Tucker interviews Peter Brimelow

Discussion between two guys who have known all the players in Conservatism Inc. Could be harder edged on the Jewish role.

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

Tucker [00:00:04] Peter Brimelow, 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 a basically anonymous account and I’m quoting, if white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority. Then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when there are 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 percent 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 Bremlow, 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:01:33] It feels kind of tingly on the one hand, I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction and the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on vdaer.com, which was my website, both about citizenship and so on, and now in the public debate. On the other hand, we’ve been ruined and we’re facing personal ruin of course because of this attack on us by the New York Attorney General Letitia James. As nobody knows who I am Tucker, I should say that, you know, I’m a long time, it’s part of my accent, I’ve been here for 55 years and I’m a long-time financial journalist. I work for Forbes and, and, uh, and fortune and the Barons and so on. And, uh. And I worked for National Review, I wrote for National Review a lot and I wrote a piece on immigration in 1992 saying time to rethink immigration. That’s sometimes credit with kicking off the modern debate. Uh. And there was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost, and Buckley stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots. And for the next while, you know, the Wolf’s Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant, and there was going on about the need for amnesty, and there’s no way to combat it. So I set up a website, which I named V-Dare.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child, not white shards 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 us to death and has in fact now sued us personally and through the foundation. So we’re a bit like General Flynn, you know, no middle class family can start up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house and we’re going to face, we’re driven into and bankruptcy, I guess.

Tucker [00:03:27] 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:04:18] What happened exactly? Oh, sure. I was never on staff at national rate, but I was what they called a senior editor, and I wrote 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 of that. He was just circling around in the background, but the then-editor, Jonas Orven, ran with the, went with his story, and for about five years, we basically directly challenged the, uh, 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 I can tell. Yes. And then at the end of five years in 97, Bill just abruptly without any warning at So I fired O’Sullivan and purged a magazine of her. Of immigration patriots and basically told us to shut up about it, told them all to shut up about immigration, which of course they all eagerly did. He put the Washington bureau in charge, Rich Lowry and Panouro and so on. And so for them, for two or three years, you couldn’t get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public. But then came along and you know rescued us and I started vda.com

Tucker [00:05:31] But 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:05:40] Yes, indeed.

Tucker [00:05:41] Um who now is in Budapest. Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation specifically?

Peter Brimelow [00:05:53] Of course I’ve had 20 odd years to think about that and the answer is that over the time my answers 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 a thing you see often in the corporate world, entrepreneurs will come back and purge the fire, the managers that they put in to replace themselves, that’s a huge jealousy. I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets Donut And I think that was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then Republican majority in the House.

Tucker [00:06:30] 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:06:46] I think that was true, but I also think that the neocons in New York hated it, hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neoconservatives, people like Norman Podhoretz and so on. And I think they pressured him to, I mean, I know they pressured them to get rid of John. Now, why would they care? Oh, because at that point, the Neoconservatives were a predominantly Jewish faction. They had this sort of Ellis Island view of America. They wanted to, they’re extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they feel as Jews that it will leave the mountain in the cold.

Tucker [00:07:33] 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:07:48] 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-neoconservatism factor. We would have then described ourselves as paleoconservatives coming up with the whole idea and the whole issue, because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when Hart-Celler kicked in. Until the early nineties, 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 and until the early nineties, people simply didn’t realize what was going on. What, why? I think there are a couple of reasons. So one is that, you know, 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 U.S. And so it just wasn’t an issue to them. And you know what happens with, it’s like an academic life, where they 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 to me. It simply wasn’t an issue when he was growing up. And that’s why he was hornswoggled by this, the Amnesty in 1986. He actually genuinely thought that the government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement, whereas in fact he just took the amnesty and didn’t enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.

Tucker [00:09:30] But I’m a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force.

Peter Brimelow [00:09:38] Let me just back up a second. What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor-driven, and we weren’t aware of that in the 90s. I wasn’t even aware. I didn’t think about donors and their 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 or how important the donors are. I think now we’re looking back in a particularly given bill.Buckley was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. And he depended on National Review financially to a considerable extent. It financed his lifestyle to a considerably extent. And I think that- Wait, he depended on the magazine? Yeah, yeah, I think- I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended upon him. Yeah, that’s what he wanted you to think, but in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a conceivable extent. And- The winters in Gstaad 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 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 that probably was the reason.

Tucker [00:10:51] Basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code. I mean, it’s intellectual fraud. It’s you’re making the case that you believe these things because they are true when in fact, you’re taking money to say them.

Peter Brimelow [00:11:09] I think Bill actually, my experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When he went to those dinners he used to put on 73, 73rd Street, it was very hard to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions and you can see that in the way he lived his life, latterly, in writing these books and so on. He just basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics, initially he was very, I have a letter from him actually saying how wonderful my immigration story is. But, and, uh, and it was, you know, if I get what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect. And that, that sort of stuff. He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just, he, he just said, told them to stop covering it. Uh, but the official, the official line of the magazine was that the immigration was, was questionable. They just didn’t do any journalism on it, which is how he was about drug legalization. He-he-he was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about him. Uh, I guess he was balancing a number of, a number of issues, uh, in the case of immigration. He, you know, I, I think he’s don’t as immigration was a very unfathomable subject in the. I remember. And, uh. Uh, we were, I was, we, as we were talking earlier, uh I was watching Ben Shapiro on, on, uh Megan Kelly and Kelly. Yes. Uh, and he was attacking you for some reason or 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 it, you’re interested in the idea of immigration moratorium and so on. Of course. This news to me, that’s what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. Right, well. I mean, just about five or six years ago, in National Review, he called me a white supremacist for basically, for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction. And those days, if you’re back in the old days if you were I advocated immigration control, you’re immediately suspect, 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’d died he gave an interview in which he said he’d 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 Review, for helping change his mind. He didn’t mention me. Why didn’t he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life? Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character and I deviate 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 and Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight, and of course was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration.

Tucker [00:14:11] 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:14:23] Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, you’ve got to stop calling national view 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 bad, but he just gradually suspected more and he suspects me more and more of thought crime. And Norman was an extremely passionate man. He didn’t. Oh, so famously. He didn’t, uh, he didn’t uh, uh he didn’t socialize with, with, w with, uh opponents. I miss him. I, I really liked him. I was so, I was sorry that

Tucker [00:15:03] There was a lot about him that was appealing, he was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways, kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still, he constantly in motion and I admire that.

Peter Brimelow [00:15:15] And I actually owe his wife a midget act 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 is where I meet my current wife Lydia, who of course was running the Vida Foundation with me. She was the publisher of Vida.com, and he’s had her on of course.

Tucker [00:15:40] Oh, of course. And I’m a fan. She’s a brave woman and a smart one. May I ask what happened to your relationship with Bill Buckley?

Peter Brimelow [00:15:53] I, uh, when he fired John O’Sullivan, I was the only one of the entire staff who went in and asked, why did you fire him? What? Yeah. Well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book. That was because, uh John was very popular with, uh with the National Review, uh base and the immigration issue was, was, um, was very pop 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 a nice writer, writer, book and resigned writer book. And, and, uh, we get basically never spoke to each other after that. I mean, uh I was constructed dismissed from national view. I got a letter to tell me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very, very important in, uh. In neither national view world because it was run like a fraternity. And, uh if you, if you were senior ed, 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 in Washington cocktail parties, you know, and he put the Washington bureau in charge of the magazine. So I’m they would be happy to do it. And they didn’t want to write about immigration. And I think also, you know mud sticks talk. So, you know, 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 his favor of just talking about immigration, I don’t see him apologizing to me.

Tucker [00:17:37] No, well of course not, he doesn’t care about you at all or other people at all.

Peter Brimelow [00:17:42] I had a really interesting experience recently, we, Lydia and I were at an ISI book event and I bought Matthew and Cottonette’s book, I mean I actually bought it, I put down my, it’s a rotten, awful book about the conservative movement, since I was born in Canada, which obviously wasn’t. Well it’s the silhouette, he’s a silhouette, I’m mean it’s all, this is Bill Crystal Sun at large. Bill Crystal Sun, well 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, but, and he wouldn’t sign them. He wouldn’t inscribe it. He said, I have nothing to say to you. And the really weird thing about this is that- Well, what crowd? I mean, I don’t think you’ve ever said it.

Tucker [00:18:19] That I’m aware of an antisemitic thing in your life. I don’t think you’re an antisemite.

Peter Brimelow [00:18:24] Well, Cotnett is a convert, of course, so he’s probably very, you know, particularly ardent. But the weird thing about this was that Cotnet had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think of his father-in-law.

Tucker [00:18:38] But he said to your face, I won’t inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you? Essentially.

Peter Brimelow [00:18:45] He signed it, but he wouldn’t inscribe it, and then he said nothing to say to you. It’s kind of surprising, and we live out there in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia and we don’t have to face this stuff, but I guess when you’re in DC you face it all the time.

Tucker [00:19:00] 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. No one didn’t believe them. No, I’m very aware of that, very aware that.

Peter Brimelow [00:19:14] Principal position with it.

Tucker [00:19:15] It’s a principle, but it’s a satanic principle that you can’t forgive other people. That is, you’re not forgiven if you don’t. So that’s my view. But wow, that’s amazing. So you were just cast out.

Peter Brimelow [00:19:27] Well, the thing is, he’d already signed the book, so I couldn’t give it, he signed it and described it, I couldn’t give it back, get my money back. Whereas conversely, Yoram Hazony was also there. Hazony, as you know, banned us from his National Conservative Conference because he said he didn’t think we were appropriate. And so we have, and we had a series of bitter exchanges in V-Day, but Hazony is perfectly friendly and he signed the book and inscribed it and we chatted about children and grandchildren and so on.

Tucker [00:19:55] Yarmuzoni 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 was, I liked him. It’s hard not to like him.

Peter Brimelow [00:20:08] I think he’s very good, a lot of the stuff he says about consumerism isn’t exactly accurate to me. But I think that’s right. He’s moving it away from being classical liberalism. The problem of course is that he’s caught in this bind because he doesn’t want to admit that Israel is an ethno-state, because he does not want America to have ethno state, he wants them to be, to be a cult, a civic.

Tucker [00:20:31] What do you mean, won’t admit, I mean, Israel is by its own description an ethnostate.

Peter Brimelow [00:20:38] Yeah, but he keeps arguing that…

Tucker [00:20:40] List on the tag.

Peter Brimelow [00:20:41] Yeah, 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. Of course. I mean, that’s why they have the matrilineal principle where you’ve got to have a Jewish mother. And I’ve not seen him respond to that, and I don’t think he can, because he doesn’t want to encourage straight up white nationalism in America.

Tucker [00:21:11] I just want to be clear about my own views, not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely, I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethno-state. It’s their country. You can 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’ve no problem at that at all. That’s their county. But to say it’s not an ethnostate is not only a lie, but it’s like a ludicrous lie. And in.

Peter Brimelow [00:21:43] He won’t admit that. That’s my reading of what he wants, that’s all he’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 if for the US. A lot of things he says about immigration to the US are excellent.

Tucker [00:21:57] Right, I agree. And I’m not attacking your Amazonian 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:22:11] Well, that’s what I would call double-think, isn’t it? You’ve got to believe two contradictory things at once and it’s necessary to operate in large parts of the political world.

Tucker [00:22:21] Interesting. So, but why wouldn’t people who support an ethnostate in Israel want one here? I mean, why would they object to that so strongly?

Peter Brimelow [00:22:31] 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, you know, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you’ll know there are people on the other side, and some people very hard on the other. Oh, are you?

Tucker [00:22:47] Oh, I, and I know a lot of them, why I would never be anti-Semitic. Cause I, I mean, you can’t generalize, you know,

Peter Brimelow [00:22:53] I mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who of course is an aid to Trump, I think he’s the deputy chief of staff or something, he’s going to be the first Jewish president. I say this because it’s hard, the prospect horrifies people so much. But he’s like Disraeli in Britain, Benjamin Disrael, of course, was Jewish, but converted to Episcopalianism, he was converted by his father to very early age, his father and took the whole family over to being Episcopalians. He basically reinvented the Conservative Party in the 19th century, 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 term. 80 or 90 years, a couple of generations, the Conservative Party in Britain was a nationalist party and because of being a nationalist party you’ve 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 that, Miller’s done the same thing. He’s invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party, which he desperately doesn’t want to take up because it’s run by cowards and fools. But he thinks they should move towards, you know, re-stabilizing America’s ethnic balance and basically eliminating this immigrant inflow, which is causing all kinds of problems for the lower skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance. And he’s not afraid to admit that. And not only that, but he had the cunning to survive the Kushner White House. I mean, that was really extraordinary because Jared Kushner, of course, believed exactly the opposite. He’s basically a liberal New York Jew. But for some reason, Miller was able to survive with him. I couldn’t have done that. So, and I wouldn’t have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did. Sessions was his close aide and was his mentor. 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.

Tucker [00:25:09] 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 us already know that. Its architects, starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965, basically just said, ultimately admitted, this, the whole point is to make America less white and non-majority white country. Why is it so hard for conservatives to say the same? If Democrats are saying we want America to be non-white, why can’t conservatives say that that’s what their motive is?

Peter Brimelow [00:26:00] I have to say that Kendi didn’t say that when he was the floor manager of the Heart Seller Arctic. 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 a year are coming in and that’s one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having Vidare even though I have my own peterbrimow.com sub stack. That’s not the same kind of voice because we’ve got to get legal immigration to the debate here. I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more 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?

Tucker [00:26:45] Well, my question was the whole point of the project was not to like 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, destroyed the state.

Peter Brimelow [00:27:02] 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 caught in a man called Earl Raab, who is a Jewish activist and so on, and he explicitly said that Jews were 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, a party in America impossible. In fact, he does the exact opposite, it makes it more likely. Well, exactly. Well, he did say that and he quite calmly said that this is why most Jews favor…

Tucker [00:27:43] Well, it’s also made the rise of hard edged anti-Israel politics. And I’m not pro Israel, especially, but I don’t, I don’t hate Israel, a lot of people who hate Israel are immigrants.

Peter Brimelow [00:27:55] Show them a look at the new york’s new yorker mirage well exactly and army won because the immigrant vote exactly exactly needs to be a tip on the native-born american new yorgos and gone those look at who they are for god’s sake i mean i mean uh… But they voted for uh… Against mandel exactly uh… Uh… So so they’ve really screwed themselves up this hasn’t worked for us

Tucker [00:28:15] 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 like, basing our life on hating Israel, that seems kind of… If that was your goal, I mean, you literally achieve the opposite result. Is that, is that fair to say? Not for the first time. Yeah. Fair, fair. Um, so maybe 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:28:47] Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can’t be analyzed intellectually. That’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 Latisha Jameson told her to take Fideira out. And we say to ourselves, why us, Jews? What have we ever done to you? We have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we’re not allowed to have conferences anywhere else. The donor was Jewish. We had all kinds of Jewish donors and all kinds Jewish writers, but that doesn’t make any difference.

Tucker [00:29:38] To the idea all apart. Now to what happened to you and to VDAR. 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 VDar 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 no racist, it’s against changing America’s populations for immigration. Is that a fair summary?

Peter Brimelow [00:30:08] Yeah, I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. V-Day was kind of a moonlighting project. How’d you pull that off? It was very difficult. And, of course, eventually it became impossible. And I was fired both from Forbes and from CBS, what used to be CBS Market Watch became Dow Jones Market Watch. In both cases, it was during turn downs in the markets, but I happened to be the You know they chose to fire me rather than people who were frankly less valuable to them. So it did in the end terminate my career in the mainstream media. But on the other hand, we were developing Vidaire very rapidly and it became a quite a big deal. In 2019 we raised nearly four million dollars which enabled us to buy the castle and do all kinds of other things. Of course, it’s been utterly destroyed now. Out of it, you know, it was suspended two years ago and I resigned, so, you know, I’m supporting the family now on the pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family, I have minor children, so it’s kind of irritating.

Tucker [00:31:19] Irritating doesn’t begin to describe it. So tell the story if you would. You’re running V-Dare and somehow Letitia James, who’s the

Peter Brimelow [00:31:31] Churchill of New York. There is a 5-1-C-3 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 that was convenient for him and this was when you know the Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of lawfare, nobody heard of it. The idea of law fair that 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 that we one day woke up and found we got these them these massive subpoenas, uh, 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 our anonymous pseudonymous writers. And, uh I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were fired.

Tucker [00:32:27] I mean, ask him what, okay, so you’re not domiciled in New York, you’re not operating in New york, you know, nothing. Or you’re registered in New York.

Peter Brimelow [00:32:33] That’s the key point.

Tucker [00:32:33] But the 501CT is registered in New York, right?

Peter Brimelow [00:32:36] 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 5-1-C-3 and start operating out of 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 lawyers looking at it for a long time but even before she came along and hit us with this. But may I ask on what grounds she should subpoenas to you in West Australia? They shouldn’t have to give grounds. Well, what she said was she wanted to investigate the castle purchase, which we did in 2000, or more accurately, I should say, Lydia did it in 2000. Because as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen or 15 conferences canceled. 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 wanted investigate that. Well, of course, all that purchase was very carefully lawed precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it, but it doesn’t make any difference. She demanded that and she demanded all kinds of other things. The really killing thing for us was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents, the really killing things was demanding the email because we know if she got the writer’s names and the donor’s names, she would release them. She did that with Nikki Haley. They leaked her, her, the donors to her pack. And the papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley’s daughters were actually, the led head was the New York attorney general’s office. But of course nobody ever came after her. I’m just confused. Did she have evidence she committed a crime? No, she was looking for evidence. And she’s not found it, but she’s charged us anyway. Well she hasn’t charged us, it’s not a criminal thing, but, she’s suing us anyway

Tucker [00:34:30] My impression my guess my guess is that the Trump administration will begin to ignore the courts in some cases and People will say that this is the beginning of fascism and a takeover of the destruction of our legal system And you know, that’s a fair point No, I would not a fair part. Well exactly it’s right. 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 wanna say that.

Peter Brimelow [00:35:11] One of the wonderful things 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 at 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, is to start issuing subpoenas. He said it sucks to be sued, just subpoena them to death. And of course that’s exactly what he’s done to us. They inflicted over a million, nearly a million and a half dollars in out of pocket costs for 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 They just destroy you through the process of punishment, they just destroy that way. So he’s actually openly admitting this. So when we saw this we thought, oh it’s all over, they’ve obviously admitted that what they’re doing is not, it’s political, it is not because of some regulatory concern. But we’ve been totally unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this. Uh, we’re trying again now, we have a- We have what they call a 983 action against Letitia James and the operatives personally and we’re trying to raise this First Amendment question there, but the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it.

Tucker [00:36:42] 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:36:56] What we thought. But in fact, the first time we did it, they’d called simply dodging a technical issue. They came up with a technical excuse to dodge it, and we have Troy trying again now, but you know, we just have to hope for the best. I think one of the things that, it’s clear to me. I mean, from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerably goes far beyond this situation, another case I’m aware of is that there seems to have been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that’s quote unquote a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary. In our case, the classic example is we had a hotel cancel in Colorado Springs, And they Well, Cora was not with them because they paid up the liquidated damages like men and it was a lot of money. But they canceled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a rhino, John Suthers, had said he wouldn’t extend police protection to the conference. In other words, Antifa could go in and- He wouldn’t extent police protection? Yes, that’s right. Now, this is an issue that- He’s threatening to kill you. That’s right And who is this? His name was John Sothers. He was the mayor. Of who was the Republican of

Tucker [00:38:19] John Suthers, the mayor of Colorado Springs, basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his… That’s right.

Peter Brimelow [00:38:28] Now this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the civil rights era, and the point was made very clear that by the courts, that the local authorities, the 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, but those whites had to be kept away, the blacks had to have their meetings. Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court. And which refused to take the issue up, and there was a, the appeals court in Colorado rejected us, and I believe it had at least one, we had one good judge there who said this is obviously an attack on First Amendment rights, but the other two who I think were Republican appointees, to vote against us. So we lost, and we weren’t able to, our initial lawyer, civil rights litigation is extremely damaging if you’re on the wrong side of it, I mean there’s enormous damages involved, so it would have been a huge sort of victory and we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way, and our initial lawyers in Cardiff Springs were so keen on this, it was so obvious, open and showcase, that he took it on contingency you know. But as soon as you realized that the city was going to resist, you ran away and we had to start paying our lawyers to litigate him. Well, anyway, subsequently there was a case before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess it was Volo, it was called the Volo case, V-U-L-L. And this was a place where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA. And the N.R.A. Fought it, and it won. And in the decision, Kadenti Jackson says, the NOS case is strong, but it’s essentially unpowerful. It’s not as strong as Vidar’s case, where they were denied police, but 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 vs Volo I guess it was called, and the Supreme court did take it up and ruled against the state New York 9-0, which of course does us absolutely no good whatever. Because we’re out all that money and, you know, our first memorize are not protected. I mean, in other words, there’s a real determination on the part of, the NRA is apparently more partable than we are.

Tucker [00:41:20] I’m a little bit confused 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:41:49] Well, it’s completely hypocritical. It’s because the people running the society are anti-white and they’ve been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in an anti-White way. Anti-White in this case really means anti-American, I mean, because the whites are Americans, that’s who Americans are, you know, the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Tucker [00:42:15] 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:42:34] As I say, 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 get into a situation where the water is putrid and nothing works and all that kind of thing, but they do. So what they know the purpose system is is what it does and that’s right and the purpose of You know, non-white government is to produce non-White government and non- White results. Unless of course you’re Chinese, because Singapore’s run Japanese, they’re run very efficiently.

Tucker [00:43:13] 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 fair and they’re much more efficient and cleaner obviously

Peter Brimelow [00:43:33] You know, I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you, 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 it’s, and now as you know, he’s a very fire-breathing libertarian and, 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. 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 where meta- market operates. So the question is, why are these capitalists, why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H1B flow coming, when it’s obviously going to produce people like Mandami who don’t support capitalism and in fact hate it, what are the capitalists doing? While they’re doing what Lenin said, they will sell us the rope. By which we hang them.

Tucker [00:44:37] 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?

Peter Brimelow [00:44:47] Oh, in the case of business people, of course it did. The Malayan influence, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a whole generation of businesspeople actually believe all this nonsense. It’s very hard to get out of their heads because they never allowed, I mean, they never allow criticism of immigration on the editorial page.

Tucker [00:45:05] So you’ve referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also to Harper Collins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family. What’s been your experience with the Murdocks?

Peter Brimelow [00:45:14] Well, you know, I… I, uh… Uh, I spent well over a year working for Rupert, um, in, I think that’s 1990, uh, on a ghosting his autobiography, uh which was never published, for various reasons, he changed his mind about it. But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally and he continued to be extraordinarily generous until very recently when, when, um… I guess I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when you came under attack because somebody looked into people on the pay roll and they found that this thought criminal was on the Payroll. So at that point I was dropped but he’s always been extraordinarily generous to me.

Tucker [00:45:58] That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch in my life.

Peter Brimelow [00:46:00] It’s not the case with a lot of these characters, a lot these molds, Robert Maxwell and so on. I remember Rupert telling me once that he thought that Maxwell, as you know, fell off his yacht off the Canary Islands and was found dead. Ruperts theory was this guy is such a jerk that the crew probably couldn’t see him.

Tucker [00:46:20] I don’t understand him anymore. That is one theory. His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked. I don’t t know the truth of that. But he certainly had a lot of enemies and a lot suspects in that crime. But I mean he was a personal employee. That’s not the case with Rupert. He’s not cruel. He’s no vindictive. Ruper is one of the most personally gracious people I’ve ever met in my life. I mean, he has perfect manners. He is truly Anglo in that way. And I never had a bad time with him. Always agree. Even when he fired me, I talked to him after and he couldn’t have been nicer. So I strongly agree with your assessment, but he kept you on the payroll for decades.

Peter Brimelow [00:46:58] So I had five children born on his health care. I had some born on health care too.

Tucker [00:47:05] God bless you, Rupert Murdoch!

Peter Brimelow [00:47:09] It was very good. I mean, no, it’s a, I mean I don’t know. The truth should be told good and bad. Um, so essentially I was a consoler for him and I, and he didn’t console me at all, uh, because of course I would have told him to do the exact opposite of what he was actually doing, but, but I, I have no complaints.

Tucker [00:47:25] Yes, no, I, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years. Um, so, but it does, it does raise the question as it does with Bill Buckley, then, you know, Rupert has great personal decency, um, that I, and I’ve seen it, but his, the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American, basic American interests. So like, what is that? This guy likes America. He treats people around him well There’s a lot good to say about Rupert, but the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, HarperCollins, like all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America’s interests. So why, why is that? Do you know?

Peter Brimelow [00:48:10] Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of News Corporation or 21st Century Fox, whatever it’s called now, to the neoconservatives. And so he took on a lot of neoconsiderate baggage at that point. I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment, there shall be open borders, you know. I mean it was really lunatic and I believe that’s still the case. But why would he do that? First of all, because they’re very good. They’re extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy, they were extremely good in the Cold War. They were, that’s correct. But that was then, and this is now, and they just simply haven’t made the transition, but that’s a major reason. I know Osweat’s operating in New York, and he’s under a lot of suspicion there, and he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy, and he is showing that. It’s genuine though with Rupert, I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initial Iraq war, the Gulf War, and he said, well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli, you now, his father played a major role in discrediting the Gallipolis expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by Winston Churchill, they’re trying to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia, to help Russia join the war. He said, so, so I’m just, I guess I’m just basically anti-Arab. I said, those aren’t Arabs, they’re Turks. Well, exactly.

Tucker [00:49:49] 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 at Gallipoli. And he was very proud of that. But that’s not much of an answer. What are you doing better than I do talking? I don’t know. I just, it’s, it, you know, he said such an effect on the world and on my life. And as I said five times, I’ve always liked him and still do, but it does.

Peter Brimelow [00:50:22] Somebody said to me once, one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist and his father was a journalist who wanted to be businessman because he did found a publishing empire in Australia, Sir Keith Murdoch. I think there’s a lot in that. I mean I think that you and I are ideologues. Professional ideologues, Buru’s not a professional ideologue, he’s somebody who spends all of his time looking at numbers, he has a fantastic memory for numbers, I can never remember any phone numbers, every phone number is ever dialed, you know, and running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail, a tremendous application going another page and page 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 backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing. But then he likes going to Australian football matches too, so I think it’s kind of a similar thing.

Tucker [00:51:29] 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.

Peter Brimelow [00:51:50] Well, I have to admit, it’s many years since I bothered to read The Wolf’s Journal. Yeah, me too. I rely on people sending me things, and they don’t send much from The Wolfs’ Journal, or for that matter, from National Review. I very rarely seem to see them. Is National Review still in existence? Apparently so, it has the Republican establishment to support.

Tucker [00:52:14] Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and

Peter Brimelow [00:52:16] What, do you know the?

Tucker [00:52:16] Editor of now?

Peter Brimelow [00:52:18] I have the, I mean, Rich Lowry, he’s gone for some time now, hasn’t he? Hasn’t he been done there for somebody else? I had the faintest idea. But did you know him? You know, I sat in rooms with him and I went to bogus parts with him, I have absolutely no memory of him at all. He never said anything at all of significance and I think that’s why, why Bill hired him because he was completely malleable. Yeah. I think.

Tucker [00:52:42] That sounds that sounds right sad. That’s how much has been lost. So Speaking of lost what happened in the end if you go and I interrupted your story my apologies, but to

Peter Brimelow [00:52:54] Fidare is suspended, suspended in July of 2024 because we just ran out of money. The foundation is still in existence and Lydia is still, she’s not paid, but she’s still paying lawyers and dealing with the legal situation, which continues to ramify as I say, we’re being sued personally and as a foundation and- On what grounds are you being sued? Oh, there’s a whole bunch of things, fundamentally technical issues to do with them. To do with whether we had the right number of directors vote on the right number of things. It’s all paperwork stuff. It is all stuff that would normally resolve with a phone call and possibly refiling and stuff like that. They have not found any evidence of a misappropriation of funds and in fact we move to dismiss on this basis that although they huff and puff a lot, I mean the 60 odd pages of rhetoric, but the actual charges, they haven’t I haven’t got anything. Who is showing you? This is New York State. So they’re using tax dollars still to see? Oh yes, that’s right. Enormously. They’ve spent a great deal of money on this. They also, very weirdly, subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of all our dealings with Facebook. Well, Facebook banned us in 2020 as part of Zuckerberg’s campaign to defeat Donald Trump. They thought we were pro-Trump. So we actually hadn’t had any dealings with Facebook for more than two years when they came after us. But nevertheless, they got all these records off of Facebook, but they’ve done nothing with them. Because of course, there’s nothing there. I think they genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the Russians. The Russians? To run bat farms. Do you remember that was the allegation with interference in 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. Oh, a hundred percent. They do think that the middle America is full.

Tucker [00:54:55] People weren’t pointed out. 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 Russia over that.

Peter Brimelow [00:55:07] The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe in Democrat propaganda too, which is why they won’t, for example, appeal to the white vote. One of the things we did at VDL is we discussed and documented what we call the Sailor strategy as opposed to the Roe strategy. In 2000, Karl Roe 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 like 51% of the white vote. It’s appalling performance. So Steve Saylor was one of our writers who we’ve had on, pointed out that if they could just increase that percentage proportion of the vote to what his father got, which was like 57-58%, that would swamp and overwhelm any possible conceivable gain among minority voters. So we were saying You should go for the white vault and Now, this caused a great deal of trouble for us. I remember there was a letter from an email from Jude Wineski. Do you remember Jude Wynyski? Very well. He said, Peter, you’ve gone too far. In other words, appeal to the white vote is not allowed. And look, it’s just a question of arithmetic. There’s more of them than there are of minorities. In any case, to this day, the Republicans have still not done that. They’ve done it tacit. Why was Jude Winesski 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 is illegitimates. For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election. There’s a Yonkin who’s a complete cypher as far as a Wall Street cyphe as far as I can see, chooses his success in the gubernatorial race, a candidate who has won an immigrant, two a woman and three 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’ve got a terrible share of the white voters, like 53% and that’s why they lost. But it was rather loose than to make a full out appeal to my crew.

Tucker [00:57:24] Hell 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, despite the fact that she wasn’t good at her job. And this is epidemic in the Bolton Party. Well, it’s epidemic in

Peter Brimelow [00:57:49] The Republicans in particular, they’ve chosen so many black candidates. They’re about to adhere in Florida. The next gubernatorial candidate is likely to be 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. Now this race whip is what it comes down to. So afraid of being called racist that they’d rather lose with a black candidate than run a candidate to appeals to whites. Trump did appeal to whites, not enough, but he does it in some kind of really implicit way. If you actually look at what Trump said, in spite of all the rhetoric, he’s not said anything that’s explicitly white nationalist or anything. I see no sign that he’s an ethnic or a civic nationalist, but for some reason he’s made some connection. I mean, all through West Virginia for that, you know, while Biden was, was, President, you will see these signs supporting Trump and saying very rude things about Biden. And these are outside.

Tucker [00:58:56] Very rude things about Biden, yeah.

Peter Brimelow [00:58:58] 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 had 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 was? Which part of it?

Tucker [00:59:18] That he was able working class whites love Trump. Trump is not a racist. I’ve never seen any sign of that at all and not a white nationalist at all, and hardly a Christian nationalist, but he for some reason had an emotional connection with these voters. Why?

Peter Brimelow [00:59:40] 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 hate it. Yeah, they’re constantly trying to diversify. Republican part is a classic example of this. I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it, Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia. And you and I both remember then when the Democrats were unbeatables in Virginia, you know, I forget when the last Republican, I always keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to carry West Virginia was, but it might have been Clinton. And now it’s just, the Democrats have ceased to exist in West Virginia, even though this is a very poor state. The Republicans prevailed by, simply by virtue of…

Tucker [01:00:34] Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. That’s how much has changed.

Peter Brimelow [01:00:43] So there’s something that’s going on at a very deep psychological level. There’s some kind of, some kind implicit, implicit signaling and 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, uh, about Mexican immigration and never look back, so he obviously struck a nerve there, so we did enough to strike a nerve and simply by raising immigration in the sort of world rather, you No. I’m sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar, and he constantly forgets his lines and says the wrong thing the 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.

Tucker [01:01:27] You were fired over it!

Peter Brimelow [01:01:30] There was almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up, but then when he did the damn broken now, a big difference that I found, Tucker, is if you speak to grassroots Republicans as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus is overwhelming that immigration has got to be ended. The consensus is overwhelmingly. 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 immigrants don’t go on welfare to the same extent that native born do, which is completely wrong, it’s completely reversal of truth. And it was back then, it was obvious that they were going back into welfare in disproportionate numbers, but people didn’t know, and the Wall Street Journal is not telling them. Well, the Wall St. Journal still isn’t telling them, but they do know now, and maybe we played a role in that.

Tucker [01:02:19] Well, yeah, and it’s had 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 tech job went to an Indian or something. It’s way more complicated than that. As immigrant communities became totally dependent on federal benefits, it changed the incentive structure for native-born communities, and a lot of them started going on at higher rates also. It created a vortex that’s hurt everybody, I think, especially the whites. Where does it go from here?

Peter Brimelow [01:02:56] The big thing that has to, the next, if I was still running Videre, and on my own website peterbrimmore.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 during this year, that’s an extraordinary number. I used to track at Videre the foreign-born population because it was the way of tracking the impact of immigration. It 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 and the administration are taking to tighten up on both legal and illegal immigration. Now it’s two and a half million, gone four and two and half million to the foreign born population. Even though we know a million, a million um… 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 the House called the Paws Act, calling for a moratorium. And there’s several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on both rights citizenship and if you look at my list here secure the board I mean in other words They should set and codify Trump’s activities, tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on on the southern border because we know that when the Democrats get in they’ll reverse it but they won’t be able to do that if it’s in the law, they thought they’d have to pass a law and have to admit what they’re doing. The problem is that the White House seems to be… Is not pushing any of these bills, and unless they do, I don’t think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything, it’s just going to, you know, it is just going to lie low, and I don t know why the White House isn’t pushing these bills. Of course it’s got its hands full in Minnesota where they clearly need to declare the Insurrection Act and that kind of thing, and they keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that, and sinking ships and stuff, I mean, which it must be entertaining but I would really rather focus on end in 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 we should just get on with it. And you have a number of children who will inherit the country. That’s really the point, you know, people occasionally still. Yeah, people say, okay, I get attacked all the time for not being, for being an immigrant. My position is, you know, I’m an immigrant doing a dirty job that Americans won’t do, talk about immigration. But the real reason is I have children here. My youngest child is 10 years old and God knows what the country’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. Uh… Even though my first wife died so uh… I don’t think… I think things could have worked out differently for me professionally, but in my personal life I’m very blessed.

Tucker [01:06:30] You don’t seem angry. I mean, my read on it is what happened to you is grotesque and is evil and not the kind of thing I thought would ever be allowed here. So I’m shocked, always shocked to hear your story.

Peter Brimelow [01:06:46] I guess I am bitter at the conservative movement, people in the conservative movement, the people I’ve known for 30 and 40 years who basically haven’t helped us, haven’t defended us. The most prominent people who have defended us, Tucker, are you and Laura Lumer, your friend Laura Lummer. So that just shows how ecumenical we are. So Loomer helped you? Oh yeah, she supported us on Twitter when we were trying to raise money to defend ourselves and I have a give-send goal which I just launched before Christmas, frankly to help us personally because we’re now facing tremendous legal costs personally and I believe she’s helped us with that. Have you received a

Tucker [01:07:30] Department of Justice.

Peter Brimelow [01:07:34] We know that there are people in the 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 morgue fraud going back over 40 years. But you know, the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats is joint notification by Democrats. They’ve been unable to indict it because, basically because judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand jury won’t indict Democrats. So I don’t know where that stands. They also have an investigation into her deprivation of Trump’s civil rights in these scandalous cases in the, you know, the hush money case and the fraud case and so on. We should never have been allowed to go to court. The judges should have stopped it, but of course the judges are on the other side. And our judges just tried to get, tried to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor. I mean, what’s happening in this, these Democrats, senators… Not only have the power to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments but they also have the apparently to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors. And they’ve apparently taken the position that 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 and Minnesota have essentially seceded from the Union. The whole legal system is opposed to what the federal government is doing. Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is the land that law forgot, because normal legal norms simply don’t apply there. What happens is what the Democrat operatives want, and of course this is not a government under law. So, in effect, New York is seceding from the Union, and that’s why I think ultimately we’re going to have to go to the insurrection act, and we’re going to go have to the wholesale impeachment of judges. All these judges brought in by Biden, I think he had one or two white men, both of them were gay, something like that, all the others were women and people of color and so on, and they delivered the most extraordinary rulings. Disregarding the plain language of the law, ultimately it’s gonna have to be purged of the judicial system.

Tucker [01:10:07] 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. My last question to you, Peter Berloin, thank you so much for doing this, is are you hopeful?

Peter Brimelow [01:10:33] I have a, one of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015 is that miracles happen quite often in politics. I mean, nobody expects the 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. I mean that’s literally true. Nobody, nobody either under after all the right expect the Soviet collapse. On the other hand, You know, I don’t think they expected the Catholic Church to go in the direction it went, and Vatican too, and on the third hand, nobody expected Trump, and he has been a miracle. I mean, he’s changed the situation in so many ways, not of which I think he has probably thought about, but he does it anyway. So I’m hopeful because I think miracles happen in politics frequently, but we need one. The situation right now, we’re heading in a very, very bad direction and in the situation where, you know, Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, disobeying law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals, that’s more extreme than ever happened in the South during the desegregation. Much

Tucker [01:11:50] It’s more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is insurrection, actual insurrection.

Peter Brimelow [01:11:59] That’s right, it’s insurrection, and of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use interaction to impose integration.

Tucker [01:12:10] He sent the 101st Airborne to a high school.

Peter Brimelow [01:12:12] Yeah. Right, right. With the total applause from the mainstream media which was then of course completely oligopolistic. I mean, it was dominant. At least now we have Twitter, even if we are shadow banned on Twitter. Are you still shadow banned? Oh yeah. Well, as far as we can see, we are. Anne Coulter, you know, her followership 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 obviously, you can see from the engagement that there’s something very strange going on. It’s all the Indians he has in there. He hasn’t been able to root them how he had. Thank you very much.