Here is the full transcript of VDARE founder Peter Brimelow’s interview on The Tucker Carlson Show: “Immigration, National Review, and the Battle for America’s Future”, January 20, 2026.
Brief Notes: In this extensive interview, Tucker Carlson sits down with veteran journalist and VDARE founder Peter Brimelow to discuss the history and future of the immigration debate in America. Brimelow reflects on his decades-long career, including his “purge” from the conservative establishment at National Review and the aggressive legal battles his organization has faced against New York’s Attorney General. The conversation dives into provocative territory, examining the role of political donors, the concept of national identity, and the demographic shifts Brimelow argues are leading the West toward a total collapse. Together, they provide a sobering look at the intersection of “lawfare,” media influence, and the struggle over the future of the American state.
The Changing Landscape of Immigration Debate
Tucker Carlson: 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 are a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.
Okay, so here’s one. This is a tweet from last week, less than a week ago, from basically an anonymous account, and I’m quoting: “If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they’re a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive.”
Okay, that’s on the Internet. Elon Musk retweets it and says, “100%.” And then Elon Musk writes this: “If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct!”
All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it. But I read that, I thought, here’s the world’s richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things saying this, and Peter Brimelow, 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 than that. So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.
Peter Brimelow: It feels kind of tingly on the one hand.
Tucker Carlson: Tingly.
Peter Brimelow: I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction. And the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on vdare.com, which was my website, like birthright citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.
On the other hand, you know, we’ve been ruined, and we’re facing personal ruin, of course, because of this attack on us by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that, you know, I’m a longtime, despite my accent, I’ve been here for 55 years, and I’m a longtime financial journalist. I worked for Forbes and Fortune and Barron’s and so on. 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 sometimes occurred with kicking off the modern debate. And there was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost. And Buckley bit the staggers in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.
And for the next while, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and they were going on about the need for amnesty and there was no way to combat it. So I set up a website, which I named vdare.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child, not white child, as they always say, born in the New World.
And over a period of about 25 years, we built up into quite a force until about two years ago, it was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who just basically subpoenaed us to death and has in fact now sued us personally, as in the foundation, through the foundation. So we’re a bit like General Flynn. You know, no middle class family can stand up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house and we’re going to face, we’re driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess.
The National Review Purge
Tucker Carlson: It’s a horrifying story. I’ve kept abreast of it through your wife, who texts me, 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 the story of what happened exactly?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, sure. I was never on staff at National Review, but I was what they called a senior editor. And I wrote for it a lot. And in 1992, I wrote this very long cover story. It’s about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the editor then. He was just circling around in the background. But the then editor, John O’Sullivan, went with this story.
And for about five years we basically directly challenged the 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.
And then at the end of five years, in 1997, Bill just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O’Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told us to shut up.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask you to pause and explain why that happened? Why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O’Sullivan run it, another Brit, I think?
Peter Brimelow: Yes, indeed.
Tucker Carlson: Who now lives in Budapest. Why do you think that he stepped back in from retirement to shut down that conversation specifically?
Peter Brimelow: Well, of course I’ve had 20-odd years to think and the answer is over time my answer’s 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, fire the managers that they put in to replace themselves. Jealousy.
I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors. And I think that was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then Republican majority in the House.
The Donor Question
Tucker Carlson: So the Republican leadership didn’t like it. Newt Gingrich, etc., who was ascendant, came in in 1994 to much, much fanfare, achieved not a lot. But they’re the ones who pressured Bill Buckley, you believe?
Peter Brimelow: I think that was true. But I also think that the neocons in New York hated it, hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the neoconservative people like Norman Podhoretz and so on. And I think they pressured him to, I mean I know they pressed him to get rid of John.
Tucker Carlson: Now why would they care?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, because at that point the neoconservatives were predominantly a 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 them out in the cold.
Tucker Carlson: 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: Right. And I actually think there’s a certain sort of jealousy there. You know, they didn’t like, I mean if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism. But here was a non-neoconservative, in fact 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 the Hart-Celler Act kicked in, until the early 1990s. There was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Review’s archives and I found out they hadn’t discussed immigration at all between the passage of the 1965 Act until the early 1990s. People simply didn’t realize what was going on.
Tucker Carlson: Why?
Peter Brimelow: I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the U.S. And so it just wasn’t an issue to them.
And you know what happens, it’s like in academic life. You have an academic theory. It’s not that it conquered the other theories by being better and better arguments, just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off and they’re replaced by younger. And that’s true for politicians too. A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. And I include Ronald Reagan in that.
I mean, it simply wasn’t an issue when he was growing up. And that’s why he was hornswoggled by this IRCA Amnesty in 1986. He actually genuinely thought that the ruling of the permanent government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement. Whereas in fact, they just took the amnesty and didn’t enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.
The Role of Money in Conservative Media
Tucker Carlson: I’m a little bit fixated on William F. Buckley because he was such a dominant force.
Peter Brimelow: Let me just back up again. What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor driven.
Tucker Carlson: Oh, of course.
Peter Brimelow: And we weren’t aware of that in the 1990s. I wasn’t even aware. I didn’t think about the donors’ role in politics really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued and you just simply didn’t realize how dominant, how important the donors are.
I think now, looking back, and particularly given, Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. And he depended on National Review financially to a considerable extent, financed his lifestyle to a considerable extent. And I think…
Tucker Carlson: But he depended on the magazine.
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s right.
Tucker Carlson: I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended on him.
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, that’s what he wanted you to think. But in fact, it did finance his lifestyle to a considerable extent.
Tucker Carlson: The winters in Gstaad and the sailing across the Bermuda Race.
Peter Brimelow: I don’t know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine in any case. He just didn’t want to disrupt the donor flow. And the more I think about that, the more I think that probably was the reason.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting. So that’s basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code. I mean, it’s intellectual fraud. 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: I think Bill, actually, my experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When he went to his dinners, he used to put on 73rd Street, it was very hard to get him to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. And you can see that in the way he lived his life latterly. I mean, writing these books and so on. He just basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics initially.
He was very, I have a letter from him actually saying how wonderful my immigration story was.
Tucker Carlson: Really?
Peter Brimelow: Yes. And it was, you know, I forget what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that sort of stuff. He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just told them to stop covering it. But the official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable. They just didn’t do any journalism on it.
Just like he was about drug legalization. He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about it.
Tucker Carlson: Why?
Peter Brimelow: I guess he was balancing a number of issues. In the case of immigration, you know, I think he’s done. Immigration was a very unfashionable subject.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah.
Peter Brimelow: I remember, and I think as we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on…
Tucker Carlson: Megyn Kelly.
The Megyn Kelly Show and Shifting Views on Immigration
Peter Brimelow: Megyn Kelly, yes. And he was attacking you for some reason or other. I forget what. And he was saying that. Then he suddenly said, but Tucker’s good on some things. He’s good on immigration.
Well, as I understand that you’re interested in the idea of immigration moratorium and so on, of course, this is news to me. That’s what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration. I mean, just about five or six years ago in National Review, he called me a white supremacist, basically for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction.
And those days, back in the early days, if you advocated immigration control, you immediately suspect that. You immediately suspect of being an anti-Semite, even though there’s no direct connection at all. And now they’ve changed their mind on this. They’ve fallen back.
I mean, Norman before he died, I was very friendly with Norman. He didn’t talk to me for the last 10 years of his life. But he died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95. But just before he died, he gave an interview in which he said he changed his mind on immigration. He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed. And he credited John O’Sullivan, the editor of National Review, for helping change his mind. He didn’t mention me.
Tucker Carlson: Why didn’t he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life?
Peter Brimelow: Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character and I deviated on the immigration issue. And he suspected I had the habit of calling the National Review the “Goldberg Review,” because at that stage, briefly, it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight, and of course, was absolutely bonehead on the immigration issue.
Tucker Carlson: 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: Well, Norman actually emailed me and said, “You’ve got to stop calling National Review the Goldberg Review because it sounds anti-Semitic.” Actually, my understanding is that Goldberg is not technically Jewish. His mother was a Gentile.
Tucker Carlson: I knew her. She was a great person.
Peter Brimelow: Actually, I replied and said that. And he didn’t get back, but he just gradually suspected more. He suspected more and more of thought crime. Norman was an extremely passionate man.
Tucker Carlson: He didn’t, famously.
The Break with Norman Podhoretz
Peter Brimelow: He didn’t socialize with opponents. I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry that you—
Tucker Carlson: No, there was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways. It was kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion.
Peter Brimelow: And actually I owe his wife, Midge, a lot because she was the chair of the Philadelphia Society, which is a conservative affinity group, and she invited me to speak on immigration in, I guess, 2005. And that’s where I met—my first wife had just died. And that’s where I met my current wife, Lydia, who, of course, was running the VDARE Foundation with me. She was the publisher of VDARE.com and you’ve had her on, of course.
Tucker Carlson: 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?
The Firing of John O’Sullivan and Dismissal from National Review
Peter Brimelow: 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?”
Tucker Carlson: What?
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book. That was because John was very popular with the National Review base and the immigration issue was very popular. And so he didn’t want to admit that he was dumping them both.
So he got really ruffled because he wasn’t used to being challenged and said, “I had to write a book and decided to write a book.” And we basically never really spoke to each other after that. I was constructively dismissed from National Review. I got a letter telling me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very important in the National Review world because it was run like a fraternity, and if you were senior, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that kind of thing. And I never wrote for it again.
Tucker Carlson: Why did they dismiss you, do you think?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, well, I’m sure that the Washington bureau was always upset with the immigration issue because it embarrassed them. It embarrassed them in Washington cocktail parties. And he put the Washington bureau in charge of the magazine. So I’m sure they would be happy to do it. And they didn’t want to write about immigration.
And I think also, you know, mud sticks, Tucker, mud sticks. And by this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and anti-Semite for raising these issues, it sticks. And it had stuck so that, you know, even though Ben Shapiro’s now—Shapiro just talking about immigration, I don’t see him apologizing to me.
Tucker Carlson: No. Well, of course not. He doesn’t care about you at all. Or other people at all.
The Matthew Continetti Incident
Peter Brimelow: I had a really interesting experience recently. Lydia and I were at an ISI book event and I bought Matthew Continetti’s book. I mean, I actually bought it. I put down my—it’s a rather awful book about the conservative movement. It says that I was born in Canada, which obviously I wasn’t.
Tucker Carlson: He’s a silly—I mean, this is Bill Kristol’s son-in-law.
Peter Brimelow: Bill Kristol’s son-in-law. That’s the point. I took it up to him. I like to collect inscribed books. In fact, I forgot to bring your book. I’m sorry. And he wouldn’t sign it. He wouldn’t inscribe it. He said, “I have nothing to say to you.” And the really weird thing about this is—
Tucker Carlson: On what ground? I mean, I don’t think you’ve ever said that I’m aware of an anti-Semitic thing in your life. I don’t think you’re an anti-Semite.
Peter Brimelow: Well, Continetti is a convert, of course, so he’s probably very, you know, particularly ardent. But the weird thing about this was that Continetti had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think of his father-in-law.
Tucker Carlson: But he said, to your face, “I won’t inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you”?
Peter Brimelow: Essentially, yes, that’s right. He signed it, but he wouldn’t inscribe it. And then he said, “Nothing to say to you.” Wow.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah. I mean, it’s kind of surprising.
Peter Brimelow: We live out there in eastern panhandle of West Virginia and we don’t have to face this stuff. But I guess when you’re in DC, you face it all the time.
Tucker Carlson: 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, to treat people as human beings.
Peter Brimelow: Norman didn’t believe in forgiveness.
Tucker Carlson: No, I’m very aware of that. Very aware of that.
Peter Brimelow: It was a principal position with him.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, 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, what a—that’s amazing. So you were just cast out?
Yoram Hazony and the Ethnostate Question
Peter Brimelow: Well, the thing is, he’d already signed the book, so I couldn’t—he signed it behind his back. I couldn’t give it back, get my money back. Whereas, conversely, Yoram Hazony was also there. And you know, Hazony, as you know, banned us from his National Conservatism conference because he said he didn’t think we were appropriate. And we had a series of bitter exchanges on VDARE.
But Hazony was perfectly friendly and he signed the book and inscribed it and we chatted about children and grandchildren and so on.
Tucker Carlson: Yoram Hazony is a very courtly man, a very charming and warm person. I’ll say. I had lunch with him once and I don’t agree with him on a lot, but I liked him. It’s hard not to like him.
Peter Brimelow: I think he’s very good. What he largely says about conservatism is exactly accurate, but I think that’s right.
Tucker Carlson: Moving it away from being classical liberalism.
Peter Brimelow: The problem, of course, is that he’s caught in this bind because he doesn’t want to admit that Israel is an ethnostate, because he doesn’t want the Americans to have an ethnostate. He wants them to be a civic nationalist state.
Tucker Carlson: What do you mean won’t admit? I mean, Israel is by its own description—
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, but he keeps arguing that that’s—
Tucker Carlson: Not an attack, by the way, at all.
Peter Brimelow: Well, you know, I’ve never been able to get him to explain how you cannot say that there’s a racial component to Israel when the whole—when of course the Jewish religion is racially based. I mean, that’s why they have the matrilineal principle where you’ve got to have a Jewish mother. And I’ve never seen him respond to that. And I don’t think he can because he doesn’t want to encourage a strain of white nationalism in America.
Tucker Carlson: For years you’ve been told this is not happening and you’re a bigot for thinking it is. But it is happening. Mass migration is reshaping the west completely. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. Different people live here now. You’re not a racist for noticing that. You’re just using your senses.
Again, it’s not a theory. It’s the biggest fact of this or any generation in a thousand years. The replacement is real. European governments aren’t just tolerating mass migration, they’re encouraging it. They’re funding it. They hate their populations and they want new populations.
We’ve got a new documentary on this called “Replacing,” following the world’s deadliest migration route. Our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see. They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public has never been told. It’s not ideological, it’s reality. This is happening. It’s destroying the west, and our cameras caught it. “Replacing Europe.” That’s the doc only on TCN.
Now, I just want to be clear about my own views. Not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely. I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethnostate. It’s their country. Have whatever state you want, as far as I’m concerned. But it is an ethnostate by definition.
The people who founded it were not religious. A lot of them were atheists, and they identified as Jewish racially. Again, I have no problem with that at all. That’s their country. But to say it’s not an ethnostate is not only a lie, but it’s like a ludicrous lie. And he won’t admit that.
Peter Brimelow: That’s my reading of what Hazony is saying. But it’s one of the situations where his civic nationalism is so intense that it might just as well be ethnic nationalism for the US. But a lot of things he says about immigration to the US are excellent.
Tucker Carlson: Right. I agree, and I’m not attacking Yoram Hazony 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: Well, it’s what Orwell calls doublethink, isn’t it? It’s doublethink. You’ve got to believe two contradictory things at once, and it’s necessary to operate in large parts of political world.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting. But why wouldn’t people who support an ethnostate in Israel want one here? Why would they object to that so strongly?
Jewish Perspectives on Immigration
Peter Brimelow: I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate. They’re overwhelmingly pro-immigration. However, having said that, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know they’re going to be people on the other side, and some people very hard on the other side.
Tucker Carlson: And I know a lot of them. That’s why I would never be anti-Semitic, because you can’t generalize.
The Stephen Miller Comparison
Peter Brimelow: I mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who, of course, is an aide to Trump. I think he’s the deputy chief of staff or something. He’s going to be the first Jewish president. I say this because it’s hard. The prospect horrifies people so much. But he’s like Disraeli in Britain.
Benjamin Disraeli, of course, was Jewish, but converted to Episcopalianism. He was converted by his father to a very early age. His father took the whole family over to Episcopalians. He basically invented the Conservative Party, reinvented the Conservative Party in the 19th century, came up with in Britain. He came up with a complete grand strategy for it based on the empire and imperial patriotism and so on.
And that really carried the party through for the next 80, 90 years. A couple of generations in Britain with a Nationalist party and because of being a Nationalist party, got a very substantial work, working class vote because it is the blue collar workers who are the patriots and the Conservatives are 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 restabilizing America’s ethnic balance and basically eliminating this inflow, which is causing all kinds of problems with fellow skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance. And he’s not afraid to admit that.
And not only that, but I don’t think anyone’s afraid. Cunning to survive the Kushner White House.
Tucker Carlson: Yes.
Peter Brimelow: I mean, that was really extraordinary because Jared Kushner, of course, played exactly the opposite. He’s basically a liberal New York Jew. But for some reason, Miller was able to survive with him. I couldn’t have done that. And I wouldn’t have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that he did. Sessions was his close aide and was his mentor. And then Miller abandons him when Trump turns against him. I couldn’t have done that either. But then he’s in the White House and I’m not.
The Demographic Project
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, no, I think those are all fair and true observations. It’s interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a demographic project. I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white. They’ll say that it’s not controversial. I mean, you could prove it on video. Didn’t even bother to. Because I think most people watching this already know that its architects, starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965, basically just said, ultimately admitted.
The whole point is to make America less white. Enough 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: I have to say that Kennedy didn’t say that when he was at first. When he was the floor manager of the Hart-Celler, he gave a very explicit assurance.
Tucker Carlson: Yes.
Peter Brimelow: He loved to quote saying that this will not alter the racial balance of America and it will not mean a million people. You will be coming in. Whereas in fact a million people a year are coming in, of course. And that’s one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having to be there, even though I have my own peterbrimelow.com substack that’s not the same kind of voice because we’ve got to get legal immigration into the debate here.
I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more remarkable than people realize. But they’re not doing anything on legal immigration. But I’m sorry, that means I’ve not answered your question. What was your question?
Tucker Carlson: Well, my question was the whole point of the project was not to feed a desperate need for low skilled labor that definitely no longer exists now with AI. And it wasn’t to improve America. It’s completely destroyed America, destroyed the state of California.
Peter Brimelow: Well, when I was writing the book I wrote on immigration alienation, that flowed out of my cover story, the 1995 book, which Harper Garnes refused to reprint. I quoted a man called Earl Raab who was a Jewish activist and so on, and he explicitly said that the Jews were in favor of mass non-white immigration because it makes the rise of a—he didn’t use the term neo-Nazi, but that’s what he meant, you know, party in America—impossible.
In fact it does the exact opposite. It makes it more like. Well, exactly, but he did say that, he quite calmly said that this is why most Jews favor.
Tucker Carlson: Well, it’s also made the rise of hard edged anti-Israel politics. And I’m not pro-Israel especially, but I don’t hate Israel. A lot of people who hate Israel are immigrants.
Peter Brimelow: So look at the New York’s New York mayoral race.
Tucker Carlson: Well, exactly.
Peter Brimelow: Van Damme won because the immigrant vote.
Tucker Carlson: Exactly, exactly.
Peter Brimelow: The native born American New Yorkers and God knows, look at who they are, for God’s sake. I mean, but they voted against Mandami. Exactly. So they’ve really screwed themselves up.
Unintended Consequences
Tucker Carlson: This has, it hasn’t worked. I mean if your interest was to keep anti-Semitism and really kind of crazy anti-Israel sentiment to a minimum, and I agree with that, I’m against anti-Semitism. I’m against like basing our life on hating Israel. That seems kind of lunatic. If that was your goal. I mean you literally achieved the opposite result. Is that fair to say?
Peter Brimelow: Not for the first time.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, fair, fair. So you may think maybe that wasn’t the goal. I don’t know, I’m just guessing here, maybe there was another goal that we don’t understand. But.
Peter Brimelow: Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can’t be analyzed intellectually. There’s just a whole series of reflexes or spiritual. But, you know, one of the reasons we know that the New York Attorney General attack on was basically instigated by the Anti-Defamation League, because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit this, that they had gone to Letitia James and told her to take VDARE out.
And we say to ourselves, why us Jews? What have we ever done to you? You know, we have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we’re not allowed to have conference anywhere else. Don was Jewish. We had all kinds of Jewish donors and all kinds of Jewish writers. But that doesn’t make any difference to the ideal, apparently.
Tucker Carlson: So what are you going to do when the power goes out? Not theoretically, but actually in real life. Most Americans used to think total power failure only happened in unstable countries, places without functioning governments, places you only went to on vacation. This is the US People would say that could never happen here. Okay, well, then it did.
Remember Texas, during the deep freeze, the grid collapsed. People were left without heat. Some froze to death in their own homes. So the truth is obvious now. The government can’t guarantee you electricity. And when things go wrong, no one’s coming to save you. That’s why Last Country Supply offers the Grid Dr. It’s a 3,300 watt battery backup system built to keep your entire household from running when everything else stops.
It powers full size appliances, medical devices, essential tools. You can use it indoors. It’s totally safe. There’s no fuel, there are no fumes, there’s no noise. We have one at home and it’s awesome. It’s got 15 output ports. It charges from the wall when you have power, from your car when you don’t. It’s got a solar panel so the sun can charge it. It’s built to withstand EMPs, lightning, solar flares. It is durable as hell.
So taking care of yourself and the people you love, the people you’re responsible for, is your job. Get power you can trust. Always get the Grid Doctor today at our very own lastcountrysupply.com, our business. This is the power supply that we use. Lastcountrysupply.com now to what happened to you and to be there.
The VDARE Story
So you’re expelled both from National Review and you leave your old life as a financial journalist behind. I think it’s a fair summary. And then you create this organization called VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, the first British child born in the Americas and it becomes successful, it becomes big. And it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s not racist, it’s against changing America’s populations for immigration. Is that a fair summary?
Peter Brimelow: Yeah. I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. VDARE was kind of a moonlighting project.
Tucker Carlson: How did you pull that off?
Peter Brimelow: It was very difficult and of course eventually became impossible. And I was fired both from Forbes and from CBS. It was used to be CBS Market, which became Dow Jones Market Watch. In both cases, it was during turndowns in the markets. But I happened to be the one, you know, they chose to find me rather than people who are frankly, less valuable to me, them.
So it did, in the end, terminate my career in the mainstream media. But on the other hand, you know, we were developing VDARE very rapidly and it became quite a big deal. And 2019, we raised nearly $4 million, which enabled us to buy the Castle and do all kinds of other things.
Of course, you know, it’s been utterly destroyed now. I’ve been out of it. You know, it was suspended two years ago and I resigned. So, you know, I’m supporting the family now on pension, pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family.
Tucker Carlson: I have nine children.
Peter Brimelow: So it’s kind of irritating.
The Letitia James Attack
Tucker Carlson: Irritating doesn’t begin to describe it. So tell the story, if you would. You’re running VDARE and somehow Letitia James is the Attorney General of New York.
Peter Brimelow: VDARE is a 501(c)(3) charity and it was registered in New York in 1999 entirely because our then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York and therefore that it was convenient for him. And this was when, you know, the Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of lawfare, nobody heard it. The idea of warfare, 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 walk up and found we’ve got these massive subpoenas demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email going back to 2016. And of course that was a huge problem because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and our anonymous pseudonymous writers. And I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they would have been fired.
Tucker Carlson: Let me ask them what, okay, so you’re not domiciled New York, you’re not operating in New York, nothing.
Peter Brimelow: We registered New York. That’s the key point.
Tucker Carlson: But the 501(c)(3) is registered as New York, but you’re not.
Peter Brimelow: 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, you can only with her permission. And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 501(c)(3) and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets and she would claim jurisdiction over that. It’s a huge mess and we had very expensive lawyers looking at it for a long time, even before she came along and hit us with.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask on what grounds she issued subpoenas to you?
Peter Brimelow: She doesn’t have to give grounds, but what she said was she wanted to investigate the Castle purchase, which we did in 2000. Or more accurate, I should say Lydia did in 2000, because as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen, 15 conferences cancelled, hotels would accept a booking, then they would cancel as soon as they came under pressure from the left.
And we realized we were never going to be able to have a conference, Lois. So we bought our own venue. And she wants to investigate that. Well, of course, all that purchase was very carefully lawyered precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it. But it doesn’t make any difference. She demands that and she demanded that and she demanded all kinds of other things.
The really killing thing froze, was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents. The killing thing was demanded the email because we know if she got the right names and the donors names, she would release them. She did that with Nikki Haley. They leaked her the donors to her pack. And the papers that you saw that gave the names of Nikki Haley’s donors were actually the letterhead was New York Attorney General’s office. But of course nobody ever came after for her.
Tucker Carlson: I’m just confused. Did she have evidence you committed a crime?
Peter Brimelow: She was looking for evidence and she’s not found it. But she’s charged us anyway. But she hasn’t charged us. It’s not a criminal thing. But she’s suing us anyway over it.
Tucker Carlson: My impression, my guess is that the Trump administration will begin to ignore the courts in some cases and people will say that this is the beginning of fascism and a takeover of the destruction of our legal system. And you know, that’s a fair point, but I would.
Peter Brimelow: No, it’s not a fair point.
Tucker Carlson: Well, exactly.
Peter Brimelow: Destroyed.
Tucker Carlson: 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.
Peter Brimelow: So I just want to say that the wonderful. I mean, one of the wonderful things. Let me back up a second. One wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprising journalist actually dug up a speech made to the ADL. They had a conference called “Taking Hate to Court” by Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James’ operatives, and he is the one who’s leading the charge against us.
And he said to this conference that hate speech, that’s us, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, but there are ways around that. All you have to do, if it’s a charity and you have jurisdiction, subpoenas. He said it sucks to be sued. Just subpoena him to death.
And of course, that’s exactly what he’s done to us. You know, they inflicted over a million, million and a half dollars in out of pocket costs for lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that Lily had to spend digging through documents and so on, which meant that she couldn’t fundraise or do any other work. They just destroy you through the process of punishment. They just destroy you that way.
So he’s actually openly admitting this. So when we saw this, we thought, oh, now it’s all over. They’ve obviously admitted that what they’re doing is not, is political, it’s not because of some regulatory concern. But we’ve been totally unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this. We’re trying again now. We have what they call 983 action 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 Carlson: 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.
The Courts’ Resistance to First Amendment Claims
Peter Brimelow: That’s what we thought, but in fact, they didn’t. The first time we did it, the court simply dodged a technical issue. They came up with a technical excuse to dodge it, and we’re trying again now, but, you know, we just have to hope for the best.
I think one of the things that is clear to me, I mean, from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerable, goes far beyond this situation and all the cases I’m aware of, is that there seems to be some message gone out from judge central that anything that’s quote unquote “white nationalist” has got to be suppressed by any means necessary.
In our case, the classic example is we had a hotel cancel us in Colorado Springs and our quarrel was not with them because they paid up the liquidated damages like men and it was a lot of money. But they cancelled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a RINO, John Suthers, had said he wouldn’t extend police protection to the conference when, you know, in other words, Antifa was going and he wouldn’t extend police protection.
Tucker Carlson: He’s threatening to kill you.
Peter Brimelow: That’s right.
Tucker Carlson: And who is this?
Peter Brimelow: His name was John Suthers. He was the mayor of—
Tucker Carlson: He was the Republican John Suthers. The mayor of Colorado Springs basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his city.
Peter Brimelow: Now this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the civil rights era, and the point was made very clear by the courts that the local authorities, local governments have to extend protection to people’s First Amendment rights. In other words, in those days the black demonstrators would have meetings in the city and the local whites would be angry about it. Well, those whites had to be kept away. The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings.
Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court, which refused to take the issue up, and the appeals court in Colorado rejected us. And I believe 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, voted 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 we would have, it would have been a huge victory and we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way. And our initial lawyer in Colorado Springs was so keen on this, it was so obvious, an open and shut case that he took it on contingency, you know. But as soon as he realized that the city was going to resist, he ran away and we had to start paying lawyers to litigate it.
The NRA Case and Double Standards
Well, anyway, subsequently there was a case before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess this was Vullo, it’s called the Vullo case, V-U-L-L-O. And this was where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA. And the NRA fought it and it won.
And in the decision, Justice Jackson says the NRA’s case is strong, but essentially, I’m paraphrasing, it’s not as strong as VDARE’s case where they were denied police, where the state agency basically discriminated against them on political grounds. We never heard about this.
Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to reject our attempt to sue Colorado Springs on a civil rights theory and that it was wrong for the following reasons. And for that reason, the Supreme Court should take up the NRA’s case against, NRA versus Vullo, I guess it was called.
The Supreme Court did take it up and ruled against the state of New York 9-0, which of course does us absolutely no good whatever because we’re out all that money and, you know, our First Amendment rights are not protected. I mean, in other words, there’s a real determination on the part, the NRA is apparently more palatable than we are.
Tucker Carlson: 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. It 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: 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. The people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I did know that. And the purpose of the project, 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?
The Emotional Roots of Anti-White Policy
Peter Brimelow: 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. The purpose of a system is what it does.
Tucker Carlson: And that’s right.
Peter Brimelow: And the purpose of non-white governments is to produce non-white government and non-white results. Unless of course you’re Chinese, because Singapore’s run, Japanese, Singapore, they’re run very efficiently.
Tucker Carlson: They are. It’s just interesting that people move here because it’s a white country and we—
Peter Brimelow: See the right into the ground.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, well, all of us benefit, white and non-white benefit alike from systems created by whites because they’re more humane, they’re more just, they’re more fair and they’re much more efficient and cleaner. Obviously.
Peter Brimelow: You know, I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you. I was looking at an interview I did. Somebody sent me an interview I did for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedman and I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism? And he said yes, I think. And as you know, he’s a very fire-breathing libertarian, but he actually thought about this question and he said that, you know, he said capitalism has really only ever worked in English-speaking countries. I don’t know why this is so. But the fact has to be admitted that there’s some kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism. What economists call a meta-market, a framework.
So the question is, why are these capitalists bringing, you know, why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H-1B flow coming when they know it’s going to, when it’s obviously going to produce people who don’t do it, like Mandami, who don’t support capitalism, in fact hate it. What are the capitalists doing? Well, they’re doing what Lenin said. They will sell us the rope with which we hang them.
Tucker Carlson: 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: Oh, in the case of business people, of course it is. The malign influence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. A whole generation of business people actually believe all this nonsense. It’s very hard to get out of their heads because they’re never allowed, I mean, they’re never allowed criticism of immigration on the editorial page.
The Murdoch Family and Personal Generosity
Tucker Carlson: So you’ve referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also to HarperCollins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family.
Peter Brimelow: Right.
Tucker Carlson: What’s been your experience with the Murdochs?
Peter Brimelow: Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert, in, I think that’s 1990, on ghosting his autobiography, which was never published, basically, 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—
Tucker Carlson: I guess I—
Peter Brimelow: I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time, and they dropped me when you came under attack, because somebody looked into people on the payroll and they found that there’s four criminals on the payroll. So at that point, I was dropped. But he’s been extraordinarily generous to me.
Tucker Carlson: That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch in my life.
Peter Brimelow: And that’s not the case with a lot of these characters.
Tucker Carlson: It’s not Robert Maxwell.
Peter Brimelow: And so I remember Rupert telling me once that he thought that Maxwell, Maxwell, as you know, fell off his yacht at the Canary Islands and was found dead. Rupert’s theory was this guy is such a jerk that the crew probably couldn’t stand him anymore.
Tucker Carlson: That is one theory. That is one theory. His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked. I don’t know the truth of it, but he certainly had a lot of enemies. There were a lot of suspects in that crime.
Peter Brimelow: But, I mean, he was personally unpleasant. And that’s not the case with Rupert. He’s not cruel, he’s not vindictive.
Tucker Carlson: Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I’ve ever met in my life. I mean, he has perfect manners. He’s truly Anglo in that way. And I never had a bad time with him, always. Even when he fired me, I talked to him after. He couldn’t have been nicer. So I strongly agree with your assessment. But he kept you on the payroll for decades.
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, so I had five children born on his healthcare.
Tucker Carlson: I had some born on his healthcare, too. God bless you, Rupert Murdoch.
Peter Brimelow: It was very good.
Tucker Carlson: No, it’s, I mean, I don’t know. The truth should be told, good and bad.
Peter Brimelow: So essentially, I was a consultant for him, and he didn’t consult me at all because, of course, I would have told him to do the exact opposite—
Tucker Carlson: Of what he was doing.
Peter Brimelow: But I have no complaints about Rupert. Millennial.
The Murdoch Media Empire and Its Contradictions
Tucker Carlson: Yes. No, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years. But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley, then Rupert has great personal decency, and I’ve seen it. But the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American, basic American interests.
So what is this guy likes America? He treats people around him well, there’s a lot good to say about Rupert, but the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Harper Collins, all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America’s interests. So why? Why is that, do you know?
Peter Brimelow: Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of a News Corporation or 21st Century Fox, whatever it’s called now, to the neoconservatives. So he took on a lot of neoconservative baggage at that point. I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment, they shall be open borders. You know, I mean, it was really lunatic. And I believe that’s still the case.
Tucker Carlson: But why would he do that?
Peter Brimelow: 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.
Tucker Carlson: They were. That’s correct.
Peter Brimelow: You know, but that was then and this is now, and they have just simply haven’t made the transition. But that’s a major reason. I know he was operating in New York and, you know, he was under a lot of suspicion there and has been. You know, he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an “okay guy,” and he’s showing that.
It’s genuine, though, with Rupert. I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initial Iraq War, the Gulf War, and he said, “Well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli.” You know, his father played a major role in discrediting the Gallipoli 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 I’m just, I guess I’m just basically anti-Arab.” I said, “Those aren’t Arabs, they’re Turks.”
Tucker Carlson: Well, exactly, yeah, exactly.
Peter Brimelow: Yeah. They’re all the same.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah. The Ottoman Empire’s gone, and they’ve done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who helped finance his company. 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, which he said, and he was very proud of that. But that’s not much of an answer, is it?
Peter Brimelow: You know him better than I do.
Tucker Carlson: I don’t know, I just, it’s, you know, he’s had 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 is a mystery.
Peter Brimelow: Once one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist, and his father’s a journalist who wanted to be a businessman, because he did found a publishing empire in Australia. Of course, Keith Murdoch. I think there’s a lot in that.
I mean, I think that you and I are ideologues, professional ideologues. But Rupert is not a professional ideologue. No, that’s somebody who spends all this time looking at numbers. He’s got a fantastic memory for numbers. He knows all, I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number he’s ever dialed. You know, and running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and a tremendous application to going over pages and pages and pages of figures.
And I don’t know that he spent a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a sporting sense. I mean, he likes to be, he likes, you know, 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 simple thing.
Tucker Carlson: That is a very smart analysis. I think you’re, I think you’re exactly right. 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: Well, I have to admit, it’s many years since I’ve bothered to read the Wall Street Journal. I rely on people sending me things, and they don’t send much from the Wall Street Journal or for that matter, from National Review.
Tucker Carlson: Very rarely is National Review still in existence.
Peter Brimelow: Apparently so. It has the Republican, you know, establishment to support.
Tucker Carlson: It’s like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and, what do you know, the editor of National Review.
Peter Brimelow: Rich Lowry. He’s gone. He’s gone for some time now, isn’t he? Hasn’t he been, don’t know if somebody else. I haven’t the faintest idea.
Tucker Carlson: But did you know him?
Peter Brimelow: No. I sat in rooms with him and I went to cocktail parties with him. Absolutely no memory of him at all. He never said anything at all of significance. And I think that’s why Bill hired him, because he was completely malleable.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I think that sounds right. Sad. Sad. How much has been lost. So, speaking of lost, what happened in the end and I interrupted your story. My apologies, but to VDARE.
The Legal Battle Against VDARE
Peter Brimelow: VDARE 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.
Tucker Carlson: On what grounds are you being sued?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, there’s a whole bunch of things, fundamentally technical issues to do with whether we had the right number of directors vote on the right number of things. It’s all paperwork stuff. It’s all stuff that would normally resolve with a phone call and possibly a refiling and stuff like that.
But they’ve not found any evidence of misappropriation of funds. And in fact, we moved to dismiss on this basis. Although they huff and puff a lot, there’s 60 odd pages of rhetoric. But the actual charges they haven’t got.
Tucker Carlson: Who is suing you?
Peter Brimelow: This is New York state.
Tucker Carlson: So they’re using tax dollars still.
Peter Brimelow: Oh, yes, that’s right. Enormous. They’ve spent a great deal of money on this. They also very weirdly subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of all our dealings with Facebook. 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 deal with Facebook for more than two years when they came out after us. And but nevertheless, they got all these records off of Facebook, but they’ve done nothing with them because, of course, there’s nothing there.
I think they genuinely thought that they would find that we were accepting money from the Russians, the Russians to run bot farms. Do you remember that was the allegation with interference in the 2016 election, 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. You know, they do think that Middle America’s full of people wearing pointed hats.
Tucker Carlson: Oh, 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. And then we went to war with Russia and we’re still at war with Russia over that. Right.
The Sailer Strategy and Republican Race Politics
Peter Brimelow: The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda too, which is why they won’t, for example, appeal to the white vote. One of the things we did at VDARE is we discussed and documented what we call the Sailer Strategy as opposed to the Rove Strategy.
In 2000, Karl Rove was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities. And it makes no sense statistically because I think George W. Bush got like 51% of the white vote. It’s an appalling performance.
So Steve Sailer was one of our writers who pointed out that if they could just increase that potential proportion of the white 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 vote.
And now this caused a great deal of trouble for us. I remember I got a letter, an email from Jude Wanniski. Do you remember Jude Wanniski? He said, “It’s a pity. You’ve gone too far.” In other words, appealing to the white vote is not allowed. And look, it’s just a question of arithmetic. You know, there’s more of them than there are of minorities.
In any case, to this day, the Republicans still have not done that. They’ve done it.
Tucker Carlson: Why was Jude Wanniski mad?
Peter Brimelow: 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. You know, they think it’s somehow illegitimate and they still do think it’s illegitimate.
For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election, you know, this Youngkin who’s a complete cipher as far as Wall Street, as far as I can see, chooses, for his successor in the gubernatorial race, a candidate with one, 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, southwest Virginia out to vote for this black immigrant. It’s ridiculous.
And of course they got a terrible share of the white vote. It was like 53% and that’s why they lost. But they would rather lose than make a full out appeal to white voters.
Tucker Carlson: I think the tell was in the ability. So this was, 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.
Peter Brimelow: And this is epidemic in the Republican party.
Tucker Carlson: Well, it’s epidemic in the country.
Peter Brimelow: It’s chosen. So no. But Republicans in particular have chosen so many black candidates. We’re about to see it here in Florida. The DeSantis-Moody candidate is likely black unless a miracle occurs. Why is that? They just, they are just pixelated by this, transfixed by this. I’m trying to find the right word. Hypnotized by this phenomenon, by the whole race question.
They’re just race whipped. What it comes down to, they’re just so afraid of being called racist that they’d rather lose with a black candidate than run a candidate who appeals to whites.
Trump did appeal to whites. Not enough. But he does it in some kind of really implicit way. If you actually look at what Trump said, in spite of all the rhetoric, he’s not said anything that’s explicitly white nationalist or anything. I see no sign that he’s only a civic nationalist. But for some reason he’s made some connection.
I mean all through West Virginia, while Biden was president you would see these signs supporting Trump and saying very rude things about Biden. And these are outside trailers.
Tucker Carlson: Very rude things about Biden.
Peter Brimelow: Yeah, I mean, you know, this is a poor area, these run down trailer homes that you see with these Trump signs on them. For some reason Trump made a connection with them and it’s eerie. Now on the other hand, they also had a disconnection with the other side. So you get this Trump derangement syndrome. But he was able to mobilize the white voter.
Tucker Carlson: Why do you think that was?
Peter Brimelow: Which part of it that he was?
Tucker Carlson: Able to connect with working class whites. Trump is not a racist. I’ve never seen any sign of that at all. And not a white nationalist at all and hardly a Christian nationalist. But he for some reason had an emotional connection with these voters. Why do you know, there’s a concept.
The Implicit Community and Republican Identity
In sociology called the implicit community. Communities that represent or appeal to some people without actually saying it explicitly. The classic example with NASCAR, for example, why is NASCAR a white stronghold or everybody watching NASCAR is white and the NASCAR operatives don’t like this and they can’t hate it. Yeah, they’re constantly trying to diversify.
Republican Party is a classic example of this. I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it, Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in West Virginia. And you and I both remember when Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia. You know, I forget when the last Republican—I always keep forgetting when the last 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, Republicans prevail simply by virtue of not being Democrat.
Tucker Carlson: Bill Clinton lost California in ’92 and won West Virginia. That’s how much has changed.
Peter Brimelow: Right. So there’s something that’s going on at a very deep psychological level, some kind of implicit signaling. It’s baffled. Now, of course, he did say, you know, when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration and never looked back. So he obviously struck a nerve there. So he did enough to strike a nerve.
And simply by raising immigration in this sort of rather, you know, I’m sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar. And if he forgets his lines and says the wrong thing way that Trump does talk about immigration. But he did raise it. And of course until then it had been driven out of Republican parties completely. I know we wrote about it for—
Tucker Carlson: You were fired over it. Right.
Peter Brimelow: Just, you know, and there’s almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up. But then when he did the dam broken. Now what a big difference that I found, Tucker, is if you speak to grassroots Republicans as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus—oh well, that immigration’s got to be ended. The consensus overwhelming.
Whereas when I got involved in this in the early ’90s, a lot of Republicans never heard of this question and they would assume, for example, that immigrants don’t go on welfare to the same extent that native born do, which is completely wrong. It’s completely reverse 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’s not telling them. Well, the Wall Street Journal still isn’t telling them, but they do know. Maybe we played a role in that.
The Complex Effects of Immigration
Tucker Carlson: 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, you know, my tech job went to an Indian or something. It’s way more complicated than that.
And as you know, immigrant communities became totally dependent on federal benefits. It changed the incentive structure for native born communities and a lot of them started going on it at higher rates also. So it just created a vortex that’s hurt everybody, I think, especially the whites. Where does it go from here?
Peter Brimelow: The big thing that has to—the next—if I was still running VDARE and under my own website, peterbrimelow.com now what I mentioned is legal immigration. Legal immigration is still running at a million. Now that puts the fact that the foreign born population in the US has fallen about two and a half million in the last just during this year. That’s an extraordinary number.
I used to track every day the foreign born population because it’s a 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 illegals left and then swore the end before COVID it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken the administration taking to tighten up on both legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Now it’s two and a half million gone foreign. Two and a half million foreign born population. Even though we know a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% from color by the way, only about 10% white.
The Need for an Immigration Moratorium
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. It’s called the PAUSE Act moratorium. And there’s several other very interesting bills. A very good bill on birthright citizenship and look at my list here. Secure the border. I mean, in other words, they should set and codify Trump’s activities.
Tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on the southern border because we know that when the Democrats get in they’ll reverse it, but they won’t be able to do that if it’s in the law. They’ll have to pass a law and they 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. He’s just going to lie low. And I don’t know why the White House isn’t pushing these bills.
Of course he’s got his 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 very entertaining. But I would really rather than focus on ending this, ending this immigration disaster, you know, it’s whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review. I’m 78. I can’t wait much longer. I think that you just get on with it.
Tucker Carlson: And you have a number of children who will inherit the country.
Peter Brimelow: Well, that’s really the point. You know, people occasionally, 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.
Personal Reflections on Bitterness and Blessing
Tucker Carlson: Are you bitter?
Peter Brimelow: I’ve been extremely blessed in my personal life, even though my first wife died. So I don’t think, I think things could have worked out differently for me professionally. But in my personal life, I’m very blessed.
Tucker Carlson: You don’t seem angry, because 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.
Peter Brimelow: I am, I guess I am bitter at the conservative movement, people in the conservative movement, people I’ve known for 30 or 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 Loomer, your friend Laura Loomer. So that just shows how ecumenical we are.
Tucker Carlson: So Loomer helped you?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, yeah. She supported us on Twitter when we were, when we were trying to raise money to defend ourselves. And she made—I have a GiveSendGo, which I just launched before Christmas, frankly, to help us personally, because, of course, we’re now facing tremendous legal costs personally, and I believe she’s helped us with that.
Tucker Carlson: Have you received any help from the Department of Justice?
The Battle Against Lawfare
Peter Brimelow: We know that we’re—there are people in Department of Justice. 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 mortgage fraud going back over 40 years.
But, you know, the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats is jury nullification by Democrats. They’ve been unable to indict her because, basically because judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand juries 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 and, you know, this hush money case and the fraud case and so on. We should never have been allowed to go to court. The judges should have stopped it. But of course, the judges are on the other side, and a judge is just trying to get—try to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor.
I mean, what’s happening is these Democrat senators not only have the power to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also the power apparently to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors. And they’re apparently taking 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.
In many respects, you know, we’re looking at slow motion civil war here. I mean, New York essentially seceded, Minnesota essentially seceded from the union. The whole legal systems are opposed to what the federal government is doing.
Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is “the land that law forgot” because normal legal norms simply don’t apply there. What happens is what the Democrat operatives want. And of course, this is not a government under law. So, in fact, New York is seceding from the union.
And that’s why I think ultimately we’re going to have to go to Insurrection Act, and we’re going to have to go to wholesale impeachment of judges. All these judges brought in by Biden, I think he had one or two white men, both of whom were gay, something like that. All the others of women and people of color and so on. And they deliver the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law. Ultimately it’s going to have to be purged of the judicial system.
Tucker Carlson: Trump, when that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the third branch of government. But it’s been completely destroyed long before Trump.
Peter Brimelow: Right, right.
Miracles in Politics
Tucker Carlson: My last question to Peter Brimelow, and thank you so much for doing this, is are you hopeful?
Peter Brimelow: I have one of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015, is that miracles happen quite often in politics. I mean, nobody expected the Soviet Union collapse. Are you old enough to remember that?
Tucker Carlson: I’m 56. Yeah.
Peter Brimelow: I remember it like it was yesterday, years ago.
Tucker Carlson: I know, 30 years ago.
Peter Brimelow: I mean, that’s literally true. Nobody, nobody either on the left or the right, expected the Soviet collapse. On the other hand, you know, I don’t think they expected the Catholic Church going the direction it went in Vatican II. And on the third hand, nobody expected Trump.
And he has been a miracle. I mean, he’s changed the situation so many ways, not of which I think he has probably thought about, but he does anyway. So I’m hopeful because I think miracles happen in politics frequently. But we need one.
The situation right now, we’re heading a very, very bad direction. And in the situation where Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, disobey law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals, that’s more extreme than ever happened in the south during the desegregation.
Tucker Carlson: Much more. It’s more extreme than what the south did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is insurrection. Actual insurrection.
Peter Brimelow: Insurrection. That’s right. It’s insurrection. And, of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use the Insurrection Act to impose integration.
Tucker Carlson: He sent the 101st Airborne to a high school. Yeah, right, right.
Peter Brimelow: With the total applause from the mainstream media, who was then, of course, completely oligopolistic. I mean, it was dominant. At least now we have Twitter, even if we are shadowbanned on Twitter.
Tucker Carlson: Are you still shadowbanned?
Peter Brimelow: Oh, yeah. Well, as far as we can see, we are. Ann Coulter, you know, her followership has not risen for, like, six years. It’s been 2.1 million for six years. It doesn’t go up, it doesn’t go down. I mean, it’s obvious. You can see from engagement that there’s something very strange going on. It’s all the Indians he has in there. He hasn’t had the roof from how he had.
Tucker Carlson: Thank you very much.
Peter Brimelow: Thank you.
Related Posts
- Bondi, Baal, and the Dow @ The Tim Dillon Show #483 (Transcript)
- You’ve Been Lied To About Masculinity – Scott Galloway @ TRIGGERnometry (Transcript)
- Joe Rogan Podcast #2454: w/ Robert Malone (Transcript)
- Nicolai Petro: Europe at a Crossroads at Munich Security Conference (Transcript)
- Tucker Carlson: Epstein Files, NATO, Iran & China’s Rise (Transcript)
