Speaker 1: Shake off the January chill with Tradfest Ireland celebration of
Speaker 1: trad and folk music. This year, experience Eleanor McAvoy, Sharon Shannon,
Speaker 1: Hothouse Flowers, Something Happens, Steve wall Monday, Kila Alton, Ralph mctel,
Speaker 1: Frankie Gavin and Moore in Dublin's cathedrals, castles and pubs.
Speaker 1: Bring your friends, feel the dunes, make a night of it.
Speaker 1: Tradfest When Dublin Beats in real time. Tickets on sale
Speaker 1: now at Tradfest dot Com.
Speaker 2: I'm doctor Erwin Gill, Consultant pediatrician at Children's Health Ireland.
Speaker 2: In my line of work, I look after children who
Speaker 2: suffered traumatic brain injuries. In the last year, I've seen
Speaker 2: more than twenty children who have sustained a serious brain
Speaker 2: injury after a full riding anescooter. Many parents don't know
Speaker 2: it is illegal for children under sixteen to ride an
Speaker 2: ees scooter. The average stay in hospital for these children
Speaker 2: was nineteen days. These are serious injuries and some with
Speaker 2: lifelong consequences. As someone who sees injured children on an
Speaker 2: all too regular basis, I'm asked, can you please do
Speaker 2: not allow any child under sixteen to ride an east
Speaker 2: scooter A message from Children's South Ireland on the Road
Speaker 2: Safety Authority.
Speaker 3: Meaning a live man like this man letting butterfly, flapping
Speaker 3: his wing, big down in the forest. Man gonna cause
Speaker 3: a tree fall, letting five thousand miles away. Man, nobody's seen, nobody.
Speaker 4: You know, mean, no man like you. A little story
Speaker 4: and you got directed like that man. That's the way. Man.
Speaker 3: Don't like a dang on the pan. Man, No matter.
Speaker 5: Man all right. Peter Brimmelo, Welcome to the Jay Burdens Show.
Speaker 4: How are you doing? Thank you for having me on, Jay,
Speaker 4: Happy New Year.
Speaker 5: I'm very happy to have you on. You and I
Speaker 5: met at the East Coast Forum event put on by
Speaker 5: the OGC the Old Glory Club and had a very
Speaker 5: interesting conversation. I've been aware of your work for quite
Speaker 5: a long time and I was really excited to meet
Speaker 5: you face to face. But even though I've been following
Speaker 5: your work for I mean gears at this point, some
Speaker 5: of my audience might not have so Peter, who are
Speaker 5: you well?
Speaker 4: I'm Peter Brumlow. As you can tell from my accent,
Speaker 4: I was born in England. I've been here for fifty
Speaker 4: six years. Fifty five years FI sixth and September, my
Speaker 4: twin brother and I decided all was lost in England
Speaker 4: in the late sixties, and so we organized ourselves to
Speaker 4: go to the Business School of Stanford in California. And
Speaker 4: I never returned to North America. I was in Carada
Speaker 4: for ten years. I never left North America. I was
Speaker 4: in Carada for ten years, and then in financial journalism,
Speaker 4: and then I came down to the US. I worked
Speaker 4: for Santa are in Hats from Utah, amazingly enough, for
Speaker 4: at that time was thought of as a presidential contender
Speaker 4: before he went native in Washington. And then I worked
Speaker 4: in financial journalism. I was at Barons and Forbes and
Speaker 4: Fortune and Forbes, and I wrote highly technical investment stuff
Speaker 4: for CBS what was then CBS market Watch was subsequently
Speaker 4: bought by Dow Jones. But I also I also moonlighted
Speaker 4: in conservative journalism. On one stage in the late eighties
Speaker 4: and early nineties, I was a senior International Review, although
Speaker 4: I was never full time there, and I wrote a
Speaker 4: piece on immigrationism also in a great interest of mine,
Speaker 4: And in ninety two I wrote a peace called Time
Speaker 4: to Rethink Immigration, which is occasionally credited with restarting the
Speaker 4: American immigration debate, and that became a book in ninety
Speaker 4: five called Alien Nation, Common Sense about America's immigration, which
Speaker 4: is sort of a could hit. And then the other
Speaker 4: side had struck back. There was a brief savage civil
Speaker 4: war in the conservative movement about immigration, which we lost,
Speaker 4: and immigration patriots were polished from Nash Review and vanished
Speaker 4: everywhere that we had. At that point, we had no outlet.
Speaker 4: But fortunately Internet came along and I started my website
Speaker 4: v dare, which is named after Virginia Dare, who was
Speaker 4: the first English child, not for first white chad as
Speaker 4: there sometimes said to be born in the New World.
Speaker 4: She was born in the Lost Colony in fifteen eighty eight,
Speaker 4: and of course nobody knows what happened to her. And
Speaker 4: we continued over twenty five years. I built be there
Speaker 4: up into something of a force, and we had a
Speaker 4: significant readership and we published a lot of significantly important people.
Speaker 4: So you had Kevin Deana on on your show show
Speaker 4: just recently. He worked for us off and on for
Speaker 4: more more than ten years. But then VDARE was a
Speaker 4: five one C three a charity. It was registered in
Speaker 4: New York. We know it because in nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 4: when nobody ever heard of law Fair or or the
Speaker 4: teacher James. Just almost four years ago, we suddenly received
Speaker 4: a wave of subpoenas from the teacher James, and she
Speaker 4: basically has law fired us to death. She drove us.
Speaker 4: We spent over nearly a million and a half dollars
Speaker 4: in legal fees, and we're trying trying to avoid giving
Speaker 4: up our writers' names and our our donus names, and
Speaker 4: we just rud right out of money. And I suspended
Speaker 4: the site in April. In July twenty twenty four because
Speaker 4: we'd had so many confidence we were trying to hold conferences,
Speaker 4: and we had been trying to hold conferences, and between
Speaker 4: about twenty fifteen about twenty nineteen, we had something like
Speaker 4: fifteen different hotels cancel on us. The oars caved as
Speaker 4: soon as they came under pressure, and everybody on the
Speaker 4: distance right had this problem. American Nations, of course solved
Speaker 4: it by going to Tennessee, to a state owned facility
Speaker 4: in montgomer Bell State Park for its conferences. But we
Speaker 4: solved it by buying our own venue, and that's the
Speaker 4: Berkeley Springs Castle here in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which
Speaker 4: really remodeled, and then we start begun to put conferences
Speaker 4: on but we haven't been able to do that recently
Speaker 4: because it's so pre occupied with this fan pass quid
Speaker 4: that's attached itself to us.
Speaker 5: There are several things there. You and your organization were
Speaker 5: very much a head of the curve. It's something I
Speaker 5: find interesting talking to older people, particularly of the silent
Speaker 5: generation in the Boomers, is that for many of them
Speaker 5: it is hard to understand why immigration is such a
Speaker 5: primary issue for younger people. Obviously, materials, the material conditions
Speaker 5: have changed, but when I talked to it, you know,
Speaker 5: even my own grandfather, who have a very good relationship
Speaker 5: with he is continually confused by that fact. And he
Speaker 5: says this was simply not a major issue for a
Speaker 5: large portion of his life. And I think that that's
Speaker 5: an interesting and interesting thing to discuss. You mentioned that
Speaker 5: you wrote a piece that sort of kickstarted this debate,
Speaker 5: But can you speak to sort of the beforetime when
Speaker 5: immigration is not.
Speaker 4: I mean thing about it. The thing about immigration to
Speaker 4: the US is that it comes in waves, and there
Speaker 4: have been really substantial waves, and then the map periods
Speaker 4: when there's no immigration at all or very little immigration.
Speaker 4: For example, after the Revolution, that wasn't really significant immigration
Speaker 4: until the eighteen fourteries. Now what happened in the nineteen twenties,
Speaker 4: there was a huge in between eighteen and eighteen nineteen twenty,
Speaker 4: there was a huge wave. And it was also a
Speaker 4: different way than than that it had come in before.
Speaker 4: A lot of Eastern Europeans and so on. I mean,
Speaker 4: they appeared different to people who were here at the time.
Speaker 4: Of course, nothing compared to what we've had subsequently. Anyway,
Speaker 4: in mid nineteen twenties, Americans just cut off immigration the
Speaker 4: nineteen twenty four Immigration Act, and they not only cut
Speaker 4: it off but extill it is allowed at tall it
Speaker 4: was allowed proportion to the ethnic groups that were already
Speaker 4: in the country, so that for example, Northwest Europe was
Speaker 4: favored and other groups were completely cut out, I mean
Speaker 4: the no ation, no Asans, and no Blacks and so on.
Speaker 4: And for over forty years there was essentially no immigration
Speaker 4: to the US from the twenty four until maybe six
Speaker 4: sixty eight, and in fact there was emigration in the thirties,
Speaker 4: and that meant that whole generation of people grew up
Speaker 4: who would never thought about immigration, were completely unaware of it,
Speaker 4: didn't give any thought to it at all. And you know,
Speaker 4: generally speaking, and you see the same thing academics. You know,
Speaker 4: it's not that one group of ideas defeats another group
Speaker 4: of ideas. It's just that the academics hold the earlier
Speaker 4: ideas die off and they're replaced by new people. And
Speaker 4: that's what really needed to happen with the immigration debate.
Speaker 4: I was always aware of the immigration issue for various reasons. Well,
Speaker 4: I'm just back up a second. In ninety sixty five,
Speaker 4: the Congress, in this law where nobody thought about immigration,
Speaker 4: passed the Heart Salar Act, which basically through the borders open,
Speaker 4: and it threw them open in a very peculiar way,
Speaker 4: prioritize what they call family unification, which meant basically got
Speaker 4: chain migration from the few countries that we're able to
Speaker 4: come in and get establish establish a base here. And
Speaker 4: it was also vastly greater than anybody thought was going
Speaker 4: to happen. I mean, Teddy Keredy at the time testified
Speaker 4: I think no Robert Caredy at the time testified that
Speaker 4: he expected immigration, which was then running about one hundred
Speaker 4: to two thousand year, might go go up to half million,
Speaker 4: and then it would received. What's actually happened is it's uh,
Speaker 4: it's been running that over mini a year consistently for
Speaker 4: since in ninety sixty eight when they when the heart
Speaker 4: cellar art took effect. And at the same time, the
Speaker 4: for reasons would be were looking into the American authorts
Speaker 4: has just simply stopped enforcing the law against the legal immigration.
Speaker 4: So he got this tremendous surge of illegal immigration. There
Speaker 4: had been a surge of illegal immigration in the fifties,
Speaker 4: but eisen Now stopped it in six months with his
Speaker 4: operation went back and the over a million and a
Speaker 4: half illegal immigrants left the country. Uh, not all that
Speaker 4: many were deported, maybe about two hundred thousand were deported,
Speaker 4: but that was enough to trigger a stampede of them
Speaker 4: leaving on their own accord. That's why we consistently said
Speaker 4: that this would happen if the board, if it was
Speaker 4: a serious effort to deport any number, any numbers of immigrants,
Speaker 4: that will be will be massive self deportation. And that
Speaker 4: is in fact what's happened now. I guess a straight
Speaker 4: along way from your question, Jerry, what do you want
Speaker 4: to know?
Speaker 5: And I wanted to bring something into that because of
Speaker 5: course you mentioned the shift to prioritizing family reunification, because
Speaker 5: obviously this runs into another one of the kind of
Speaker 5: great American poison pills, which is birthright citizenship. So of
Speaker 5: course you know if you have someone here illegally a
Speaker 5: child is born, well you have a new citizen, any
Speaker 5: new family which can be reunified. But what I asked
Speaker 5: was specifically to talk about the time before immigration was
Speaker 5: a political issue and how it became one.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I've always been in an immigration issue,
Speaker 4: partly because I'm myself an immigrants, so I went through
Speaker 4: the system I can see how opuny and irrational it is.
Speaker 4: And partly because as immensely influenced by Enoch Powell was
Speaker 4: outstanding political figure of the twentieth century in Britain, and
Speaker 4: that definitely includes to Winston Churchill. And I was thinking
Speaker 4: about immigration that ever since he made his great speech
Speaker 4: in sixty eight it's the so called Rivers of Blood speech.
Speaker 4: So I was always interested in this question. And I
Speaker 4: remember when I was a fortune in goodness me in
Speaker 4: the in the early eighties. I tried to I tried
Speaker 4: to get them interested in the question, but they just wouldn't.
Speaker 4: They didn't see it being discussed in the page in the
Speaker 4: New York Times, so therefore it wasn't it wasn't it
Speaker 4: wasn't it wasn't newsworthy. If the New York Times hadn't mentioned,
Speaker 4: it wasn't newsworthy. And in those days, that was before
Speaker 4: the FCC changes which made talk radio possible, they had
Speaker 4: this so called balance through where you weren't supposed to
Speaker 4: express political opinions on radio without giving the opposite time
Speaker 4: to the opposite side, with the result that radio stations
Speaker 4: didn't express political opinions. But they were changing regulations in
Speaker 4: the in the mid eighties, and they taught radio much
Speaker 4: more active, and some immigrations began to occur there simply
Speaker 4: because people would call radio hosts and ask about it.
Speaker 4: But you're completely right. I mean, for example, in the
Speaker 4: after I wrote my Time to Rethink Immigration piece in
Speaker 4: National Review. In those days, I was I was pretty
Speaker 4: well into the conservative cateacomb that exists in New York
Speaker 4: of journalists and foundation executives and so on, people who
Speaker 4: wouldn't be seen dead with me today. But I remember
Speaker 4: we had a dinner at one of the Union League
Speaker 4: I believe, and Bob Bartley to the Wards the Journal
Speaker 4: was there to specifically to argue with me, which he
Speaker 4: did in a very stupid way. He I mean, he
Speaker 4: would say things like, it's completely impossible close the southern border.
Speaker 4: It can't be done. And macross is that you know,
Speaker 4: this is the character that sent a mount to the moon.
Speaker 4: Of course it can close the southern border if they
Speaker 4: wont spec there's the built forty thousand miles of interstate,
Speaker 4: the southern borders two and a half thousand miles across.
Speaker 4: Of course, to an offense from it, he could build
Speaker 4: a hundred foot wall about it if they want to
Speaker 4: do it. The problem is that they didn't want to
Speaker 4: do it. The political elite didn't want to do it
Speaker 4: for reasons which again are worth looking into. But left
Speaker 4: and right didn't want to do it. But one of
Speaker 4: the principal chief foundation executives there, who I won't name
Speaker 4: or who were still active, who called him up afterwards
Speaker 4: and said, I've never heard of anantissist before immigration Now
Speaker 4: he'd never heard of it. He had no idea what
Speaker 4: what was governing immigration to the country in those days.
Speaker 4: If you taught to people, they would think they regarded
Speaker 4: immigration candid like rain or the weather or something. It
Speaker 4: just came and went oous on a court. They didn't
Speaker 4: realize it was a government policy. They had just no
Speaker 4: idea of conception that at all. And similarly, the idea
Speaker 4: of the birth right syste the point that you mentioned.
Speaker 4: You know, in the early days, we quite often get
Speaker 4: people saying, well, it's in the constitution. Of course you're
Speaker 4: not in the constitution. It's just a judicial interpretation. But
Speaker 4: even as later as when McCain was running for president,
Speaker 4: people who will raise this question with him and would
Speaker 4: say it was in the constitution. I mean, in his
Speaker 4: case it was just willful ignorance. But you're right, the
Speaker 4: amount of the amount of discussion of immigration, Sue was.
Speaker 4: To anybody who wasn't there, it just it must be
Speaker 4: amazing to think that they realize that there was no
Speaker 4: discussion immigration. People just didn't realize that it was there.
Speaker 4: But of course when it did really really suggly ahead.
Speaker 4: In the fourth of my article, the for about after
Speaker 4: I published my article, for about five years we were
Speaker 4: campaigning and we campaigned the National View against immigration and
Speaker 4: we challenged the walls to journal which was sort of
Speaker 4: the intellectually leaves of the conservative movement which was fanatical
Speaker 4: open borders, had a fanatical open borders line. And then
Speaker 4: Bill Buckley basically established in the back. He fired John
Speaker 4: as the earlier to a National Review, and he purged
Speaker 4: the magazine of Immigration Patriots, and for several years they
Speaker 4: didn't say anything about immigration to all. They went back
Speaker 4: to top silence. As the Waters and I pointed out,
Speaker 4: they said, immigration is no longer issue. This has ceased
Speaker 4: to be a political issue. That was in about two thousand.
Speaker 4: In about when you get to marriage. You have to
Speaker 4: to keeping the decades straight. It must have been about
Speaker 4: two thousand. Uh when when when they ran and paused,
Speaker 4: You go, what the calm saying this ceased to be
Speaker 4: a political issue. Well, of course it hadn't cease to
Speaker 4: become a political issue, and they, naturally view went back
Speaker 4: to discussing immigration. After nine to eleven a part they
Speaker 4: got word from nail Concentral that it was now okay
Speaker 4: to discuss immigration. I mean, that's the other thing that's amazing,
Speaker 4: amazing to me that people have changed. Norman pot Horz
Speaker 4: was the great leader of the of the this neo conservative.
Speaker 4: It was a Jewish faction basically in the based in
Speaker 4: New York, but had enormous influence all the rest of
Speaker 4: the conservative movement. At the end of his life and
Speaker 4: he died, I'm sorry to say, just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 4: It was in his nineties, at the end of his life.
Speaker 4: He suddenly gives into saying it's changed his mind. And immigration, immigrations,
Speaker 4: there's a limit to how many immiuts we can have now,
Speaker 4: he tells us. It was twenty years, twenty years, nearly
Speaker 4: thirty years after he spent a great deal of time
Speaker 4: undermining of Sullivan and getting pocketed fire and so on,
Speaker 4: and of course he's arguably too late. She the same
Speaker 4: thing with Ben Shapiro. He's in this war with Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 4: And in the interview again, I guess i'll Megan Kelly,
Speaker 4: he said, of course, of course Tucker's done some good things.
Speaker 4: He's he's very good and immigration, Tucky's in favorite immigration moratorium.
Speaker 4: You know, ten years ago Shapiro denounced me actually in
Speaker 4: National View as a white supremacist for no other reason
Speaker 4: than that who was calling for immigration to be reduced.
Speaker 4: So he's given away on that too. I guess they
Speaker 4: think they have more important things to worry about. Now
Speaker 4: they're concerned about They're concerned about protecting Israel, and they
Speaker 4: just decided they after showing their front and not some
Speaker 4: of these other issues which were mostly attached to for
Speaker 4: essentially rational reasons.
Speaker 5: Well, and that's an interesting point because Chris Zeman, uh,
Speaker 5: you know, recently departed, consistently made this point about immigration
Speaker 5: in the nineteen twenties, where and I'm paraphrasing here, but
Speaker 5: he said immigration didn't end until rich people started being
Speaker 5: blown up, and when you have anarchists running around, it
Speaker 5: became dangerous. Sure, there was still the benefit of cheap
Speaker 5: labor people who were unlikely to unionize. That was still there,
Speaker 5: but it became real all of a sudden, there's a threat.
Speaker 5: And I think you see a very similar thing happening
Speaker 5: with exactly those figures you mentioned before. Where as much
Speaker 5: as they like immigration, now there's something much closer to
Speaker 5: home that is being threatened, and so they're sort of
Speaker 5: pulling their resources, you know, away from this peripheraliation.
Speaker 4: Well, it's true for I mean parts in Shapiro Cours
Speaker 4: the Zionists, and the fundamental interest is in protecting it,
Speaker 4: and they have their hands full on that front right now,
Speaker 4: and so they're not going to fight on the sort
Speaker 4: of extension issue which was which was devascinating in the
Speaker 4: US because they made them feel more common toively in
Speaker 4: bidding deratinated as societies. But it is also true, and
Speaker 4: this is why I think the elections mandam is is
Speaker 4: so important in New York. It's also true that it's
Speaker 4: quite clearly detabilized American politics. It's making possible. Elon Musk
Speaker 4: treated this this morning. I think, though, well, the Democrats
Speaker 4: intend to do is flood the country with immigrants and
Speaker 4: then with harvest the votes and established one party state,
Speaker 4: so as they're done in California and the certain center
Speaker 4: in Maryland and so on. So I think that I
Speaker 4: think Mandali means what he says, and that that life
Speaker 4: is going to get quite uncomfortable rich people in New York.
Speaker 4: And of course Mandama was elected because of the immigrant vote.
Speaker 4: Native for Americans and who lived in New York vote
Speaker 4: voted for Cuomo or for the sleeve world. If the
Speaker 4: immigrants have they put him over with Tom. So I
Speaker 4: would have thought that people draw conclusions from this, But
Speaker 4: you know, I've been thinking people got to conclusions about
Speaker 4: this for many years, and it's taken a hell of
Speaker 4: a long time.
Speaker 5: Well, and on that point, I think there are two
Speaker 5: interesting dynamics. So as I was saying, there are two
Speaker 5: interesting dynamics as well that I think come into play here,
Speaker 5: which is one radically different character of immigrant, like we're
Speaker 5: taking from different places. Obviously, Hispanic migration is the I mean,
Speaker 5: the major trend of the last sixty years. But also
Speaker 5: we have seen a large amount of Islamic immigration, particularly
Speaker 5: from places like Somalia, but also from Nigeria, Pakistan as
Speaker 5: well as other nations. And I mean Mamdani is an
Speaker 5: example of that, which is sort of a fascinating change
Speaker 5: because look, I don't think and I'm not going to
Speaker 5: pretend to be a you know, an expert on the issue.
Speaker 5: It doesn't seem to me that many El Salvadorans particularly
Speaker 5: care about the state of Israel, but Muslims from areas
Speaker 5: around Israel very much do. And so when you look
Speaker 5: at someone like Mamdani, who I think that a lot
Speaker 5: of the coverage of him from the kind of legacy
Speaker 5: conservative press has been a little bit sensational. I don't
Speaker 5: think he is a jihattist. He has other issues you
Speaker 5: know that that preclude me from supporting him, But fundamentally,
Speaker 5: I think that's an interesting element as well. That and
Speaker 5: we've seen this since the you know, October seventh, that
Speaker 5: there have been these sort of ethnic conflicts erupting across
Speaker 5: the nation, setting aside even the anti Ice riots, which
Speaker 5: certainly have a racial ethnic component to them. Right, people
Speaker 5: chanting about Loraza. But all of a sudden, and this
Speaker 5: is something Canada has faced with their Sikh population. You're
Speaker 5: seeing other countries' disputes being waged on our streets. So
Speaker 5: I'm curious, what do you make of that dynamic, the
Speaker 5: fact that we are pulling from different nations than we
Speaker 5: were even ten, twenty thirty years ago.
Speaker 4: Well, of course it's completely suicidal. I mean, what the
Speaker 4: government is doing is electing a new There's a famous Joggler,
Speaker 4: but how Brett made about fifty three rising in East
Speaker 4: Germany against the Communists government. He said, what the government
Speaker 4: should do is dissolve the people in the elect a
Speaker 4: new one. Well, that's exactly what the American American government,
Speaker 4: actually governments throughout the West are doing. For reasons which
Speaker 4: bear thinking about, what is that is the purpose of
Speaker 4: this The most important difference with this post sixty five
Speaker 4: stream is that it was non white. It's heavily non white,
Speaker 4: and I'm only about ten percent of the immigrants have
Speaker 4: comments since since sixty five were including me a white
Speaker 4: or all the others come from all over the world,
Speaker 4: as you say, predominantly has created two new men artists,
Speaker 4: basically Hispanics on the one hand and Asians on the other.
Speaker 4: Decent ply weren't present in the US before. There were
Speaker 4: some Chinatowns and so on, but it was from an
Speaker 4: immigration wave in the nineteen cent that had been deliberately
Speaker 4: cut off. So and what that's done is it's moved
Speaker 4: the US from being about ninety percent white as it
Speaker 4: was in nineteen sixty to being probably less than sixty
Speaker 4: percent white now. And this is a particular poem for
Speaker 4: the Republican Party that was too stupid to realize it,
Speaker 4: because the Booking Party essentially is a white party all
Speaker 4: the ninety pens of its world so wide, the Democrats
Speaker 4: are actually a coalition of POC's people of color, use, homosexuals,
Speaker 4: and some whites. But we've done calculations and showed saying
Speaker 4: that the presidential vote that Democrats get, it's probably less
Speaker 4: than half what you might call normal whites. Now it's
Speaker 4: if you add the people called to the Jews and homosexuals,
Speaker 4: they're more than half the electoral vote that the public
Speaker 4: that the Democrats get. So there's kind of bipolar distribution ethnically,
Speaker 4: these two parties, Republicans and Democrats, they're represented representing completely
Speaker 4: different nations. And the problem that the Poems have got
Speaker 4: is that they are allowing their own nation to be
Speaker 4: driven even further into minority. And it's proved incredibly hard
Speaker 4: to get Republican consultants to grasp this fact. I mean,
Speaker 4: that is why you see this extraordinary ludicrous phenomena of Republicans,
Speaker 4: the great Black Hope phenomenon. They're always running these black
Speaker 4: candidates because they think it's going to get you know,
Speaker 4: like they did in Virginia. This last time wins some
Speaker 4: seers for governor. That is not going to help you
Speaker 4: turn out the white vote. And in fact, they only
Speaker 4: got about fifty three to fifty four percent of the
Speaker 4: white vote in Virginia. It's not surprised, it's not surprising
Speaker 4: at the lost, but for some reason it really appeals
Speaker 4: to Republican consultants, and I think think because it's a
Speaker 4: matter of the domos that makes the domors feel better well.
Speaker 5: And this is the core of a piece that hasn't
Speaker 5: come out yet that I wrote for Chronicles, making exactly
Speaker 5: this point that the myth of the natural conservative, which
Speaker 5: has been around in the earliest instance I could find
Speaker 5: conveniently on the Internet is Ronald Reagan with his infamous
Speaker 5: line Latinos are Republicans, even if they don't know it
Speaker 5: yet and will. Certainly there have been in the case
Speaker 5: of Cubans in Florida, you know a few other edge cases.
Speaker 5: There has been some growth through a Republican party, but
Speaker 5: it's nowhere near a majority. It is a losing game fundamentally,
Speaker 5: and I think that there is this, and whether you
Speaker 5: want to call it residual guilt or whatever, which the
Speaker 5: idea seems to be that our political project is illegitimate
Speaker 5: unless we have broad minority support. That is what lends politics.
Speaker 5: It's legitimacy. And this is obviously not what I think,
Speaker 5: but it seemed to be what a large number of
Speaker 5: Republicans think, including Rod Dreyer, someone I cited in that
Speaker 5: article conservative luminary Brillin Holly Hand. Many of these figures
Speaker 5: who even now are being touted as you know, the
Speaker 5: great minds of this conservative movement are ultimately pulling from
Speaker 5: the same playbook that has lost the Republicans every election
Speaker 5: they've ever lost since nineteen sixty four. And it's so
Speaker 5: frustrating to me because, again, sitting aside any of your
Speaker 5: or my personal preferences, if you were simply looking this,
Speaker 5: you know, if you were examining the politics of Peru
Speaker 5: with you know, a similar situation, you would say, well,
Speaker 5: why does Red Team do this? Seemingly if they wanted
Speaker 5: to win, they'd make a very simple conclusion, and yet
Speaker 5: they will not. Sorry, we've began a ranting.
Speaker 4: Particles and after two thousand election it'd be written by
Speaker 4: Steve Saila. Have you had Steve on by the way.
Speaker 5: I have not, but I am not only am I
Speaker 5: a big fan of his work, but my wife is
Speaker 5: particularly in love with Steve Sailor. She thinks he's a
Speaker 5: very nice man. So he's a big hit in our houts.
Speaker 4: As I can say from years of editing, it's extremely
Speaker 4: difficult to get hold off. Isn't why these people who
Speaker 4: believes are returning emails? But I think he would He
Speaker 4: probably would like to come on because he is his
Speaker 4: book and that he published a passive press. I think
Speaker 4: as to some extent he got him a rehability to
Speaker 4: a certain extent. Anyway, Sailor look at the time, at
Speaker 4: the time of the two thousand election, Carl Rose's theory
Speaker 4: was that what we have to do is expand a
Speaker 4: minority outreach. As Steve said, you know, Bush in two
Speaker 4: thousand got like fifty one percent of the white vote.
Speaker 4: It was disastrous performance. And that was why I last
Speaker 4: and Steve poted out that if you had if you
Speaker 4: could increase that by only two or three percent, sports
Speaker 4: will the shaff of the white vote, that would any
Speaker 4: conceivable shift among the minority votes. But but the re
Speaker 4: problems didn't want to hear that, uh, And so we
Speaker 4: ran a whole series of articles and making this point.
Speaker 4: So as long as we were around, and I call
Speaker 4: it the Sailor strategy, You've got to have in reach
Speaker 4: of the white base, not outreach to min ortis who
Speaker 4: aren't going to work for you anyway. And the ironic
Speaker 4: thing is that what Trump showed is that that by
Speaker 4: you know all, they had the ideas if we mentioned immigration,
Speaker 4: the minor artists will flee from US. Well, that didn't
Speaker 4: happen with Trump. He did as well with mine artis
Speaker 4: et least as well as any other Republican has done,
Speaker 4: even though he was being constantly denounced. Has been extremely
Speaker 4: immigration restrictionness, which which in fact he wasn't. But when
Speaker 4: I started doing that, there was a thing what the
Speaker 4: hell is it called? Oh, doesn't aggregate to there? Called
Speaker 4: wasn't red state rest state news anyway, they immediately banned
Speaker 4: any reference to you there because you've got the guy
Speaker 4: said that appealing to the white vote is in itself racist,
Speaker 4: and therefore nobody was allowed to post to be their
Speaker 4: articles on this aggregator. And I got I got an
Speaker 4: email from Judo Anisky, who you won't have heard of,
Speaker 4: but he was the architect of supply side economics. As
Speaker 4: a journalist, he was the crusader walstered journalists on and
Speaker 4: he wrote books The Way the World Works and Song,
Speaker 4: which are really important in the aged because it was
Speaker 4: a theoretical rationale behind Reagan's task cuts and everything. I
Speaker 4: get this email, fan, I know if you are to
Speaker 4: get this email from and saying Peter, you've gone too
Speaker 4: far by saying that the Republicans couldn't should appeal to
Speaker 4: the white vaute. You're just not allowed to say it,
Speaker 4: even though it's simply question arithmetic. You know, you're not
Speaker 4: going to like people say California has lost and so on.
Speaker 4: But there are many years when the Republican statewide candiates
Speaker 4: in California don't get a majority of the white voate.
Speaker 4: You're not going to get a majority of the white
Speaker 4: vote in California. You're not going to carry California. But
Speaker 4: they they are absolutely determined not to get this lesson
Speaker 4: to the point where I think there actually is some
Speaker 4: entryism and and and and the Republican Party. There are
Speaker 4: a lot of Republicans who are actually cover Democrats and
Speaker 4: happy with the Democrats system. And I think we've seen
Speaker 4: that since Trump came into part because a lot of
Speaker 4: these never Trumps and people joined the Republican Party. So
Speaker 4: on the what are protections in the Bush White House?
Speaker 4: But now now then, now they've become Democrats, they've revealed
Speaker 4: themselves to the Democrats.
Speaker 5: Oh, I mean, there are you know, any any number
Speaker 5: of examples, right you have you know, Crystal the Lesser
Speaker 5: as well as a few others. One of the Dynamics
Speaker 5: and look, I think if we're examining the Trump administration,
Speaker 5: especially the second time around, the greatest successes have been
Speaker 5: in the area of immigration, right setting aside other issues,
Speaker 5: but one area that I think there's sort of a
Speaker 5: pernicious game being played is legal immigration, particularly around obviously
Speaker 5: H one B programs, which have gotten you know, very
Speaker 5: have gotten a lot of press, but also the others
Speaker 5: given to international students, the so called you know, genius
Speaker 5: grants or the so called genius visas excuse me, and others.
Speaker 5: And it seems as if there's sort of a game
Speaker 5: being played, you know, to shut the southern border, which
Speaker 5: certainly needed to happen, and that is a great win,
Speaker 5: but to effectively accomplish the same end by importing labor legally.
Speaker 5: And I think one of the interesting things that I'm
Speaker 5: curious to see you were mentioning the sailors strategy and
Speaker 5: how Trump appealed to implicitly he never said this to
Speaker 5: a great number of white voters who had traditionally voted
Speaker 5: for the Democrats. Working class whites and that immigration issue,
Speaker 5: because again, a lot of low skill immigration affects working
Speaker 5: class whites. I mean, I worked construction through college and
Speaker 5: there are whole industries in construction which no one who
Speaker 5: is born here actually does anymore because it has been
Speaker 5: entirely outsourced. And those which remain when you think of
Speaker 5: high paying blue collar professions are the ones where effectively
Speaker 5: immigrants are barred from working. Electricians, plumber is something where
Speaker 5: we have to be bonded and insured, and those have
Speaker 5: high wages. The other trades do not. But point is,
Speaker 5: he was able to pull in that part of his
Speaker 5: new constituency on immigration. But as we've sort of moved
Speaker 5: to this, the system has sort of shifted towards a
Speaker 5: focus on high skilled legal immigration. We're starting to see
Speaker 5: the burden of mass migration shift from the working class
Speaker 5: and up into what we call the laptop class, people
Speaker 5: like me who have jobs where they work from home
Speaker 5: and you know, type all day. And you've seen this
Speaker 5: in programming, engineering, these jobs which traditionally were jobs for
Speaker 5: upwardly mobile middle class people. So I'm curious, and I'll
Speaker 5: finally get to a question, Peter, what do you make
Speaker 5: of both the fact that the burden of immigration is
Speaker 5: shifting onto a different segment of society, one which is
Speaker 5: quite left wing urban professionals, and what do you think
Speaker 5: of that transition as well, from illegal mass migration to
Speaker 5: legal mass migration. I'll throw it to you.
Speaker 4: The thing about the thing about skilled immigration is that
Speaker 4: it does impact people who can fight back. For years,
Speaker 4: the most articulate and best organized group on the on
Speaker 4: the Pasier side of the immigration debate will computer programmers.
Speaker 4: And they had they developed really serious rationales for what
Speaker 4: they were doing, and they were very articulars and so on.
Speaker 4: And that wasn't the case with genitism and and you
Speaker 4: know the blue blue color workers generally, and of course
Speaker 4: now it's getting it really is out of control with
Speaker 4: the vast numbers of Indian Indians coming in who are
Speaker 4: relatively high skilled. I say relatively, but it's not clear
Speaker 4: than many of these H one B the temporary visas,
Speaker 4: which were something that was created in I guess twenty ten,
Speaker 4: it's not clear that they actually are high skilled. They're
Speaker 4: just cheaper. But the problem is that But the problem
Speaker 4: they've got is it really does, it really does irritate people,
Speaker 4: articulate people. So it's a step really that it's a
Speaker 4: sign really that the immigration debate is moving into its
Speaker 4: file stages because they're mobilizing people who who can fly back,
Speaker 4: and that's going to be a big problem for them. Well,
Speaker 4: you know, the fanaticism of the of the immigration enthusiasts
Speaker 4: can't be underestimated. I mean, in every Western country they
Speaker 4: move to important vast numbers of not even vetting these
Speaker 4: impigants coming into Britain, for example, a lot of them
Speaker 4: will come across this the channel. Uh. And similarly with
Speaker 4: with Merkel Angelo Merkele just suddenly letting a million refugees
Speaker 4: from Syria. Uh. And they were invited either. I mean,
Speaker 4: there's there's no question they weren't asking them what, what
Speaker 4: the qualifications were, anything like that. It was at that
Speaker 4: relatively late stage and immigration debate where all the countries
Speaker 4: in Western Europe had anti immigration party getting off the
Speaker 4: way and so on. It was a very extraordinary move.
Speaker 4: But there's what Biden did. I mean, if you look,
Speaker 4: they obviously quite deliberately throughout the southern border and they
Speaker 4: went to great lengths to import people and to scat
Speaker 4: them all around the country, no questions asked. And the
Speaker 4: only rationalf of that is is that they wanted to
Speaker 4: knock out the Wye majaritis in the country. The Democrats
Speaker 4: are convinced that that they're going to get to they
Speaker 4: can get these poc boats and they're not going to
Speaker 4: have to bother up the white working class. It's tree,
Speaker 4: of course, it's the but the will parle behind it
Speaker 4: was simp extraordinary. And the same in Ireland. I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, the Irish government is suppressing any kind of
Speaker 4: resistance to this enormous immigration. And this is a country
Speaker 4: where there's no immigration at all until very recently, and
Speaker 4: now it's like twenty percent forum born, thirty percent forum born,
Speaker 4: and they built the bulldoze in archaeological sites all around
Speaker 4: the country to build houses for them and dump them
Speaker 4: in and the west of Ireland, in the remote places,
Speaker 4: they're just the will, the determination lects to people that
Speaker 4: lect to new people with extraordinary It's something that you
Speaker 4: know at some point there's going to be to seriously
Speaker 4: have to be serious historical inquiries of this question, why
Speaker 4: did they suddenly decide to do this?
Speaker 5: Well, certainly, and in the case of it's interesting because
Speaker 5: often in the case of both America and in the
Speaker 5: case of your native land, the historical justification is it's
Speaker 5: basically revenge. They churched up a little bit and they
Speaker 5: talk about you know the legacy of colonialism, you know,
Speaker 5: they point to the British Empire, they point to, you know,
Speaker 5: our adventures abroad, and they say, you know, you have
Speaker 5: you have, or your people have victimized others, you have
Speaker 5: no ground to stand on. But in the case of
Speaker 5: the Irish, it's almost comedic, right, because it's like, well,
Speaker 5: who have the Irish victimized? I mean, look, I don't
Speaker 5: like going to Boston, so maybe I have an axe
Speaker 5: to grind, but realistically the idea of an Irish empire
Speaker 5: is almost laughable. Similarly with the Swedes, right, I'm not
Speaker 5: sure if you're you're aware of this, but there was
Speaker 5: a I believe it was a plaque at a in
Speaker 5: some major Swedish city. I know the photo. I don't
Speaker 5: have the citation on that, but it's talking about how,
Speaker 5: you know, Sweden bears historical guilt for its involvement in
Speaker 5: the international slave trade because don't you know, Swedish iron
Speaker 5: works made iron into links, which was fashioned into manacles
Speaker 5: for slaves. And it's a laughable example, yeah, but it
Speaker 5: does sort of show that whatever stick they need to
Speaker 5: grab to beat you into submission, they will. And these
Speaker 5: arguments are almost indeterminate. It is simply we want to
Speaker 5: be in the elite. We want to replace white majority populations,
Speaker 5: and whatever we have to say to do that, it
Speaker 5: will be said regardless of if it's true. As you
Speaker 5: know you've seen in the case of the residential schools
Speaker 5: in Canada, it's completely fake.
Speaker 4: But all of those.
Speaker 5: Historical narratives will be created to make the justification. So
Speaker 5: your point about the will being extraordinary is certainly true.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, I must say. In the case the Irish, you know,
Speaker 4: it's interesting because in fact there were many great Irish regiments, right,
Speaker 4: Catholic Irish regiments raised the Connaught Rangers, the most effusialers
Speaker 4: and so on. There are serious component parts of the
Speaker 4: British army throughout the imperial periods. So but of course
Speaker 4: you're quite right. I mean, they weren't running it, so uh,
Speaker 4: I mean the whole thing is have soon in his
Speaker 4: face that the fact is that the colonial colonial empires
Speaker 4: were the best things ever happened to these people, and
Speaker 4: the fact.
Speaker 6: That they they can't after the empires were dissolved, that
Speaker 6: they were not not able to use the infrastructure that
Speaker 6: the colonists have built, is their fault.
Speaker 4: It's not the fault of the Europeans. The only areas
Speaker 4: where it is successful is in is in, in China
Speaker 4: and Japan. I mean they have been able to make
Speaker 4: the transition to modernity, but Africa and Latin America have not,
Speaker 4: and and i fact will not unless unless they recolonized.
Speaker 4: So that maybe the solution here, maybe the solution at
Speaker 4: the end. I mean mean that's why I'm interested in
Speaker 4: Trump the action in venezuether. I me mean at least
Speaker 4: that it may be that at some point they're going
Speaker 4: to have to, you know, rule Mexico directly in order
Speaker 4: to cross the cartel and to get its a column
Speaker 4: into batter shape and to prevent people coming out from
Speaker 4: the south. I don't know.
Speaker 5: My vote is that we give it back to to
Speaker 5: the Belgian royal family. They had a good run as
Speaker 5: empers of Mexico, I guess. But in all seriousness, you
Speaker 5: spoke earlier about the immigration debate moving into it its
Speaker 5: final stage. So you spoke about the fact that we're
Speaker 5: seeing a new, motivated, articulate group of people facing the
Speaker 5: consequences of immigration. But nonetheless you see this sort of
Speaker 5: lack where people who are suffering in the economy, but
Speaker 5: who have gone through progressive institutions have internalized that sort
Speaker 5: of morality, are still very uncomfortable speaking negatively about immigration,
Speaker 5: even with respect to Indians, who seem to be the
Speaker 5: most acceptable target for any number of reasons. So I'm curious, one,
Speaker 5: what do you see that final stage of the immigration
Speaker 5: debate being and how do you think this sort of
Speaker 5: new affected group will affect that.
Speaker 4: Well, there are really only two ways out. One is
Speaker 4: that the Western world in general and the US in particular,
Speaker 4: wakes up and cracks down and has another immigration pause
Speaker 4: like it is in the middle of the twentieth century,
Speaker 4: and encourages a lot of honor cell immigrants to leave,
Speaker 4: and basically gets control of its own institutions. The other solution,
Speaker 4: the other endgame, is what we see it seems to
Speaker 4: be emerging in Europe, which is that the political class
Speaker 4: simply goes into the wholesale repression or the resistance to immigration.
Speaker 4: I mean the crackdown after the Southport killings. You know
Speaker 4: in Britain it was simply extraordinary. I mean they were
Speaker 4: jailing people for tweets and you know, there's no First
Speaker 4: Amendment in Britain. It is actually a Plice state, it's
Speaker 4: become a police state, and the labor going what wants
Speaker 4: to drab that even further. And it's so it's it's
Speaker 4: it's conceivable they will be able to repress all opposition.
Speaker 4: They're just to completely devacinate these areas. But I don't
Speaker 4: think so. I mean, it's did you know Nick Griffin
Speaker 4: for BN Period Leader made a very interesting point recently.
Speaker 4: He said that the apparatus of the British state is
Speaker 4: not actually all that great. The armies. The army has
Speaker 4: been purished and dismantle. He estimates for about forty thousand
Speaker 4: soldiers who could actually take put put on the streets.
Speaker 4: And the police forces, although they are they are paramilitary
Speaker 4: now and they are certainly very left wing in Britain,
Speaker 4: they still don't amount to all that substantial numbers. So
Speaker 4: he's he's very in from the old situation Ulster where
Speaker 4: there it's this low grade civil war that went on
Speaker 4: for years and the authorities were not we're not able
Speaker 4: to get control of it. So so you know it
Speaker 4: maybe that will see a color a real color revolution.
Speaker 4: These were in some of these countries that the dream
Speaker 4: of the point that people would take to the streets
Speaker 4: and overwhelmed the government. And yeah, I was very impressed.
Speaker 4: You know, I lived in Canada for years and I
Speaker 4: was just everybody regards the Canadian the angle Canadians has
Speaker 4: been completely superhi and there's some reason for that. But
Speaker 4: they did organize this enormous and it came out of Noah,
Speaker 4: these trucks protests during the COVID the COVID strike, which
Speaker 4: is simply extraordin. Again, they were crushed in the most
Speaker 4: ruthless way about the government. They were debanking people and
Speaker 4: all that kind of thing. But you know, it came
Speaker 4: out of nowhere. Before these things come out of nowhere again.
Speaker 4: So those are the two possibilities that were the thing
Speaker 4: is solved. It's basically though, sensible legislation and sensible policy
Speaker 4: all that. They just really really tried to completely suppress
Speaker 4: the popular resistance and that could go like that could
Speaker 4: lead to real chaos.
Speaker 5: Well it's funny you bring that up because Nick Griffin
Speaker 5: will be on my show in two days from now,
Speaker 5: so I'll be able to get it directly from him.
Speaker 4: I will. I think we follow each other on subside.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's been I was surprised, not to say surprised,
Speaker 5: But you know, I had been aware of him a
Speaker 5: long time ago, and it seemed as if he kind
Speaker 5: of went to ground for a little bit. And so
Speaker 5: when I found his substack account, which is quite large,
Speaker 5: I was, honestly, I was kind of surprised. I's like, oh,
Speaker 5: I haven't seen Nick Griffin around in forever, so I'll
Speaker 5: be you know, good to I guess formally make his acquaintance.
Speaker 5: But several things there, which is one, I think that
Speaker 5: there is a certain smugness from American conservatives towards the Anglos.
Speaker 5: They're the Anglo sphere more broadly, and I think some
Speaker 5: of this is a Second Amendment cope. You know, look
Speaker 5: like I like guns as much as the next guy.
Speaker 5: But either that that Second Amendment thesis of you know,
Speaker 5: this is what protects us from whoever they are, it
Speaker 5: clearly hasn't worked out. But also I think that there
Speaker 5: is this sort of narrative, as you mentioned earlier, that
Speaker 5: you know, the Canadians are souphine that the Brits are
Speaker 5: you know, completely and totally done. And there's two things,
Speaker 5: which is one, the demographics of a place like England
Speaker 5: are much stronger than they are here and also they
Speaker 5: have the other advantage that their government security apparatus is
Speaker 5: nowhere near as competent as ours is. You know, as
Speaker 5: you mentioned with Letitia James earlier, as badly run as
Speaker 5: our government is, it is still more than big enough
Speaker 5: to ruin any one of our lives if it is interested.
Speaker 5: The same is true in the UK. But to your
Speaker 5: point about the army, it is clear that this is
Speaker 5: not a healthy, thriving nation with a lot of disposable power.
Speaker 5: I've been sort of fascinated by, as you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 5: the reaction to Southport, because it seems as if Starmar
Speaker 5: and let's be honest, many of those laws were pushed
Speaker 5: through by the Conservative Party, you know, before he ever
Speaker 5: took off. It is effectively pursuing sort of a Stalinist plan,
Speaker 5: or the idea is to throw every dissident in jail.
Speaker 5: You know, you could have housewives, housewives facing three years
Speaker 5: for comments about migrant hotels. And I look at that,
Speaker 5: and on one hand, you know that the repression is incredible,
Speaker 5: genuinely incredible. I cannot believe it. But also at the
Speaker 5: same time it seems to be a weak, crumbling system,
Speaker 5: and so I don't know when those two trend lines intersect,
Speaker 5: because on one hand, you could look at Southport and say, well,
Speaker 5: you know, all of those men were thrown in jail.
Speaker 5: You know, they had judges working around the night. Clearly
Speaker 5: they were able to tamp this down. But on the
Speaker 5: other hand, it seems to me that the government of
Speaker 5: the United Kingdom will use that word to describe it
Speaker 5: because it's you know, accurate in this context. But to me,
Speaker 5: they seem to be very scared. They seem to be afraid.
Speaker 5: And when I see figures like is it David Bett's
Speaker 5: constantly talking about a civil war, you know, sweeping the
Speaker 5: sweeping the island. To me that I'm not entirely sure,
Speaker 5: you know, a civil war. But the idea of as
Speaker 5: you mentioned, a sort of you know, ulster esque low
Speaker 5: grade conflict, I mean, that seems to be entirely plausible.
Speaker 5: I mean, in France you already see things quite like
Speaker 5: you know, they have obviously kind of a resurgent anti
Speaker 5: immigration movement, but also just straight up ethnic mafias. You know,
Speaker 5: you have you know, groups of uh, you know, North
Speaker 5: Africans with very serious hardware conducting hits out in French cities.
Speaker 5: You know, belt fed machine guns and all that, and
Speaker 5: so that is a profoundly unstable mix. So a lot there,
Speaker 5: I realized I threw you all at once. But I'm curious,
Speaker 5: what do you make of, you know, the ability of
Speaker 5: the government in the UK or you know, across the
Speaker 5: world to manage a conflict between you know, the native
Speaker 5: born population and immigrant populations.
Speaker 4: Well, they do have a lot of resources, but at
Speaker 4: the same time, you know, they're behaving an extremely stupid manner.
Speaker 4: I mean, they really do believe they're own propaganda. And
Speaker 4: you know, one of the amazing things about that. I
Speaker 4: don't watch the British political scene obviously anywhere near as
Speaker 4: closely as Nick Griffin does. But one of the things
Speaker 4: that was clear about the Southport reaction is it was
Speaker 4: completely grassroots. The worst. There have been a number of
Speaker 4: splinter parties in Britain that but tried to try to, uh,
Speaker 4: you know, develop the immigration issue, and of course they're
Speaker 4: repressed in all kinds of ways, and they kept off,
Speaker 4: they kept off the social media and all that kind
Speaker 4: of thing, but they were absolutely unable to get any
Speaker 4: kind of vote in the local action that immediately proceeded
Speaker 4: off that mattal In parliamentary action, but immediately proceed to Southport.
Speaker 4: What happened was completely spontaneous. It wasn't it wasn't being
Speaker 4: controlled by anybody. And that's the thing, the really scary
Speaker 4: thing for the government. And I would say the same
Speaker 4: thing is true with Canada, with the with the Trocke
Speaker 4: protests we speak to some kind of Canada has been
Speaker 4: overwhelmed by immigration, and I think that the population is
Speaker 4: obviously getting really restless. And it had just happened that
Speaker 4: the COVID stuff was was was what was what was
Speaker 4: what triggered it? I mean, our problem, of course is
Speaker 4: law fare, the ability of the ability of rogue rogue
Speaker 4: prosecutors like Letitia James to try to throw a form
Speaker 4: press United States in prison on that fantastically fantastic legal theory,
Speaker 4: ludicrous and ridiculous legal theory. And and what he showed
Speaker 4: is that the courts, the courts in New York State
Speaker 4: will apparently entertain that they should never never have allowed that, okay,
Speaker 4: those cases to go to court, but they did and
Speaker 4: they're still in court. And and if if if I think,
Speaker 4: if the Republicans lose in the twenty twenty eight, is
Speaker 4: that what it says, yeah that there will probably shoe
Speaker 4: try and go to jail, and the news effort to
Speaker 4: get to get Trump to go to jail. And this
Speaker 4: is quite new. I mean, this is what was going
Speaker 4: on under Biden. Was what happened in Eastern Europe after
Speaker 4: after ninety forty five when the Soviets got controlled the area.
Speaker 4: But they didn't immediately impose communist governments on those on
Speaker 4: those in those countries polled and check us a back
Speaker 4: and so on. It took several years, and one of
Speaker 4: the ways in which they did it was criminalized in opposition.
Speaker 4: And they did it with the with the enthusiastic support
Speaker 4: of politicized judges. And that's what we've got here. The judiciary,
Speaker 4: both federally and but particular the statesline New York. It's
Speaker 4: it's and not just the judiciary, but but the whole
Speaker 4: prosecutor operatus is completely politicized. And you know they're going
Speaker 4: to after in peace and convict judges by the hundreds
Speaker 4: to clean this situation up. Ye of God, it's a
Speaker 4: very bad lookout for us because we have no hope
Speaker 4: justice in the New York States court system at all.
Speaker 4: They'll just get up and tell the black juris that
Speaker 4: that with neo Nazism, and that that's the end of
Speaker 4: ours well, and.
Speaker 5: It reminds me very much of the quote we mentioned
Speaker 5: from z Man earlier about how the situation changed when
Speaker 5: rich people started being blown up. Because I look at
Speaker 5: the Republican Party and I look at Donald Trump, and
Speaker 5: to me, I think your analysis is spot on. That
Speaker 5: is the way to solve this problem and the consequences
Speaker 5: for him as well as for you know, you and
Speaker 5: I are completely and totally explicit. He will, by all
Speaker 5: likelihood die in jail. They will again for something completely
Speaker 5: and totally made up, decide that he has broken some law,
Speaker 5: charge him five hundred million dollars for you know, a
Speaker 5: routine you know, reporting violation, and then his life is over.
Speaker 5: It already debanked him, his entire family. They've threatened to
Speaker 5: throw Pete hag Seth in jail and send him to
Speaker 5: the Hague. And Okay, ten years ago, maybe that's you know,
Speaker 5: strident rhetoric, but they basically did it. In between twenty
Speaker 5: twenty and twenty twenty four, they raided his house. You know,
Speaker 5: a number of his associates were either sent to prison
Speaker 5: or given you know, hefty fines and when you throw
Speaker 5: on additionally the level of political violence, Trump himself being shot,
Speaker 5: Charlie Kirk being assassinated. This this kind of wave of
Speaker 5: leftist terror. And to me, that's what I find so
Speaker 5: frustrating is that apparently, even for their own self preservation,
Speaker 5: these people are either too useless to incompetent or unwilling
Speaker 5: to do exactly what you said, which is smash this
Speaker 5: rogue judiciary. It needs to be smashed or else. Effectively,
Speaker 5: the president is not the president. We don't live in
Speaker 5: a real country anymore. We live under this, you know,
Speaker 5: Rabbinic Council of Judges and.
Speaker 4: Were the right federally who I used to who was
Speaker 4: a whistleblower and the Immigration services uh both he he
Speaker 4: he uses the term cry talk uh. And that's why
Speaker 4: Vida was excluded from the news bulletsin that was put
Speaker 4: out by DHS. One of the immigration judges complained that
Speaker 4: this was the we used to post articles by or
Speaker 4: something on the daily round up of news articles and
Speaker 4: we were excluded because one of the immigration judges said
Speaker 4: that kritar was that obviously anti Semitic term. Of course
Speaker 4: it's not, it's not a is a Greek term meaning
Speaker 4: rule by judges. It's not antismic at all. But you know,
Speaker 4: in the climate we were in and with Biden and
Speaker 4: a similar stemp still you know, to be accused as
Speaker 4: to be found guilty.
Speaker 5: I mean, not not to take this in another direction,
Speaker 5: but assuming that it might have been a little naive
Speaker 5: to assume Trump would have a more forgiving view of
Speaker 5: anti Semitism than President Biden. But I will leave that
Speaker 5: where it is and not address it. But Peter, we
Speaker 5: are fast coming up on time. This has been a
Speaker 5: fascinating episode. Where can people find you and where can
Speaker 5: they find your work?
Speaker 4: Well, vdare dot com is it's still there. It's suspended,
Speaker 4: but you can still get to it. And we have
Speaker 4: something like twenty thousand articles going back twenty five years
Speaker 4: which you can search and read, and you can fall
Speaker 4: see all the Steve Sales articles there that we posted
Speaker 4: and so on. I myself, Ma'm Peter Brimlaw dot com,
Speaker 4: which is actually a substack, but I've start to do
Speaker 4: that just a less than a year ago, and I
Speaker 4: write there as often as I can, and I will
Speaker 4: occasionally repost articles from vidad I think need to be read,
Speaker 4: cycled and commented on For example, I reviewed Dinesh to
Speaker 4: Susan's book on race uh way back when, and I
Speaker 4: reposted with comments when I went to Susan was in
Speaker 4: the news recently, and actually I just reposted yesterday. We
Speaker 4: did a video of of how Jay six would have
Speaker 4: been played if it had been if Trouble been a Democrat,
Speaker 4: And the answer is, of course that he would have been.
Speaker 4: They would have been regarded as heroes and and and
Speaker 4: they the media would have been going on about police
Speaker 4: brutality and all that kind of thing. So I reposted
Speaker 4: that yesterday because that that issue is not going away either,
Speaker 4: the total control of the mainstream narrative. It's it's one
Speaker 4: of the effects of the Internet, paradoxically, has been to
Speaker 4: impose the enormous discipline on the manstrym media what it
Speaker 4: will actually cover uh. And that's the way where they
Speaker 4: were they were to get away with is like the
Speaker 4: Sharksville Hoaks, you know, I mean, obviously the First Amendment
Speaker 4: rights of the UTR, the United the Right demonstrators were
Speaker 4: were completely crossed by by by this Charlesville government and
Speaker 4: the and the Virginia State government. And they've been unable
Speaker 4: to get redressed in the courts. The only reason that
Speaker 4: hope that was that worked politically is because it was
Speaker 4: tremendously tight control of what you could say what happened
Speaker 4: to Charlottesville as they wanted to as there was on
Speaker 4: Jay six. Have you looked at Jason Kessler's book on Charlottesville? No,
Speaker 4: I have not known. Let me pull it up now,
Speaker 4: I'll send you. So here's somebody you should perhaps have
Speaker 4: on He's moved to West Virginia. I'm infair. Everybody moved
Speaker 4: to West Virginia is a feeshtong Appalachia. This is this
Speaker 4: is one state that's not going to flip. It's not
Speaker 4: there's not there's no big black city here that the
Speaker 4: Democrats can use it to kick around everybody else. Uh.
Speaker 4: And of course they met the election, the election, the
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election. I mean, that was clearly a suspect election,
Speaker 4: but you just weren't allowed to say that. I'd better
Speaker 4: check with it. By the way, we love to say
Speaker 4: that's on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: Probably, I'm a very lazy editor. So we'll probably just
Speaker 5: leave it in and see if I get a strike
Speaker 5: or not. I think I could afford one.
Speaker 4: Yes, I will be commonist. Vida dot com is still
Speaker 4: for those anybody who who wants. I mean this is
Speaker 4: ues on. These issues aren't going away. We've covered all
Speaker 4: these issues. Go to our so on. All that's happening
Speaker 4: is to become the becoming more mainstream anyway, Steve Miller's
Speaker 4: making them mainstream.
Speaker 5: Well you were, You were ahead of the curve identifying
Speaker 5: trends which have become impossible to ignore. I mean, well,
Speaker 5: I say impossible to ignore. Have you met Dinesh Desuza,
Speaker 5: But I'll.
Speaker 4: Leave it at that.
Speaker 5: He's one of many people I shouldn't talk about live
Speaker 5: on air or I'll say something, uh say something intemperate. Anyway, Peter,
Speaker 5: it was great having you.
Speaker 4: It was.
Speaker 5: We'll have to have you on a consume.
Speaker 4: Thank you, thanks so much.
Speaker 7: Why do sail lads have to be so over the top?
Speaker 7: Why can't they be more relaxed, more like the air
Speaker 7: Lingus January sail. Sure, great savings on flights to Europe
Speaker 7: and North America are worth shouting about, but that wouldn't
Speaker 7: be very air Lingus, would it. Book now at Airlinus
Speaker 7: dot com