, when he came down to Elevator and said, just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration, and never look back. So he obviously struck a nerve there. So he did the enough to strike a nerve. And I simply by raising immigration in the sort of world, rather, you know, I'm sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy in coherent and peculiar and just because the forgets his lines and sets 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 parties completely. I know. We wrote about it for, for things you were fired over it. Right. Just, you know, there's almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up. But then when he did the damn broken, now what a big difference that I found, and talker is, is, if you speak to grassroots Republicans as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus of, I mean, that immigration's got to be ended. The consensus of a woman, whereas when I, when I got involved in this in the early 90s, all the Republicans never heard of this question. And they would assume, for example, that Republicans, that immigrants don't go on welfare to the same extent that they they've 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 end-to-well-phone in, in, in, uh, district Washington numbers. But people didn't know. And the worst of Jones not telling them. Well, the worst Jones 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. It higher rates also. So it just, it, it created a vortex that's heard 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 VDER and, and I'm on my own website, Peter Brimble.com now, I, I, I, what I'm interested in is legal immigration, legal immigration, is still running that to a million a year. No, that's, that puts the, the, the fact that the foreign born population in the US has fallen by two and a half million, uh, in the last, and just joined this year. That's an extraordinary number. I used to track it via the foreign born population because the way of, of, of tracking the impact of immigration, it's very rarely goes negative. It went negative briefly, uh, when Trump first got in, because they were frightened of him and a lot of legal legals 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, on, uh, both legal immigration and illegal immigration. Now, now it's two and a half million, gone four and two and a half foreign born population. In though we know a million, a million, uh, legal immigrants have come in, 90% of them call it by the way, only about 10% wide. So what we really need is immigration moratorium. And, uh, I'm delighted to say that there is a bill proposed by Chip Ryan in, in, in, in, in the, in the house, uh, uh, call, call, he called the poor act, uh, uh, uh, calling for, uh, uh, moratorium. And there's several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on both right citizenship and the, uh, look at my list here, secure the board. I mean, in other words, they should set in codified Trump's, uh, uh, uh, Trump's, uh, activities, tighten up on the, on the, on the executive action, tighten up on the, on the, on the, the southern board, because we know they were the Democrats could get in, they'll reverse it. But they won't be able to do that if, um, if, if it's, if it's in, in the law, they'll have to pass a law enough to admit what they do him. The problem is that the White House seems to be, is, is not pushing any of these, uh, bills, and unless they do, I don't think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything. He's just going to, you know, he's just going to lie, lie low. Uh, I don't know why the White House is pushing these bills. Uh, of course, it's got his hands full in, in, uh, many sort of where they clearly need to declare the interaction act and that kind of thing. And I keep, keep going around blowing up far, far on governments and stuff like that and thinking ships and stuff. I mean, which is must be very entertaining. But, uh, I would really rather than focus on, um, ending this, um, ending this immigration, uh, you know, it's, uh, 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 the users get home with them. And you have a number of children who will inherit the country. That's really the point. You know, people occasionally, uh, yeah, uh, people say, okay, I get attacked all the time for, for not being, for being an immigrant. So my position is, you know, I'm at, so an immigrant doing a, a duty job, the Americans want to talk about immigration. But the real reason is I kept children here. My youngest child is 10 years old and, and, and, and, uh, she, God knows what the country got by the time she, she, she, you know, she's a grown woman. Are you better? Um, I've been extremely blessed in my personal life, uh, even though my first wife died. So, uh, I don't think, uh, I think good things could have worked out differently for me, uh, professionally, but 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, and, uh, is evil and, uh, 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, uh, I guess I am a bit, uh, at the conservative movement, people in the conservative movement, people I've known for, for 13, 40 years who basically haven't helped us, haven't defended us. Uh, uh, uh, uh, the most prominent people who have defended us, Tucker, are you and Laura Luma, your friend Laura Luma. So that, that just shows how we communicate like we are. Uh, so Luma helped you. Oh, yeah. She, 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 may have a give-sengal, which I just launched before, because it's not frankly, that help us push, and that goes, of course, we're now pushed facing tremendous legal cost personally. And, and, uh, I believe she's helped us with that. Have you received any help from the Department of Justice? Um, we know that where there are people in the department, just as who are, uh, uh, um, not, not directly. Uh, on the other hand, Trump cast Dan Latisha James, but quite rightly. And, and they've made various attempts to bring her to book for a very large crimes for one thing. I mean, she's clearly guilty massive morgue fraud going back over for a course. But you know, the obvious of law for, uh, to run by Democrats, it's your notification by Democrats. Uh, they've been unable to indict it because, uh, because, uh, busy because judges will keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand joys won't, won't, won't indict, um, won't indict Democrats. Uh, we, uh, so that, I don't know where that's, where that stands. They also have an investigation into her deprivation of, uh, Trump's civil rights and this, these scandalous cases and, you know, there's, there's hush money case and the, the fraud case and so on. We should never have been allowed to go to court. The judges should have started, but the judges are on the other side. And our judges just tried to get, try to strike that down by, um, by, uh, disallowing the prosecutor. I mean, what's happening is these Democrats, senators, uh, not only have the power to veto, uh, judicial, uh, judicial appointments, but they also have the power, apparently, to, to veto, um, prosecutors, federal prosecutors. And they've, but they're apparently taking the position that they won't, uh, they won't allow the point of the federal prosecutor if he's likely to prosecute the T.C. James Roth, any other Democrats, you know, and God knows there are enough Democrats that need prosecuting. That's how they're protecting them. Many respects, you know, we're looking to, uh, slum-wash and civil war here. I mean, New York is essentially a seceded for the Minnesota, but essentially a seceded from the union. The, the whole legal systems are, uh, opposed to what the federal government is doing. It's Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, uh, wrote recently that New York is, is the land that law forgot because normal legal norms simply don't apply there. The, um, what happens is what, what the Democrat operatives want. Uh, and of course, this is not a, a government under law. So in, if, in if fat New York is, and it's seceding from, from, from, from the union, uh, and, and that's why I think ultimately we're going to have to go to the insurrection act and we're going to have to go have to go to the whole sailing piece of judges. I mean, all these judges brought in by Biden, uh, uh, I think he had one or two white men both of whom would get something like that, all the others of women and people of color and so on. I did deliver in the most extraordinary rulings, uh, uh, uh, disregarding the plain latches of the law. Ultimately, there's going to have to be a purge of the, uh, the judicial, of the, of the judicial system. Trump, when that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the third branch of government. Um, but it's, it's, it's been completely destroyed longer for Trump. Right. Right. My last question to Peter Browen, thank you so much for, for doing this. Um, is, are you hopeful? Uh, I have a, I have, um, one of the things I want to remember for is that it's based on talk I gave in about 2015 is that miracles haven't quite often in politics. Yes. I mean, nobody, nobody expects the Soviet Union collapse. Are you all enough to remember that? I'm 56 year. I remember it was like it was yesterday, 30 years ago, and 30 years ago. Um, I mean, that's literally true. Nobody, nobody either on the left or the right expect the Soviet Union collapse. On the other hand, uh, uh, you know, I don't think they expected the Catholic church going direction. It went to Vatican II and, and, and, uh, and on the third hand, the no expected Trump. And he has been a miracle. I mean, he's changed the situation so many, so many ways, not of which I think he has probably thought about, but, but he does it anyway. Yeah. Uh, 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, and, and the situation with, where, you know, Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, disobey law, prevent ICE from, from deporting illegals. Uh, that's more extreme than, uh, than ever happened in the South, uh, joined desegration much more. It's more extreme than, than what the South did for some time. I mean, this is, this is insurrection. Actually, insurrection. That's right. That's right. That's, that's, it's insurrection. And, and of course, we, we, eyes on the how and candidate did use the insurrection act to impose integration. Uh, uh, 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, um, uh, oligopolistic. I mean, it was dominant. At least now we have, we have Twitter, even if we are shadow Van on Twitter. Are you still shadow about? Oh, yeah. Well, as far as we can see, we are. And colder, you know, her, her, um, fellowship has not risen for like six years. It's been 2.1 million for six years. Just don't go up. It doesn't go down. I mean, it's obvious. You can see from an engagement that, that 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 them out yet. But, but, but, Rema, thank you very much. Thank you, Sun.