Lydia Brimelow, former publisher of VDARE.com

On April 21, the DOJ flipped on the light in the SPLC’s kitchen and spotted a scurrying cockroach called “wire fraud and money laundering.”

It is hard to say how I learned this news—I think my husband Peter was the first person to tell me—because I got a large number of texts and email messages from my friends and supporters almost immediately. This also happens any time the New York State Attorney General Letitia James is in hot water. It’s nice to be remembered.

Quoting from the DOJ Press Release:

“Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism,” said Acting United States Attorney Kevin Davidson. “As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose. That kind of deception undermines public trust and social cohesion.”

I would argue the SPLC’s very existence undermines public trust and social cohesion. I posted to social media:

A twitter user with the deeply charming name CatsWithoutBorders was right to correct me:

The chart pictured above was displayed in the office of Mark Potok, SPLC Editor in Chief of the Intelligence Report, tracking the end of white majorities in the US and Europe. It wasn’t all for money. It was also for hatred of white people. Greed and genocidal ideation are not mutually exclusive. For 25 years, VDARE.com fought against the SPLC and that chart they found so inspirational.

The fashionable reaction among online patriots has been to post their battle scars from the SPLC. VDARE.com has too many to count—but it’s an interesting phenomenon because it highlights just how greedy the SPLC became. Being named as an agent of hate by the SPLC was so common, it practically became a credential on the right—if you weren’t named you weren’t serious.

Every new pin on the SPLC’s Hate Map ginned up fears and opened wallets among the paranoid leftists. And yet it wasn’t enough! The SPLC ginned up hysteria about racism as a fundraising tool. It was extremely effective—so effective in fact, that the demand for racism outstripped the supply. Like an undertaker drumming up business, the SPLC ludicrously labeled Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Majiid Nawaz and other clearly mainstream people as extremists.

According to the DOJ, the SPLC was not content lining their pockets merely with the suffering of the innocent. They also allegedly paid cold hard cash to the scariest “extremists” on their lists.

The SPLC claims the money was not in fact subsidizing their boogey men but a program to pay informants (“field sources”). But even if that were the case, it’s likely not good enough to get them out of charges of wire fraud and money laundering.

From the indictment:

In order to covertly pay its field sources, the SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source, ownership and control of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the field sources. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts.

[snip]

After the accounts were opened, the SPLC, through Employee-1 [who went on to become Chief Financial Officer of the SPLC], among others, executed Sole Proprietorship Resolution of Authority documents with Bank-1. These documents contained false and misleading information regarding the ownership and control of the fictitious entities for which the bank accounts were opened. Employee-1, and others, signed these documents containing false and misleading statements for the benefit of the SPLC.

I’m going to interrupt for a second here and just marvel that the SPLC was able to do this at all. Why wasn’t it stopped at the bank level?

Among my ugliest battle scars from 20+ years of SPLC attacks is vast amounts of time on the phone or meeting with financial institutions begging them to keep our business. In my swan song for VDARE.com here I listed more than 50 cancelations we endured during this period. Nineteen of them were financial institutions. We never lied to any bank and had never been accused of any financial impropriety. We were denied services because of “reputational risk”—which meant that the SPLC had called us a Hate Group.

You’re telling me that an SPLC employee was able to walk into a bank and open five fraudulent bank accounts in one day with fake documents and fake EIN numbers? There’s got to be more to that story.

Now back to our regularly scheduled indictment:

The funds deposited…were then loaded onto pay cards issued to the [field sources] who were supposedly employees of the fictitious entity…the [field sources] pay cards were designed to still further conceal the true nature, source, ownership and control of the donated funds the SPLC was paying to the [field sources].

There are rumors that there are RICO possibilities here. I don’ t know the law behind RICO but I do know that it has a way of unzipping long lines of related people who are connected by money.

I can’t pretend to be sad that the SPLC might be facing such a pickle but I’m also curious—will it start unzipping these extremist groups too? Will we see Heidi Beirich and the Grand Wizard of the KKK perp-walked together? The memes write themselves.

(Except when they don’t: I asked ChatGPT to make a political cartoon of Heidi Beirich and a Grand Wizard of the KKK, each handcuffed, being walked into a courthouse together and it told me I had made an “inappropriate request.”)

Allegedly, once Bank-1 finally (after many years) started sniffing around the five fake bank accounts, the SPLC closed them and sent their right wing extremist informants ACH payments instead. From the indictment:

These ACH payments were masked with monikers such as “Rarebooks050”…designed to conceal the true nature, source, ownership and control of the of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the [field sources].

The charges are 6 counts of wire fraud, 4 counts of lying to a bank, 1 count of conspiracy to launder money.

Note that, contrary to widespread reporting, none of these crimes is actually called “defrauding donors.” All the charges are tied to actual bank transactions.

Is It Illegal to Have Paid Informants?

This is not a question I’ve ever had the opportunity to consider before, but as someone who is actively being bludgeoned into personal bankruptcy on trumped-up nonprofit fiduciary violations, I do have a morbid interest when others run into corporate trouble. Especially my enemies.

According to Grok (an AI bot, cheaper than a lawyer), if the SPLC had paid these sources openly rather than laundering the money, but still made the same alleged misrepresentations to donors (e.g. continued issuing fundraising material saying funds would only “fight” or “dismantle” extremism without disclosing the payment), the wire-fraud charges would remain, because wire fraud = lying to get money electronically.

The donor-deception element is the basis of the charges because that’s they lying part. The money laundering (fake accounts) is merely the concealment tactic used to cover the donor-deception fraud.

But the money-laundering charge is especially serious, because it could broaden the DOJ’s reach in terms of asset forfeiture. Here’s a juicy bit from the indictment:

Upon conviction…SPLC shall forfeit to the United States…any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from the offenses…

The SPLC boasted an annual revenue of over $129 million in 2024, the most recent year reported, plus assets of $822 million including that offshore account. Can we earmark those assets for the border wall?

Or, better yet, reparations for the many victims of SPLC’s witch hunts—such as, to take a random example, the VDARE Foundation and my family?

Baby, Meet Bathwater: The SPLC May Be A Fraud But Right Wing Activism Isn’t

News of the indictment triggered a deluge of Hot Takes on X, and while many of them are entirely natural (if perhaps not charitable) there is one loud strain that is just plain Fake News:

Peter and I were not involved in Charlottesville. Peter was not invited to speak. We did not attend. We didn’t promote it and VDARE.com didn’t even cover it until it was all anyone in the U.S. would talk about and it became clear that a huge injustice was being done to the patriots who did attend.

In fact, I pled with friends to stay home. They didn’t, and their lives were ruined.

And VDARE was kicked off PayPal for our trouble.

Maybe you’ve forgotten what a dox once meant, because it doesn’t carry the weight now that it once did. But when I say it ruined their lives I’m not talking about people who took a hit and came back stronger. I’m talking about people who were physically injured by “counter-protestor” violence and have been permanently stripped of their livelihoods, their most precious relationships, their homes and futures.

Some have found peace in their circumstances. Some went off the deep end. Some of them are still rotting in jail. Some died alone.

I didn’t tell people to stay home because I thought it was a setup or a false flag. It’s because I knew Richard Spencer was a drunk, wife-beating egomaniac who would let innocent people be destroyed before he would let himself suffer. And I was right.

The SPLC paid one guy. The vast majority of demonstrators at Charlottesville were there to resist the very thing the SPLC stands for: the destruction of the Historic American Nation. They were not Nazis, and they weren’t violent. They were, in fact, fine people.

And, it’s clear now that Charlottesville was a dress rehearsal for the January 6 trap.

Look, at some point the Respectable Right will have to face the fact that reasonable white Americans don’t like watching their own destruction. That’s what Charlottesville was, a genuine response to the attack on themselves and their heritage. The allegations that the SPLC took it seriously enough to pay someone on the inside – and perhaps even encourage him to misbehave, we don’t know – while the Respectable Right ran for cover, just goes to show how shockingly uninvested in the Historic American Nation these media figures actually are.

The SPLC took Charlottesville more seriously than the Respectable Right does, even today.

SPLC Investigation vs. VDARE Investigation

It is worth pausing to compare how prosecutors have treated VDARE with how they have treated the SPLC.

VDARE

· Public investigation

· Burdensome subpoenas

· Years of discovery

· Legal bills drained the organization before any complaints filed,

SPLC:

· Silent investigation

· No subpoenas (as far as we know)

· Straight to criminal charges

· SPLC still has hundreds of millions of dollars and many lawyers on staff

One was a slow, public, financially ruinous process designed to bleed the us dry before any complaint was filed, let alone a verdict reached. The other was a quiet, efficient investigation leading directly to criminal accountability.

Why the difference?

I can think of a few possibilities. Maybe the New York Attorney General Letitia James knew we were innocent—and knew that a fair process would prove it, so she opted for “process as punishment” instead. Drag it out. Make it expensive. Bankrupt us so the truth never comes out and we can never be exonerated.

Maybe the U.S Department of Justice, by contrast, knew the SPLC was guilty. So it moved quietly, gathered evidence, and struck when it was ready—without warning, without giving the SPLC years to bulk up their resources crying persecution.

Or maybe it is simpler than that. Maybe the powerful get investigated with care and discretion and the powerless get investigated by a bullhorn and a lawyer’s bill.

I personally still find it difficult to think of us as powerless (despite our clear demise) because we were supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Turns out, the first amendment isn’t a shield, it’s a lawsuit, and lawsuits cost money VDARE ultimately didn’t have.

The Constitution doesn’t bill by the hour, but lawyers do.

Secrecy of A Different Color

There is another difference, too, that I can’t get it out of my mind.

Both the SPLC investigation and the VDARE investigation hinge on the same thing: the protection of names.

In the SPLC’s case, according to the indictment, a future CFO hid names to defraud donors. Fake businesses. Shell accounts. Payments routed through “Rare Books Warehouse” so no one would know they were siphoning money to the very activists the SPLC claimed to oppose. They protected names because the truth was a scandal, and so they could keep making dat money.

In our case, we protected names because the truth would harm innocent people: our donors and pseudonymous writers. These people would lose their jobs, their reputations, their safety, if the malicious and leak-prone OAG got hold of their names.

One of us committed serious crimes and is now indicted. The other committed no crimes and is now belly-up.

(And the SPLC probably has Officers and Directors insurance, meaning the individuals involved likely won’t have to pay the legal bills to defend themselves, the SPLC donors will be covering it for them. Is that how they intended their charitable dollars to be spent?)

But Discovery Is Going To Be Awesome

Seriously. I cannot wait to see what the DOJ finds when discovery begins in earnest. They have an entire operation of lawyers and a ka-jillion dollars in mysterious offshore accounts, but they are fighting in Alabama and not NY so they likely won’t have any kind of political home field advantage.

What do we have to look forward to, you ask?

Where to even begin??

• What exactly is going on with that offshore money?

• What kind of soap opera struggle sessions unfolded when the younger staff decided the older staff were racists or sexist or when there was union strife, or when Morris Dees was caught peeping at his 16 year old stepdaughter through a bathroom window?

• How consciously do they overstate the threat of extremists? Have they truly drunk the kool-aid, or is it more cynical?

• Why was Michael E. Hayden fired? Is he the only one that’s been committed to a mental hospital? Or all they all like that?

• Who exactly were the paid informants? Did they give any juicy information?

• What other crimes might be revealed as the real investigation proceeds? You know what they say about finding one cockroach.

• What was the nature of their partnership with the FBI? Who at the FBI did they corrupt? Who needs to be purged?

• And of course, what did they say about VDARE and my family? Did they engage in tortious interference to get us canceled? How did they like it when Michael E Hayden was caught cornering my 8 year old daughter at a private party?

What, dear reader, do YOU hope to learn from the DOJ getting to read all of the SPLC’s emails, text messages, mailings, travel records, financial records and recorded calls?

Leave it in the comments!

(And if you can help my family pay the personal lawfare costs inflicted on us by the SPLC and its allies in New York State government, please do so by credit card here or by mail to PO Box 677, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411. Many thanks).

Lydia Brimelow is the former publisher of VDARE.com, now fighting political persecution while homeschooling three daughters and helping run the historic Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia.

VDARE.com veteran Steve Sailer recently posted to his substack (subscribe!) one of his witty fiskings, this time of J. Oliver Conroy’s April 11 2026 Guardian interview with Michael Edison Hayden about his new book about…us. My own fisking of Hayden’s portentous account of his heroic infiltration of a charity Christmas party held at the Berkeley Springs Castle (he bought a ticket!) is here.

Basically, Steve thinks Hayden’s book is funny. It unselfconsciously confirms Steve’s fellow VDARE.com contributor Ed Dutton’s thesis: Leftists are just nuts.

Steve spoke at VDARE’s 2023 conference at the Berkeley Springs Castle. I entitled my introduction “The Minstrel Boy”—Steve Sailer’s Lonely Struggle To Tell The Truth [Transcript and video of Steve’s talk].

Steve’s 2025 anthology Noticing includes many of his VDARE.com pieces.

I need to comment on a couple more points about Hayden’s interview and will do so…soon.

“Are We the Strangies?”A former SPLC enforcer writes a book about how he inflicted Brimelow Derangement Syndrome upon his own fragile mental health.

Posted on Steve Sailer.net, April 12

Here is an interview in The Guardian:

‘We feel this incredible tension at all times’: what happened to small-town USA when extremists moved in

J Oliver Conroy

In his new book, Michael Edison Hayden captures the bitter saga between the founders of far-right publication VDare and the residents of a West Virginia town

Sat 11 Apr 2026 11.00 EDT

In 2020, residents of Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, learned that a mysterious couple from New York had bought a historic local building known as “the castle”, which the newcomers planned to use as a headquarters and conference space for their non-profit organization. A bitter saga followed – one that the journalist Michael Edison Hayden writes about in his new book, Strange People on the Hill: How Extremism Tore Apart a Small American Town.

The couple in question were Peter and Lydia Brimelow, whose online publication VDare was named for Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the Americas. Critics have accused the anti-immigration publication of being the genteel face of a constellation of white nationalist groups and figures that Hayden refers to simply as “the movement”. (VDare and the Brimelows dispute that characterization; Brimelow has described himself as a “civic nationalist”.) Stephen Miller, the adviser to Donald Trump, is reportedly a fan of VDare’s writing.

Some residents of Berkeley Springs

How many?

were alarmed that their town might become publicly associated with the far right, and they invited Hayden, then a researcher for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), to come speak to them and report on what was happening. He befriended residents and documented what became a multiyear unraveling – of the town, where neighbor turned against neighbor; of VDare, whose existence came under increasing financial and legal pressure; and of the SPLC, where internal divisions about strategy and labor practices were boiling over. In the course of what became this book, Hayden also suffered a mental health crisis compounded by the strain of years of reporting on the far right.

Okay!

In other words, most of the unraveling happened inside the author’s head.

From Hayden’s book:

From The Hill:

The SPLC is biased — and extraordinarily wealthy

by Robert Stilson, opinion contributor - 09/04/25 3:00 PM ET

The Southern Poverty Law Center is perhaps most notorious for its “hate map,” which not only neglects to track extremist groups on the left, but also lumps mainstream conservative and religious organizations right alongside some of the most reprehensible neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the country.

For this, it has been regularly and rightly criticized.

The controversial activist group has also become phenomenally wealthy, with an endowment rivaling prominent universities and annual revenues exceeding some of the most well-known charities in the country …

Paywall here.

… The organization’s “urgent” pleas for an “emergency” cash infusion from small-dollar donors is puzzling, because the group literally appears to have more money than it knows what to do with. Its most recent Form 990 for the fiscal year ending in October 2024 disclosed an astonishing $786.7 million in net assets, much of which is parked in public and private equity funds. Its three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar endowment has more than doubled just since 2016.

For context, this makes the SPLC wealthier than many colleges and universities, including in the group’s home state of Alabama. Samford University, the largest private school in the state with over 6,000 enrolled students, reported just $547.8 million total net assets in 2024. Tuskegee University, which enrolled about 3,000 students, reported $550.6 million in net assets that same year.

… Like these groups, the SPLC is organized as a 501(c)(3) charity, incentivized by the American public with tax-exemption and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions. Unlike them, its activities are highly controversial and divisive — two descriptors not generally associated with the word “charity.”

Of course, the SPLC is far from alone in making biased or spurious accusations of extremism. That is, regrettably, almost par for the course in our current overheated political environment. What truly sets the group apart is how phenomenally wealthy it has become in doing so.

Its co-founder was junk-mail genius Morris Dees who loved raising money more than spending it (at least on people other than his half-dozen or so wives). The semi-lovable rogue got forced out in 2019. Recently, Morris’s replacement Margaret Huang quit to spend more time with her family, and the new interim CEO is finally their first black boss.

Robert Stilson is a Senior Research Analyst at the Capital Research Center.

Back to The Guardian:

VDare’s arrival was flame to tinder in a town already navigating disagreements about the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter and Pride movements.

And that’s why the town burned to the ground!

Oh, wait, that didn’t happen.

In fact, literally nothing happened, outside of the hate-fevered minds of a few people who really, intensely hate “hate” with all the hate they can muster.

The reason VDARE bought a secure place in a calm town is because during Cancel Culture of the Great Awokening, it became impossible for VDARE to, say, have me speak in public. I last delivered a public talk, a rabble-rousing, spittle-flecked quantitative analysis of the demographics of the 2012 exit polls, in January 2013. I didn’t get to speak again in public until mid 2023 at the VDARE castle.

What kept happening was that I’d be invited to speak, but then the SPLC and Media Matters would hear about it and demand the hotel cancel the contract (you wouldn’t want The Guardian or Antifa to hear about it).

Finally, Peter and Lydia bought the Berkeley Springs site and VDARE could start holding conferences again without the SPLC’s or Antifa’s permission.

I spoke at conferences in 2023 and 2024, and a nice time was had by all.

Residents were divided over how, if at all, to react to the prospect of their town becoming an organizational nexus of the far right. Neighbors stopped speaking to neighbors, business partnerships fell apart, and people attacked each other on Facebook.

Unlike in the rest of America, where everybody spent recent years in utter concord.

In reality, this is probably one of the less politically divisive places in the country. It’s the county seat of Morgan County, WV. For example, here’s how Morgan County has voted, Republican vs. Democrat:

2012: 64-33

2016: 74-20

2020: 75-23

2024: 77-21

I spoke to Hayden about how the peaceful town of Berkeley Springs became a microcosm of the tensions defining an age of bitter polarization and an ascendant far right.

I spent about ten days in Berkeley Springs, half in 2023 and half in 2024 for conferences in the Castle.

It is a lovely place with very friendly residents. Of course, unlike the author, I wasn’t suffering a mental health crisis, so how could I possibly have noticed the roiling fear and loathing behind the deceptively calm smiles of the amiable locals?

People who pay to attend VDARE conferences to hear me speak tend to be doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs: nice company. We’d go down to the bar in the hotel on the main street of town every night, and all the visitors got along nicely with the residents.

I’m sorry Michael Edison Hayden was cracking up when he visited, but years of taking money to be an SPLC hysteria-monger will tend to do that to you.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

I bet it has.

Q. What is VDare, and how does it relate to what you call “the movement”?

A. There have always been very determined activists and groups – the kinds that my previous employer, the SPLC, would have labeled white nationalist or neo-Nazi – working to bring the “great replacement” theory into the mainstream.

VDare has probably been most influential at spreading the idea. From its founding in 1999, Peter Brimelow did almost everything he could to draw attention to what people used to call “white genocide” – the idea that whites are being deliberately undermined by non-white immigration.

And he succeeded. At the Republican National Convention in 2024, people were holding signs calling for mass deportation. That is in part Brimelow’s legacy.

Q. Brimelow, who was born in Britain, doesn’t fit what the average American thinks of when they think of the far right. He’s not a hooded Klansman, or a neo-Nazi, or a militia man running around in the woods, right?

A. Brimelow has gone through a lot of different stages in his life. He was a financial journalist, writing for publications like Forbes, before he became the person that we know.

Over time he became relentless in his push to restrict immigration. In 1995, he published the book Alien Nation, which suggests that non-white immigration coming into the United States has a negative impact economically, among other things. He received support from John Tanton, the father of the anti-immigrant movement in the United States.

Tanton Derangement Syndrome was the original TDS. All the SPLC minions have always been just insane over the late Michigan opthamologist John Tanton, a Jefferson Smith-like public-spirited citizen. He drove them bonkers with his effectiveness as a citizen organizer.

Brimelow took the baton from Tanton and became himself the most important anti-immigrant figure in the US – which is interesting, given that Brimelow is an immigrant from the UK.

When Brimelow founded VDare, he was still a socially acceptable bad boy of conservatism – this guy who says some stuff that you’re not supposed to say, but there’s a place for him. Then people woke up to the amount of racism in his rhetoric – he has argued, for example, that Robert E Lee is more worthy of celebration than Martin Luther King – and he became taboo.

Over time, he became influential in the white nationalist movement. And when that movement became the “alt-right” movement – a slightly more socially acceptable version of white supremacy – around Trump’s first election, Brimelow returned to a point of attention in conservatism.

Q. This book is partly about VDare, partly about you, and partly about Berkeley Springs. You made an interesting decision to weave those together.

A. In bringing those storylines together I wanted to capture this political moment that we’re in – how everybody in the US feels this incredible tension at all times. …

When people feel like their neighbors could turn on them at anytime, it takes a tremendous toll on everyone’s mental health.

Q. You had a mental health crisis yourself, which you describe in honest terms.

I began to have really intense suicidal ideation. I think it’s impossible to say, “Oh, this one thing is what made that happen” – there’s such a confluence of factors. But I have been covering the movement for over 10 years, and it’s not just, like, sitting and researching and being subjected to occasional swastikas. There’s a moment in the book where I took my eight-year-old son to a batting cage and the FBI called about someone who wanted to assassinate me.

Dealing with that for years really caught up with me. And I think, in a less acute form, people are feeling that all over the country. We don’t really even have a conversation about what a decade of Trump is doing to our mental health. Yeah, Biden was briefly president, but it really feels like we’ve had three consecutive terms in which Trump was the main topic of our lives. …

Q. In reporting this book, what most surprised you?

A. Well, America is a wild place, and all things are possible. And just when you think you understand what West Virginia is – when you’ve typecast it – you meet someone like Lisa Marie. She’s one of the characters of the book.

Here is this trans woman who is living in a holler, that you can’t find with GPS, on a mushroom farm in West Virginia. She’s doing open carry in town, which is her right, and has a lot of fascinating things to say about the world. And she’s trolling Peter Brimelow on Twitter, using jokes in Appalachian dialect, to tell him he’s not a “towner” and should leave.

Sounds like a Reliable Source! If you can’t trust a gun-totin’ ex-man to give you and your damaged mind the straight story, who can you trust?

LYDIA BRIMELOW WRITES: We asked you to pray for a miracle and you did, thank you, but it just wasn’t God’s will.

New York State Judge Sabrina Krauss has denied our motion to dismiss New York State’s lawsuit against Peter and myself, separately from the VDARE Foundation. Now the case will also move forward against us personally. It only took her only one day to decide.

So, we enter the Discovery phase.

We’ve seen this before. Ultimately, it was the cost of compliance with Discovery demands that forced us to suspend the VDARE.com website, even before we were charged with anything. We couldn’t keep the writers and the lawyers both paid at the same time, and the lawyers weren’t—and aren’t—optional.

This time, the Discovery is aimed at our family as well.

Discovery means endlessly expensive invasive demands, endless document production, and endless legal bills. And that’s the point—this is the “process as punishment” that the NYAG’s own Rick Sawyer bragged about [2:13] to the Anti-Defamation League’s 2022 conference, He said that, although “Hate Speech” i.e. VDARE’s criticism of immigration policy is protected under the First Amendment, he could get around that because “it sucks to be sued, because it’s massively expensive, opening up one’s whole life to discovery, ruining one’s credit and inflicting huge opportunity costs.”

Still, we do not know what miracles might lie ahead. There are appeals pending on the VDARE side. The tide could turn.

But, regardless of our faith, we must prepare for the fight in front of us.

My husband and I are immigration patriots. We have committed no crime. For 25 years, Peter ran VDARE.com in the face of unwavering hostility, educating the public about the negative effects of mass immigration. He is a loving father

and grandfather

For more than 10 years I was the publisher of VDARE.com, raising money in spite of massive censorship and deplatforming and facing every challenge with creativity, resolve and more often than not, with joy. I am a wife, and a homeschooling mother of our three young children.

VDARE.com did not go down out of scandal or abuse, and definitely not from lack of support from our wonderful donors.

It was destroyed by lawfare from New York State Attorney General Letitia James. And I am standing here asking for personal help because the she is now trying to destroy my family and our beliefs.

What we need now is money.

Discovery is expensive. We have $38,500 raised through Givesendgo toward our $50,000 goal.

But so far, we have already paid out about $35,000 on our personal legal bills and the hard part hasn’t even started.

If you have already given: thank you. You have kept us in this fight.

If you can give again: please do. The hardest part is still ahead.

And please, keep praying. Miracles do happen. We just haven’t seen ours yet.

Sincerely,

Lydia Brimelow

Please donate by credit card here or by mail to PO Box 677, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411.

And—Thank You, and God Bless.

My long-time VDARE.com colleague Kenn Gividen began his recent monthly roundup of America’s ongoing black-on-white Holocaust [TM] (27 dead reported in March 2026) with the news that the gay mayor of Providence RI had forced the removal, on the grounds that it was “divisive” a.k.a. embarrassing to Democrats, of a mural of Iryna Zarutska, the 23-year-old Ukrainian blonde murdered by a black repeat offender in August 2025. (Since Kenn posted, North Carolina authorities have found the killer mentally “incapable” of standing trial. But the Trump DOJ, obviously skeptical of justice in the minority-dominated legal system of Charlotte NC, had taken the precaution of holding him on separate Federal charges).

However, my picture above is of a completely different blonde (blondes get killed a lot in the Integrated States of America): Anasty Raine Brown, 27, shot by Renotta Renee Seltzer, 45, (inset) in Brewton AL. Brown was pregnant at the time of her death. She is shown with her three-year-old daughter.

Before VDARE.com was mugged by New York Attorney General Letitia James, we used to report Kenn’s roundup under the running head “A Month In The Death Of White America”—example here. It was one of our most popular features. Maybe that’s why James mugged us. VDARE.com can no longer pay Kenn, so I urge you subscribe to his substack AbateHate.com—it covers a lot more than black crime— here!

And yes, I know that describing black-on-white crime as a “Holocaust”[TM] is jarring to some sensibilities. But Kenn and I have been documenting black-on-white homicides since 2020. And I see absolutely no sign whatever that this problem is getting increased recognition in the Regime Media—unless you count the obviously intensifying effort to hide the Politically Incorrect facts.

It’s getting really annoying. Drastic measures are necessary.

Since the mugging of VDARE.com, I have begun to analyze Kenn’s results separately from his own roundup. In this regard, Anasty Raine Brown’s killing is especially interesting, because it is an example of new category of black-on-white homicides that I’ve recently decided to break out: Significant Other Collateral Damage.

The killing of white women by black Significant Others (boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, husbands, ex-husbands) is of course the single most consistent theme in these monthly reports. (March examples here, here, here, here). The reverse, white Significant Others killing black partners, does happen, but it is very rare. There were none this month.

Remember, these are not random killings. These are couples who have known each other intimately, sometimes for years. But the relationships still end in white death.

This phenomenon is real. There ought to be Public Service Announcements aimed at warning young white women.

Anasty Raine Brown was living with her black boyfriend (obviously new, judging by her white daughter); alleged perp Renotta Renee Seltzer is the wife of the boyfriend’s brother; she and her husband had just begun to share a house with Brown and her boyfriend. No motive is given other than reported friction between the two women. So, while Brown was not actually killed by her boyfriend, she died because she was in an interracial situation—Black Significant Other Collateral Damage.

(Presumably this means that Brown’s unborn child was non-white; hence Kenn does not count it in the March total).

March 2026 saw one other case of Black Significant Other Collateral Damage here—Evan Hall, a white man living with a black woman in Guthrie KY, killed by her black husband, Jerrell Edmonds, in a dispute over access to the married couple’s child.

Nevertheless, as always, the bulk of white victims are just innocent casualties of life in the Integrated States Of America. They fall into discernable categories:

• Crossfire. Whites are often literally caught in crossfire between black perps, e.g. in March here.

• Sudden Jihad Syndrome/ Immigrant Mass Murder. Here and here. Ndiaga Diagne, a Muslim naturalized U.S. citizen from Senegal, opened fire on a bar in Austin TX on March 1, killing two whites. There was a third, non-white, victim, Savitha Shanmugasundaram, perhaps emblematic of Governor Greg Abbott’s Texas:

VDARE.com wrote for many years about the phenomenon of Sudden Jihad Syndrome, the peculiar propensity of otherwise apparently peaceable Muslim immigrants to start suddenly killing their infidel neighbors in the name of their faith.

We also tracked the phenomenon of Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome—what seems to be the disproportionate propensity of immigrants to go berserk and also start killing people.

Ndiaga Diagne, of course, is both an immigrant and a Muslim. From our point of view, he’s a twofer.

• Good Samaritan/ Home Invasion Another twofer: the murders of Kenneth Craig Lanier, 68, and his wife Rhonda Frost Lanier, 64, in Pembroke GA. Details here

This appalling saga begins with a Good Samaritan disregarding John Derbyshire’s explicit advice in his epochal The Talk (rule 10h) by stopping to help a stranded black driver, who promptly stole his truck.

Then the black driver, Anthony Andrea Forney, invaded the Laniers’ home—they were apparently unknown to him—killed them, and stole their car.

Kenn and I watch home invasions closely because they could be sign that black ghetto crime is encroaching on the white suburbs. And here it is.

Note that Forney ultimately killed himself. This is a common ending to black-on white homicides, suggesting an underlying problem: lack of impulse control.

• Carjacking. March case here.

• Immigrants. The Regime Media is even more reluctant to report immigration status than race, but occasionally the truth leaks out. The Austin Immigrant Mass Murderer, Ndiaga Diagne, was LEGALLY present (sort of—he overstayed a tourist but got permanent residency by marrying a U.S. citizen, whom he then divorced). In contrast, Yefry Archaga-Elvir, charged along with an American black in the killing of Miles Young, 15, was an ILLEGAL immigrant from Honduras, released into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor by the Obama Administration. Young was reportedly killed because he was to testify in a murder trial. Details here.

  Of course it’s entirely possible that others of the perps found by Kenn are immigrants, but the Regime Media just didn’t ask.

• Disgruntled Employees. Christine A. Jones, a Madison WI hotel housekeeping supervisor, shot in the back by Diamond Wallace, who had been reportedly harassing her after being terminated. Details here.

  This case got some attention on the Right because Wallace told police she was partly motivated by Jones’ being a Trump supporter. But no mention of it appeared in the New York Times.

• Lethal escalation of trivial arguments. Examples here, here, here. The unheroic Derbyshiresque moral seems to be: walk away from any argument with a black. You just don’t know.

• Inexplicable random killings. Sometimes blacks just up and kill people. Example here.

Not all white victims are without agency. Drug dealing in particular is a high-risk profession. Examples here, and here (probably), and here.

That last is particularly instructive because of its sheer stupidity. A white drug dealer was killed by black perps, presumably customers, who were known to him and his family and had picked him up at his home. They then killed him and tried to burn his corpse in a car that one of them owned. They were apprehended because their cellphones were tracked, wearing items stolen from the white dealer. How could they possibly have expected to escape?

It’s chilling, because this type of stupidity is impossible to anticipate or defend against.

Similarly, one case in March allegedly involved prostitution (here). And the several cases of white men being killed in their homes by younger black men may possibly be Drugs Deals Gone Wrong—or even homosexual trysts.

Kenn found five white-on-black homicides in March, as always much lower than the number of black-on-white homicides, even without adjusting for population size.

Two deaths were occasioned by a very weird case of a white reacting to a parking dispute (here). One was a dispute among (integrated) acquaintances about a stolen gun (here). One was a Drug Deal Gone Wrong, which the four perps (integrated) survived. One was one of those trivial arguments, which in this case the white perp survived (here).

And one was apparently an honor killing in a Detroit liquor store: a white man killed the black victim after he got into an altercation with the white man’s black girlfriend. She handed him the murder weapon—a broken glass bottle. Details here.

Kenn concludes his March 2026 roundup with his usual summary of government data demonstrating that blacks are vastly more homicidal that whites. It’s boring to have to keep repeating this, but it’s necessary because of the false consciousness induced among normies by the Regime Media.

Kenn notes that FBI data suggests there may be an average of as many as 47 black-on-white killings a month, which means we’re missing a lot.

So please send Kenn tips by DMing him on his substack Chat, or email him at Abatehate@usa.com.

PETER BRIMELOW WRITES: Influencers on the Right report that doomerism is what sells nowadays, but it’s frankly hard to be all that that black-pilled on Trump’s immigration performance. Above is a chart from How Trump Purged Immigration Judges to Speed Up Deportations, By Nicholas Nehamas, Allison McCann, Steven Rich, Jazmine Ulloa and Hamed Aleaziz, New York Times, April 9, 2026. Basically—albeit through reversible administrative measures as usual—Trump has closed the asylum loophole.

I had a similar reaction this morning when a reader kindly wrote me:

I found your article from 2015 which was really cutting and tight. I think you should republish it on your Substack.

I had forgotten the article (A Guilty Elite: Immigration Beyond Economics, Chronicles Magazine, January 2015). Rereading it, I agree!

I made a number of arguments that are still valid (although completely ignored, of course, by American, Canadian and British elites, all of whom connived over immense post-Covid immigration rushes ostensibly because they believed this would spur economic growth).

But what really strikes me now is how much the immigration debate, and the GOP elite, has changed since early 2015—B.T. (Before Trump), when it was universally assumed that Jeb Bush would be the GOP nominee and that the Donorist-Conservatism Inc. immigration-good-more-immigration-better dogma would forever reign supreme.

Now we have the New Yorker Magazine quoting an estimate that seventy-five percent of Gen Z staffers working in Republican politics in Washington D.C. are anti-immigration Groypers (How the Internet Fringe Infiltrated Republican Politics: Inside the battle for the post-MAGA G.O.P., by Antonia Hitchens, April 6, 2026. I make a cameo appearance in the article for having been invited to a Nick Fuentes rally and for calling immigration to the West “Hitler’s Revenge”).

And we have this:

The White House

@WhiteHouse

“‘If you import The Third World, you become The Third World!’— AND THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS LONG AS I AM PRESIDENT.” - President DONALD J. TRUMP

3:10 PM · Apr 4, 2026 3.3M Views

Yes, I know, I know. But remember, in 2015, Jeb Bush was openly running on Amnesty a.k.a. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Talk about doom.

A Guilty Elite: Immigration Beyond Economics

By Peter Brimelow. First published in Chronicles Magazine, January, 2015

America’s immigration enthusiasts, which is to say her entire ruling class, have such untrammeled access to the mainstream media that they are able to launch obviously absurd memes in shamelessly coordinated fashion. Thus, in the wake of the Republican triumph in the 2014 midterm elections—which of course had no effect on them at all; being an immigration enthusiast (to adapt the old movie Love Story) means never having to say you’re sorry—The New Republic ran “A Radical Solution to Global Income Inequality: Make the U.S. More Like Qatar” (November 6), by two University of Chicago academics, Eric A. Posner [Email him] and Glen Weyl. [Email him] They argued, seemingly with straight faces, that First World countries have a moral duty to admit Third World immigrants approaching levels seen in Persian Gulf states like Qatar (upward of 80 percent).

The New York Times then published “A Strategy for Rich Countries: Absorb More Immigrants” (November 8), by the George Mason University libertarian economist Tyler Cowen, [Email him] making an almost identical argument, this time because recent projections suggest that the global population may not, after all, be peaking out; and wealth needs to be shared.

(That bit about population not peaking out is really interesting. For years, immigration enthusiasts like the late Ben Wattenberg have been saying that immigration into the United States should not be cut because it would slow all by itself as global population peaked out. Now, the opposite condition is being claimed. Problems change, but the solution is always the same: more immigration!)

As a lifelong financial journalist and a battle-scarred veteran of the immigration wars, I know from bitter experience that, although everyone claims to be interested in what the dismal science has to say about immigration, actually they’re not interested in it at all. They really want to talk about, or more commonly emote about, race.

However, for the record: What Posner, Weyl, and Cowen are proposing is nuts. For more than 20 years, the consensus—the consensus—among labor economists has been that the immense inflow into the United States since immigration was reignited, after a 40-year lull, by Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 Immigration Act is of virtually no benefit, in aggregate, to native-born Americans. Immigration does increase output (GDP) in varying degrees. (In the case of unskilled immigrants, the increase is often minuscule.) But essentially all of that is captured by the immigrants themselves, through wages.

In other words, America is being transformed for nothing.

Immigration does affect native-born Americans economically, however, by causing a dramatic redistribution of income: It shifts two to three percent of GDP from labor to capital, by beating down wages. So policy-driven increases in immigration are in effect a subsidy to the owners of capital. This offers a crude but unfortunately accurate Marxist explanation for the class nature of the current debate, and of the nefarious role of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Thus, what the Posner-Weyl-Cowen meme proposes might marginally increase global GDP. And it might improve the incomes of the Third World immigrants themselves. But its impact on the incomes of most First World workers—that, of course, includes U.S. citizens—would be undeniably devastating.

Beyond economics—that is to say, to anyone other than a dogmatic libertarian—it’s obvious that the Posner-Weyl-Cowen proposal is a recipe for social conflict and utter disaster. As the brilliant and demoniacally energetic VDARE.com writer Steve Sailer noted sarcastically on TNR’s “Radical Solution” comment thread,

“Perhaps one wealthy country should test run this plan first. The easiest way to test Posner and Weyl’s plan would be for Israel to cut a 10 foot wide hole in one of those giant razor wire border fences they’ve built over the last few years to keep poor black immigrants out. “I look forward to The New Republic publishing Professor Posner and Weyl’s detailed plan for testing Open Borders by turning Israel into Qatar.”

The key to the Posner-Weyl-Cowen position, I believe, is Cowen’s claim in the NYT that

Developed countries that can absorb new immigrants at a modest cost should have relatively bright futures. They will help enable a rebalancing of population that will help the entire planet. In contrast, developed countries with relatively inflexible notions of national identity, and thus with strict immigration policies, may shrink in population and lose influence.

Ultimately, then, what Posner, Weyl, and Cowen are saying here is that national identity simply doesn’t matter. And, of course, the interests of ordinary Americans (or of any ordinary citizen of the great nations of the First World) simply don’t matter, either.

For nearly 30 years, I’ve been trying to get through libertarians’ thick heads the concept of the “metamarket”—the cultural prerequisites for capitalism. Admittedly, I’m just a journalist and don’t have tenure anywhere. Nevertheless, here’s what the University of Chicago’s Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (got that?) told me 26 years ago (“Why Liberalism Is Obsolete,” Forbes, December 12, 1988):

[MF:] Let me summarize my own view. Private property is essential, but it’s not enough. Private markets are essential, but they’re not enough. Free private markets are the critical element. India is a non-free private market. In order to set up a business, you have to get a license from the government. The easiest way to get rich in India is to have an in with the government, so they’ll give you a license to get foreign exchange . . . [PB:] For example, we say the Chinese are clever people, but, as you point out, they never had any tradition of democracy or anything that resembles classical liberalism. And they had this historical episode where they apparently stagnated for a thousand years. What happened there? [MF:] I don’t know. Why has the world, as a whole, stagnated most of the time? See, you go back to the excerpt you read to me from Capitalism and Freedom. [“The typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude and misery.”] The history of the world is the history of tyranny and misery and stagnation. Periods of growth are exceptional, very exceptional. [PB:] You’ve mentioned what you see as the institutional prerequisites for capitalism. Do you think there might be cultural prerequisites, too? [MF:] Oh, yes. For example, truthfulness. The success of Lebanon as a commercial entrepôt was to a significant degree because the merchants’ word could be trusted. It cut down transaction costs. It’s a curious fact that capitalism developed and has really only come to fruition in the English-speaking world. It hasn’t really made the same progress even in Europe—certainly not in France, for instance. I don’t know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted. [PB:] Does this mean that capitalism may not necessarily be exportable? [MF:] Beyond a certain point, it may not be. It’s been successful in Hong Kong, but there the limited-government framework was provided by the British—at the same time, incidentally, that they were depriving their own people of its benefits! Whether the Chinese themselves can generate that framework is very much an open question.

Posner, Weyl, and Cowen are not socialists. Posner is the son, and putative intellectual heir, of Judge Richard Posner, a key figure in the Law and Economics movement; Weyl, widely regarded as a future Nobel laureate, claims Milton Friedman is “the thinker that has most shaped me”; Cowen is well known as the coauthor (with his George Mason colleague Alex Tabarrok) of the libertarian blog Marginal Revolution. Nevertheless, nationality and culture are nonissues to them.

Intellectually, this libertarian lacuna has been to me—no doubt because of my mundane professional preoccupation with market forces—the most shocking development I encountered after I enlisted in the immigration wars by publishing a 14,000-word National Review cover story, “Time To Rethink Immigration?” (June 22, 1992—after, let the record show, Tom Fleming’s magisterial “The Real American Dilemma,”[PDF]the lead essay in Chronicles’ March 1989 “Nation of Immigrants” issue, which sparked perhaps the first shot in what turned out to be a brutal civil war within the late, great conservative movement).

More recently, I have been dismayed, and deeply impressed, by the bitter hostility that the younger writers for my immigration-focused website, VDare.com, have for the libertarians they have encountered on campus.

For us dinosaurs back in the 1970’s, the libertarian critique of the seemingly inevitable trend to socialism—which emphatically included Nixon’s capitulation to wage and price controls—was an epiphany. When the celebrated American socialist intellectual Robert Heilbroner (I argued with him in person!) famously conceded at the end of his life that, “Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won . . . Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism,” we were euphoric.

And we were right to be euphoric. We had been right. They had been wrong.

But it’s gradually become apparent to me that no one under 40 understands this—any more than he understands how omnipresent and existential was the threat posed by the Cold War.

And these young men are right, too. That was then. This is now. And what is at stake now is the survival of the historic American nation.

To be fair to me, I had reason for hope about the libertarians. The brief intellectual eddy of “paleolibertarianism” did take account of the metamarket. But, alas, this tendency was badly damaged by the premature death in 1995 of Murray Rothbard (although the economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe keeps the flame alive at his annual Property and Freedom Society conferences).

In my 1992 National Review article, and even more in Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster (my 1995 book that grew out of it), I made serious efforts to engage the libertarians in argument. We even maintained a dedicated archive on libertarianism and immigration at VDARE.com.

But I’ve now concluded that it’s hopeless. The libertarians are as boneheaded as the Student Marxists of my youth. Whatever motivates them, it is not rational argument.

This was a serious problem for me as a financial journalist. For example, I had regularly used material from the libertarian Cato Institute in various polemical disputes that I prosecuted at Forbes. But, after clashing with Cato immigration enthusiasts, I realized (to my naive surprise) that their data simply could not be trusted. I remember cornering Catoite Steve Moore—subsequently at the Wall Street Journal editorial page and now (alarmingly) at the Heritage Foundation—over data on a different matter that he had expressed in absolute terms when they should have been expressed relative to GDP. I genuinely don’t see the point of this sort of legerdemain: It’s like sending troops into battle with defective rifles. Moore very grumpily conceded I was right.

On a personal level, however, perhaps the most distressing debates over immigration were not with the libertarians but with the neoconservatives.

I knew so many of them personally in New York in the 1980’s. Their fighting spirit, if you share their enemies in the various wild fistfights that they get themselves into, can only inspire passionate love. Thus, I particularly remember Norman Podhoretz, the genius editor of Commentary, telling me, “You do realize what causes AIDS? Promiscuous buggery!” Podhoretz is also the only person I ever saw literally hopping with rage, over some maneuver in the advertising alliance between Commentary and National Review.

I genuinely thought, when I first began writing about the immigration issue, that Podhoretz and his circle might be our allies. (They said they believed in America, didn’t they?) I actually arranged a dinner with Podhoretz, Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and John O’Sullivan, then editor of National Review. Podhoretz was polite about our arguments, but eventually turned to Mehlman and invoked their common Ellis Island heritage—to which Mehlman replied that, just because he was once a fetus, he didn’t have to be against abortion. Podhoretz instantly clinched, and the debate ended inconclusively. But I thought (and said, when I reported this incident in Alien Nation) that he was thinking.

I was completely mistaken. I now suspect (I don’t know for sure, because he seems to have stopped talking to me) that Podhoretz was a factor in William F. Buckley’s firing of O’Sullivan and ending National Review’s brief (1992-97) resistance to ruling-class immigration enthusiasm. I used to assume Podhoretz’s unspoken motive might have been to preserve the scandalous 1980 refugee statute, which was serving in effect as an expedited, subsidized immigration program for Soviet Jews. Today, however, the former Soviet Union has run out of Jews; but the enthusiasm continues. (I must stipulate that a surprising number of individual neoconservatives are not immigration enthusiasts, although for some reason they have no influence.)

Of course, intellectuals are always inclined to think that ideas actually matter. But two grosser developments since the Reagan Revolution may be more important. The first is the rise of what New York Times token-conservative columnist Ross Douthat (I suspect he’s secretly OK) has called “Donorism”: the conscious domination of the Republican Party by its corporate supporters, who care about nothing but crony capitalism, which in the case of immigration policy means cheap labor. The second is the concomitant rise of what we at VDARE.com call “Conservatism Inc.”—the new class of Republican operatives and publicists based inside the Beltway, ultimately servants of the Donorists, who mediate between them and the liberal establishment, absorbing liberalism in the process.

Perhaps anomalously, my experience since entering the immigration wars causes me to echo abolitionist John Brown on his way to the gallows after Harper’s Ferry: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with Blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”

Of course, the land is not guilty—but its elite is.

And, as in the case of Brown, and of my former libertarian allies against socialism and communism, I still believe that what now appears to be an inevitable trend will not stand.

Lydia and me (facing camera) confronted by communist infiltrators Hannah Gais (left) and Michael Edison Hayden (right) during the Bath Christmas Project’s fundraiser at the Berkeley Springs Castle, December 8, 2023. Note magnificent Bath Christmas Project tree, decorated by a retired professional. Sign up for the Bath Christmas Project’s 2026 Christmas tours!

Peter Brimelow writes: One of the very rare funny moments in VDARE’s ongoing four-year ordeal in the nightmare world of race-communist lawfare was the news that long-time Southern Poverty Law Center thug Michael Edison Hayden had actually conned Hachette, one of the biggest commercial publishers in the U.S., into commissioning a book on us!—Strange People on the Hill: How Extremism Tore Apart a Small American Town, to be published in April 2026.

It’s funny because

a) the VDARE .com webzine will have been suspended almost two years by the time this book comes out, a result of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ unconstitutional mugging of us beginning in 2022. So what’s the point?

b) the immigration policies that VDARE.com advocated were essentially those that President Donald J. Trump outlined in his celebrated August 16, 2015 immigration position paper—on which he won two, arguably three, elections. So what’s the big deal?;

c) In 2024, D. Trump carried Morgan County WV—the county seat of which is our home town of Berkeley Springs, the “Small American Town” that “Extremism” a.k.a. us allegedly “Tore Apart”—by FIFTY-SIX POINTS (77%-21%). And Trump carried EVERY PRECINCT in Berkeley Springs. So this is “tore apart”?

d) The Brimelow family live lives of boring bourgeois blandness: Lydia is a Sunday School teacher at her Catholic Church; she homeschools; I take our children swimming at a local spa and otherwise rarely come out of my basement office hole; etc. That’s about it. So?

In other words, there’s simply no There there.

Facts like these, of course, mean nothing to Hayden. A half-Egyptian rich kid married to an Indian immigrant, he is one of several communist professional doxxers, a creator of witch-hunting paranoid fantasies designed to destroy ordinary Americans against whom he has an obscure, probably psychopathic, grudge.

Hayden has been obsessed with VDARE.com for years. I suspect his 2021 attack on our “organizational prowess” may well have triggered the Anti-Defamation League’s decision to get NYAG James to take us out. Similarly, Hayden’s 2020 attack on our purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle as a conference venue (containing the immortal lines “the castle is also securely embedded on a hill and surrounded by iron gates, making it hard for antiracist demonstrators to access [a.k.a. ATTACK AND SUPPRESS] it should VDARE decide to host a conference there” ) provoked his Twitter followers to debate how to firebomb us, after which he blocked us. (Probably because we had urged the FBI to investigate this blatant inter-state terrorist threat, which of course it did not).

But facts presumably do mean something to Hachette. My guess: Hachette editors (probably generic Manhattan leftists but quite possibly their even more idiotic anti-American French supervisors) genuinely thought they were getting the goods on the next incipient Waco, or at least another Hayden Lake, out here in darkest Appalachia.

It can’t be overemphasized how much the Left believes its own propaganda. Hence the Russia Hoax, J6 Hoax, Biden sharp as a tack, etc.

But presumably this means Hachette may be seriously shocked by Hayden’s foolish fizzle. Will it ask for its advance back?

The need to keep Hachette happy may explain the ludicrously portentous tone of Hayden’s book, as excerpted recently by the Leftist website TPM (below).

Thus Hayden presents it as a great triumph that he managed to “gain entry” to the Berkeley Springs Castle.

But he glosses over the reality that he did this by the simple expedient of using a fake name and buying a ticket to a fundraiser for the Bath Christmas Project, the local charity that decorates the town and the Castle and that we allow to put on fundraising events to benefit itself every Christmas Season. The Washington Post’s Ellie Silverman accomplished exactly the same heroic feat, with equally banal results, back in 2022. (But The Bath Christmas Project i$ grateful to them all!)

All of which sounds comic. And of course it is.

But there’s a dark side too. As the late Charlie Kirk pointed out on his Rumble show, discussing why we were so upset at finding Hayden and his SPLC sidekick Hannah Gais quizzing our eight year-old daughter, the issue was not just the ethics of trying to extract information from a minor, but that Hayden himself is an open sexual pervert. (Read the Kirk transcript linked above for graphic details. Or not, if you have weak stomach).

And perversion is the back story of the minimal but highly aggressive and very well-publicized communist presence in Berkeley Springs. (As it is for the American Left in general). Without going into details, we had to get a restraining order against a local transexual who was posting salacious material about one of our daughters on social media and also following her all around the local farmers’ market; a group of transexuals open-carrying guns began arriving at Lydia’s church, until deterred by the priest and congregation.

It is undeniable that these people are dangerous—think The Covenant School in Nashville, Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. We have real reason to worry.

Interesting final point: in Hayden’s Bluesky post touting his book he writes: “There's also stuff about what was happening inside SPLC and... it doesn't exactly measure up to the standards of a civil rights org!”

Oh yeah? VDARE kept a close eye on the SPLC. We analyzed its 990s and found it was actually a huge hedge fund attached to a small public-interest law firm. We were the first to discover it had an offshore bank account (whatever for?).

The SPLC has had two major but un-MSM-publicized upheavals recently: the 2019 firing of its founder Morris Dees along with his long-time associate and SPLC president Richard Cohen for never-fully-explained workplace transgressions; a remarkable 2024 purge of a quarter of its staff, apparently aimed at suppressing a pro-Palestinian rebellion, now an endemic problem for the American Left. Somewhere in the shuffle, Hayden appears to have left the SPLC.

So maybe he’ll have something original to say in his book after all!

A White Nationalist Publication Took Over a West Virginia Castle. I Got Inside.

First published on Talking Points Memo, March 16, 2026

In late February 2020, residents of the small tourist town of Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, woke to learn that a mysterious right-wing group called VDARE [??Mysterious? We posted to a free website updated several times daily since 1999; we’re a 501(c3) charity and our Form 990s are publicly available] had purchased a beautiful nineteenth-century castle overlooking their town. The castle meant everything to Berkeley Springs. Images of it appeared on town promotional materials, and the outsiders business and restaurants owners relied on for tourist revenue always noticed the gorgeous sandstone building as they drove past Berkeley Springs State Park on Route 522. [In fact, the Castle had been effectively closed to the public since 1999, when it ceased to be a museum, and completely closed since the 2014 death of its last owner, Andrew Jackson Gosline V. Lydia’s opening it up after more than twenty years for tours, events etc. is one reason she’s so popular in the town].

With fewer than a thousand residents, gossip reverberated quickly through Berkeley Springs, and Peter and Lydia Brimelow, the castle’s new proprietors, soon became its subject. The Brimelows had a great deal of money for Morgan County, West Virginia [?? Maybe before we had to pay the costs of NYAG Letitia James’ lawfare against us personally], as well as inscrutable [??] benefactors and a fair share of infamy. My employer at the time, the Southern Poverty Law Center, labeled them “white nationalist[s],” [No! Not “White Nationalist[s]”! VDARE was actually a forum site, hosting anyone critical of the post-1965 immigration disaster] and VDARE’s website wrote credulously [i.e. presciently] about the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that mass shooters have used to justify their beliefs. [Nowhere near as much death as the Replacers are inflicting on Americans, e.g. here]. There were other reasons for gossip, too, including the nearly four-decade age gap between Peter and Lydia.

Fr. Robert Sirico officiating, February 24, 2007. Lydia was 22, I was 59. He told us: “The Church has no objection.”

My new book, Strange People on the Hill, covers a five-year period in Berkeley Springs — from the end of 2019 through the day after the 2024 election, when VDARE’s presence caused neighbors to turn on one another, taking sides across ideological divides. [Bunk. See election results above. And for that matter, Trump carried EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in West Virginia. It’s America.] The following excerpt begins on the night of December 8, 2023, after my colleague Hannah Gais and I managed to gain entry [!!!] to the castle for the first time. We did so by purchasing tickets to a local Christmas party. For years, I reported on the Brimelows, and they posted disparaging remarks about me and my family on their website [ie. we answered his smears e.g. here]. That night was the first — and last — time we met in person.

When Hannah and I entered the castle, a massive tree reached the high ceiling of the foyer beside it. White lights, translucent white ribbons, and a glowing angel adorned the tree. A matching wreath hung above the fireplace. Hidden speakers played Bing Crosby’s “Do You Hear What I Hear?”

I mentioned to Hannah the possibility that the Brimelows might not even show up. [It wasn’t our party, see above]. We grabbed champagne and appetizers from an adjoining room with a long, opulently laid table and then headed up a red carpeted staircase that split the big stone walls of the foyer.

On the next floor, we found a pristine phonograph [Lydia says it’s just a cheap plastic toy that plays records, CDs and cassette tapes. But I have to admit that I didn’t know that either] next to a painting of green hills and a white sky. They also had a print of the Karl Ludwig Friedrich Becker painting Othello Tells His Story to Desdemona. It showed Othello in front of a row of columns, his Black skin draped in Renaissance garb, gesticulating as he speaks to an older white man and a young white woman who is demurely peering up at him. [This obviously proves we’re RACISSS!!!]

We walked down the halls and found a few untouched [because WE DON’T LIVE there] bedrooms. They looked like part of a fancy hotel. [We use them for conference speakers etc.] Then we ducked into another room with a Christmas tree. It was empty and we hung out there for a minute to take a break. When we moved on to the next room, we found that it was a scullery. [Actually a Butler’s Pantry].

There were no Christmas decorations in it, just framed pictures of Civil War generals. General Robert E. Lee was there. So was Stonewall Jackson. They also had a portrait of General Ulysses S. Grant. I wondered whether the Brimelows had put them up or the room came that way. [So why didn’t Hayden ask? All the Castle furnishings were included when we bought it, that’s one reason it was such a good deal. This room also has the famous picture of the older Andrew Jackson—a hero to Andrew Jackson Gosline V—which Hayden obviously didn’t recognize].

Hannah and I jumped up another small flight of stairs and stumbled into the room where VDARE held its conferences. At the center, we found the dais marked with VDARE’s circular emblem, an outline of a white doe surrounded by blackness. Behind it was an oil painting and what looked like Chinese sculptures of white, red, and black guard dogs. [They’re Foo Dogs. Andrew Gosline, who was a Sinophile, collected three pairs for the Castle]. I found it bizarre that they had left the room accessible. [It’s because we have NOTHING TO HIDE].

“Let me take your picture,” I said to Hannah.

Hannah posed and then took my picture next. I opened my palms in a shrug at the dais when she snapped it. From that angle, I was looking at a giant illuminated wreath and VDARE’s conference tables. There were only a couple dozen chairs.

Next to the conference area, facing west [actually south], I saw two doors. Someone had put up signs telling people not to access them, and I wondered if people lived there. [What lives there are our other sixty-plus chairs, a giant teddy bear, assorted stuff, etc.]

We exited through a door on the eastern [actually northern] side of the room, stepping into the cold. We took selfies with the illuminated battlements behind us. I looked down on the silent town from there. Traffic lights were changing colors, but there was no traffic. [Ominous!]

When we went back inside, some other people had come into the conference room, and Hannah volunteered to take pictures of a couple who wanted a photo of themselves standing in front of the wreath. Then we walked back downstairs and got new drinks. We sat down together along a plush loveseat at the back of the foyer.

I contemplated interviewing the people milling around and then making an abrupt exit. But then the doors opened, the wind and cold air blew in, and Peter and Lydia stepped forward with their three daughters. [FWIW my recollection is that I was working in my office upstairs. Lydia and our daughters came in separately].

The bench Hannah and I were sitting on angled along the stone walls in a way that obscured our faces from most of the room. We turned our heads to the side and looked at our phones so it would be harder to notice us. The Brimelows talked about the weather when they came in, and some people walked over to be closer to them.

I was about to suggest to Hannah that we make a move back up the stairs when Peter walked directly toward me. Dressed in a brown corduroy blazer and matching pants [FWIW I don’t have a brown corduroy blazer], he came closer and closer and then marched past me. Behind my back, Peter fiddled with something [the thermostat] and muttered to himself. Hannah and I shared a glance. [Aaargh!]

Peter returned and hovered in front of us. He looked directly at us.

“I need to turn the heat on,” he said in his gravelly British accent.

He left. Someone pulled Lydia into a conversation, occupying her, so Hannah and I got up from where we sat and moved back to the table with the hors d’oeuvres. Two of Brimelows’ daughters, the older ones [then aged 11 and 13], dressed in plaid and white, were thumbing through a book that had pictures in it. Hannah and I communicated only with our eyes. [Wow!] We saw an opening, headed back up the stairs, and found an empty space in the room with the second Christmas tree.

“I gotta talk to them,” I said.

“Once you do they’re gonna throw us out,” Hannah said.

We walked back over to the top of the stairs, near Othello Tells His Story to Desdemona and the phonograph. There were a few guests wandering around. I composed myself before approaching.

Before I could descend the stairs again, the Brimelows’ youngest daughter [our redhead, then aged 8] bounded up to them, radiating the kind of energy kids get when they’re at an adult function after bedtime. [Accurate, but she radiates this all the time]. The girl said a few things to me and Hannah. She spoke like a child unfrozen from the 1840s. [Wha???]

“How is it living in a castle?” I heard myself asking, amid her monologue.

“Oh, it’s wonderful. And, there’s a dungeon!” she said.

The Brimelow girl detailed the time she’d visited the dungeon. My gaze hung over her shoulder, on her parents, who were chatting with someone in the center of the foyer. I decided to end the conversation and started moving down those carpeted stairs. I took no more than two steps before Lydia looked up at me.

I saw the stages of Lydia’s recognition in what felt like slow motion.

First, her eyes opened in shock. Then, her brows furrowed. Her frown sucked in to cover a row of teeth that clenched visibly beneath the curtain of her lips.

[Lydia has always been very good at concealing her true feelings].

Lydia led Peter into a private conversation, presumably warning him about our infiltration. I saw Peter straining to look for where we were.

His general cluelessness was almost charming. [??? Maybe Hayden is world-famous, but I’d never seen him before and had no idea what he looked like]. Hannah and I went to the bar and I got another drink [that’s # 3, hmmm] while the Brimelows talked. When I got my drink, I turned around to approach them. Hannah flanked me. [Dah-Dah-Dah-DUM!!! ]

Lydia stared at me like she wanted to jab a stake into my heart. She closed her eyelids around her dark irises and held them that way, letting them twitch with contempt. [See what I mean?]

“Hey Peter, how are you doing?” I said.

“No pictures of the children,” Peter said quietly.

Hannah and I erupted with crisscrossing expressions of “no” and “of course not” and “we would never do that.”

“No pictures of the children,” he said again.

“You had your phone out, and if you took pictures of my kids . . . ,” Lydia said.

“I wouldn’t do that,” I said. [But, n.b., he was obviously recording].

“You would do whatever you can,” Lydia said, raising her voice.

“I would not, I would not,” I said. “I’m not even here on behalf of SPLC.”

“What are you here on behalf of ?” Lydia asked.

“I’m writing a book,” I said, trying to project a little defiance.

“About what?”

“About the town.”

“Not about us?” Lydia asked.

I told them they had a wonderful home, referring to the castle. I thought it was the thing to say at that moment. Lydia leaned forward, towering over her husband. [Lydia is 6’ 1/2”, I’ve shrunk to 5’11” (it happens). But maybe she was wearing heels. I like her to wear heels.]

“It’s not our home,” she said. “It’s our office.”

I wanted to ask about the doors that they’d roped off adjacent to the conference room but I thought better of it. [Because he wanted to continue the insinuation?]

“I mean, you’ve spent nights here, right?” I asked.

“It’s not our home,” Lydia repeated. “That is a very important distinction. We have a house with our family, which is not this house.”

[It’s a very important distinction because NYAG Letitia James has alleged that we bought the Castle as a personal residence, whereas in fact we bought it to serve as offices and a conference space, after communists like Hayden succeeded in bullying commercial venues into cancelling on us. We lived in the Castle only transitionally, paying independently-determined rent. Nevertheless, New York State Judge Sabrina B. Kraus has repeatedly cited NYAG James’ lie, ignoring our refutation, with the result that people like alleged free speech maven Eugene Volokh (and born-again Democrat Richard Spencer, who admits he’s just jealous) get to echo it too. Note the number of times Hayden tries to insinuate it in this excerpt].

I told Peter that I wanted to interview him. He told me to send an email.

[He didn’t. I’ve learned not to do in-person interviews with JournoFa. If you do it by email, you at least have a record you can post e,g. here.

But, thinking about it, it is really odd that Hayden has apparently written an entire book without any further contact with us at all].

Then he looked at Hannah directly.

“What’s wrong with room temperature vodka?” he blurted out.

For years, Hannah and I had made watching VDARE’s holiday [“Christmas” in American] fundraising livestream an annual tradition. We would inevitably post screenshots and videos to Twitter and poke fun. In one of them, Hannah had mocked Peter for drinking room temperature Tito’s vodka. We laughed at Peter’s joke. At that moment, it felt like a peace offering.

“As a Slavophile, I simply think it should be cold,” Hannah said.

When I laughed about the vodka, I involuntarily put my hand onto Peter’s left shoulder, as you would do to a friend. After I realized what I had done, I drew my hand away. I watched Peter’s eyes monitor the movement of my hand as it left him. I continued to feel the corduroy of his jacket on my fingers long after touching it. [Dah-Dah-Dah-DUM again!!! Must say I don’t remember this].

“You traveled all the way here? For this?” Peter asked, his tone shifting to one of displeasure.

Lydia leaned forward in my direction.

“As soon as you come into town, I get a string of text messages,” she said.

“Well,” I said and stopped short.

“And I get recordings of your meetings.”

I searched myself for what she might be talking about. I remembered the night with Tanya Gersh and her comments about maggots.

[Although anyone reading this TPM excerpt must find it puzzling, Hayden is here referring to the fact that he brought Whitefish MT realtor Tanya Gersh to a meeting at the the Fairfax Coffee Shop, the local Berkeley Springs WV communist HQ,

Michael Hayden with Fairfax Coffee House’s communist proprietress Trey Johanson—recently convicted of harassment and filing false police reports, nothing to do with us—on left. Patriots visiting Berkeley Springs should patronize the patriot coffee shop, Lighthouse Latte!

where she, without ever having met us, called us “Nazis,” “worms,” and “maggots” and urged locals to begin a boycott of us, something she claimed to have organized successfully against fellow Whitefish resident Richard Spencer. Presumably she’s relented since he became a born-again Democrat].

“Well, it was certainly nice to meet you finally—,” I started.

“These people are normies,” Peter said in a low voice, putting emphasis on the word “normies.”

His eyes flitted to either side, referring to the people there. “Normies” had a particular connotation in the movement. He meant that they were people who had no connection to radical politics. Hannah and I were not considered normies because we were perceived to be in the fight — in the “cold civil war.”

“No, we’re not—,” I said, starting to explain that I wasn’t writing about the guests.

“And unblock me on Twitter,” Peter said.

I squinted at him after he made the comment and then looked at Lydia, who continued to watch me intently. It caught me off guard because of how stupid it sounded coming from Peter’s mouth.

[???Seems reasonable to me. We just want to monitor when his followers plan to fire-bomb us]

“I don’t want to get in any public back and forth,” I said.

“Then why do you attack?” Lydia asked.

“I don’t attack,” I said. “I never attack.”

“You’re writing a book called Strange People On The Hill, what do you call that?”

“It’s from a quote,” I said.

“It really should be called Strange People in the Castle,” Lydia said.

Her youngest daughter arrived at her side. She looked at Hannah and me like we were her new best friends.

“That’s not bad, but again, it’s from a quote,” I said and forced a smile.

“It’s disingenuous to say that you don’t want to get into a back and forth, so you’re going to mock,” she said.

“Well—”

Peter raised his hand.

“This is enough,” he said. “Merry Christmas.”

“Merry Christmas to you,” I said.

[Note that we did not, despite Hannah Gais’ girlish fears, throw them out.]

The energy shifted from a pantomime of collegiality to something harsher, darker, and colder than the air outside. [Dah-Dah-Dah-DUM! again!] When we picked up our coats, someone who wasn’t the Brimelows followed us to make sure we left. He was an older middle-aged man wearing black fleece. As we stepped into the cold air, he looked down on us from the big doors.

“You’re not welcome here,” he said.

[N.b. A completely spontaneous reaction, we didn’t ask for it. But this is West Virginia, which has shifted overwhelmingly from Democrat to Republican—solely because the Republicans aren’t Democrats—over the last 20-30 years. Even the normies now know they have enemies].

Hannah and I walked the long driveway to the gates. They were closed. It might not have been more than a minute but it felt like half an hour before someone opened them for us. We crossed Route 9 and hiked down the hill to the park. The only place still serving food was a bar on 522 called the Naked Olive. [Link added].

“These people are normies,” I said to Hannah, imitating Peter’s voice.

[I doubt this. Even my American children can’t imitate my Northern English accent, which apparently hasn’t worn off after more that 50 years. They make me sound like Peppa Pig’s Daddy Pig.

[But of course Hayden’s insinuation is that our fellow West Virginians are, in fact, fascists. And that’s what he wants everyone to think about white Americans.]

New York State Hon. Judge Sabrina B. Kraus

PETER BRIMELOW WRITES: This is an update that I’ve just posted to my family’s personal GiveSendGo Appeal , first issued just days before Christmas. I‘m sorry to say things are getting worse.

Three months ago, I wrote to you with a heavy heart. New York Attorney General Letitia James had just sued my wife Lydia and myself personally, threatening our family

with bankruptcy after four years of lawfare that had already destroyed VDARE.com, the patriotic immigration reform nonprofit that we built over 25 years.

You responded. More than 280 of you donated over $35,000 here on Givesendgo to help us fight back. That money has gone directly to our personal legal defense—we have been forced to hire lawyers representing Lydia and myself quite separately from the VDARE Foundation—keeping a roof over our daughters’ heads and a lawyer at the table. From the bottom of my heart: thank you.

Now we are at a critical moment.

In January, VDARE Foundation’s lawyers and our personal lawyers together filed a motion to dismiss the NYAG lawsuits. These lawsuits have no legal basis—we have received no monies personally from any of the VDARE Foundation transactions under investigation—and should be thrown out.

What happened next was... unsettling.

The NYAG took their opportunity to reply and we prepared our final brief. This back and forth is standard. Then our legal team requested a simple extension—a professional courtesy routinely granted. The AG’s office agreed to an adjournment until March 17.

But then the New York State court intervened.

A clerk for New York State Judge Sabrina B. Kraus [pictured above] emailed both legal teams and informed us that she had never agreed to the extension—despite all parties consenting—and that everything was due by midnight the next day.

Our VDARE lawyer, with twenty years of experience, has never seen a court override an agreement between all parties like this.

Our personal lawyers had to plead with the clerk directly, citing urgent personal circumstances, just to get the additional time they had already been promised.

VDARE’s reply was ready and filed immediately. But our personal lawyers’ filing remains pending until March 17.

And yet Judge Kraus has already ruled on the motion to dismiss VDARE’s case. She denied it.

It is extremely rare to see a case decided like this, before all parties have had their say.

And, as if that weren’t enough, Judge’s Kraus decision misstated the facts, claiming that we might have owned two entities that a) we did not and do not and b) the NYAG never even claimed we owned.

Where we stand now:

Our personal lawyers have until Tuesday March 17 to file their final reply. After that, Judge Kraus will decide whether the claims against us personally will proceed.

If she grants our motion to dismiss, the threat against our family, specifically, will end. The suit against VDARE Foundation will continue, but Lydia and me—and our three daughters—would be spared personally.

If Judge Kraus denies our motion, NY AG Letitia James gets discovery against my family.

And we know what that means: years more of invasive demands, crushing legal bills, and the state rifling through every corner of our lives— the process as punishment, which is what the NYAG attorney Rick Sawyer bragged about in his speech to the Anti-Defamation League as the way he could get around our First Amendment protections.

We are not optimistic.

But we are not without hope.

What we need now cannot be bought with money. We need prayers.

• Pray for our lawyers, writing under immense pressure.

• Pray that Judge Sabrina B. Kraus reads every word of our filings.

• Pray that she sees the truth: that we are innocent of these allegations, that no penny was ever taken for personal gain, that this entire prosecution is a political act dressed up in legal language.

• Pray for a miracle.

If the motion is granted, our need for this personal fundraiser will greatly diminish. But if it is denied, we will face discovery—and all that entails.

For now, we wait, we pray, and we trust that the truth has a power even resistant judges cannot forever ignore.

Thank you for standing with us. Your support—financial and spiritual—has been a light in a very dark time.

Wars in the Middle East—they come and go. But Black America’s Holocaust [TM] against White America—it just keeps rolling along.

My long-time VDARE colleague Kenn Gividen has found 30 black-on-white homicides reported in February 2026.

(Before VDARE.com was mugged by New York Attorney General Letitia James, we used to report Kenn’s tally under the running head “A Month In The Death Of White America”—example here. It was one of our most popular features. Maybe that’s why James mugged us. VDARE can no longer pay Kenn, but I urge you subscribe to his AbateHate.com—it covers a lot more than black crime— here!)

As always, despite the fact that there are many more whites than blacks in the U.S., white-on-black killings were far fewer—just five in February.

My analysis of Kenn’s February 2026 findings:

Also as always, the single most consistent theme in this ongoing white Holocaust [TM]: the killing of white women by black Significant Others.

Some examples from this month: here, here, here.

Do high school sex education classes warn white girls about this very real danger?

The reverse, white-on-black Significant Other killings, is very rare. But in February Kenn did find three: here, here, here. (Although local media is as usual determinedly incurious, the last looks like a lesbian killing—which, interestingly, would make it one of two this month).

The corollary to black Significant Other killings: the killing of adjacent white family members. As happened in January, this tragically often means white babies.

Thus Paisley Brown, 3, above, died after Jeroen Jarrel Coombs, the black Significant Other of her mother, Jennifer Kendrick, both below, bound her limbs with rope and tape before dropping and hitting her multiple times, causing deadly injuries. He was allegedly supposed to be baby-sitting Paisley and her siblings.

(Fox 25 Orlando),

An even more appalling case: Levi Cole Ellerbe, 6 months old, burned to death by Felicia Marie-Nicole Smith, black, after his mother, Smith’s lesbian lover Hannah Nicole Barker, white, told her to dispose of him. (All below).

The savagery and stupidity of this crime—how could they possibly have expected to get away with it?—is a theme that is mind-numbingly recurrent in Kenn’s monthly Holocaust [TM] tally.

(Both women were sentenced to 80 and 30 years respectively in 2022. But, because of the Regime Media blackout, Kenn only just became aware of the case. Pursuant to his system, he records these atrocities in the month he finds them).

Another infanticide, that of Harlow Smith, 3, [pictured at top], occurred because Alexander Lamar Banks Jr., 21, drove his car into her family during their walk in Delta Township, Michigan, before shooting them. Her parents were seriously injured but survived. The assault appears to have been completely random. No motive has been reported.

Nor is one likely to be.

Another case of a Significant Other-adjacent family killing: Christopher Lopez, white, and his wife Trinette Rayson-Lopez, black, shot to death by the black father of a foster child in their care, reportedly because of a custody dispute.

There was one black-on-white cop killing in February, as usual completely unsung (c.f. Derek Chauvin).

However, yet another of those Black Significant Other killings involved a black cop murdering his white wife. In other words, this peculiar phenomenon is not restricted to the underclass.

In a scenario straight out of the TV series Landman, Michael James Nash, white, and a Hispanic co-worker were shot at an oilpad site by another employee, Jeffrey Rayshum Foster, black, who went on to attempt to kill a former girlfriend (race unspecified) and then himself die in police custody for unexplained reasons.

VDARE.com used to collect this sort of black workplace rampage under the heading Disgruntled Minority Massacre. It’s a Thing.

The Regime Media suppresses the immigration status of perps even more rigorously that their race. But at least two killings in February were by black immigrants: here (Eghafona is a Nigerian name) and here.

Still, one of February’s white victims was himself a Ukrainian immigrant, Vasyl Shvets—a Lyft driver. Working for these apps is clearly becoming dangerous—here, here.

A particularly dark theme I see in February’s tally: whites who comply with black robbers’ demands—but are then killed anyway (here, here).

Maybe there’s a grand moral to be drawn.

Another theme I see in this month’s MSM reports of these atrocities: how much they’ve shocked their “close-knit,” “tight-knit,” “quiet,” “serene,” “otherwise-calm” etc. communities.

Maybe this is just an AI reporting template, like “thoughts and prayers” and candlelight vigils.”

Or maybe it’s a sign that black crime is beginning to invade the suburbs. Which could be politically explosive.

Kenn concludes his February 2026 post with his normal summary of government data demonstrating that blacks are vastly more criminal that whites. It’s boring to have to keep repeating this, but it’s necessary because of the false consciousness induced among normies by the Regime Media.

He also notes that, based on FBI statistics for 2019, the most recent data available (why?), black-on-white homicides should be higher than his counts, about 47 a month.

Regime Media suppression is getting ever more intense. Ken urges you to send anything you see to him by Direct Message on his X account , by email, or Comments on

AbateHate.com

Disliking individuals or people groups due to immutable characteristics such as race is both immoral and illogical. It is also immoral and illogical to ignore reality. The site sometimes includes satire (or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’).

By DailyKenn.com

Peter Brimelow writes: Lydia and I recently attended two memorial gatherings in the Washington D.C. area for the late Robert Vandervoort, felled by the curse of cancer at the tragically early age of 52. (Full obituary here). He’s pictured (above, right) at the 2012 ProEnglish breakout session at CPAC which he, as Executive Director, had heroically invited me (above, left) to address. (Bob also invited John Derbyshire, whose address really was radical!)

Bob paid a heavy price for his heroism. To everyone’s surprise, but following the Alinskyite tactic “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it," there was one of those obviously co-ordinated Regime Media feeding frenzies picking on (of all people) me—ludicrous demands that CPAC (and GOP Presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney!) Disavow me etc. etc.

I would like to think that, in the Age of Trump, patriots are now less easily stampeded by these communist moral panics. But at the time, we got this:

Al Cardenas, director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which organizes CPAC, said he had never heard of Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com…

"I don't really know what his values are," Cardenas said. "I have asked my staff to delve into that."

Well, I’d never heard of Al Cardenas either!

Talking of values, Cardenas and his new trophy wife Ana Navarro, also a Conquistador-American immigrant, have now retreated to occupied Miami, where they have become Never-Trumpers.

But the ProEnglish board was apparently rattled by the uproar. They declined to capitalize on it by sponsoring another breakout session at CPAC the next year. And I am afraid it may have contributed to Bob’s subsequent departure from ProEnglish.

Lydia and I owed a particular debt to Bob: when we bought the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia because it had become clear that communist pressure and corporate cowardice meant we would not be allowed to hold conferences anywhere else in the Land Of The Free, he vouched for us with the local GOP congressman for whom he had worked. No doubt this helped when the local Leftists tried to whip up hysteria. But alas, Bob was already sick and was never able to visit us.

St. Petersburg is famously said to be built on the bones of the unknown serfs who perished draining the swamp on which it now stands. When the Historic American Nation is finally reconstituted, I will be honored if my bones supply as much support as those of Robert Vandervoort.

“Canadian Bilingualism & Multiculturalism as it Relates to America“ (Yawn!)

First published on VDARE.com, February 16, 2012

Peter Brimelow writes: This was the title of my much-denounced but completely unreported speech to ProEnglish’s breakout panel on “The Failure of Multiculturalism” at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, which we post here in adapted form.

“Yawn”? Of course, I don’t really think the subject is boring. I think the public choice consequences of America’s creeping institutional bilingualism are profound. I think someone could be elected President by opposing it.

Someone? Anyone?

[See also Beware Bilingualism! The Catastrophic Canadian Case by Peter Brimelow]

Thank you, Bob [Robert Vandervoort, ProEnglish’s Executive Director].

Ladies and Gentleman:

Unlike Dr. Porter, [Rosalie Pedalino Porter] I’m still struggling with one language! So it may be that some of you may not be able to understand me, particularly in the back. If anybody can’t hear me just indicate in the usual way.

I want to thank ProEnglish for inviting me today. It’s very brave for a number of reasons. In the way back, you’ll see we have some copies of the Social Contract Magazine’s Winter 2006-2007 special VDARE.com issue which you can pick up for free. I don’t want them floating around my office anymore!

Are there any Canadians in the audience? [Sun News Network’s Kris Sims raises elegant hand]. Ah, so I have to be careful! [Sims interviewed me, but I don’t believe it ever ran. Political Correctness is intense in Canada: alas, Sun’s attempt to become Canada’s Fox failed].

If you cross the border into Canada anywhere, you’re going to see bilingual signs in the airport and you’re going to conclude from this that there are a lot of bilingual and French-speaking people in the country. But this just isn’t true.

Less than a fifth (17%) of Canadians speak both languages. That number has not changed for many years. As far back as 1931, it was 12%. In spite of nearly 50 years of intense social engineering, since the Official Languages Act of 1967, that number hasn’t significantly increased.

And most of those bilinguals live in Quebec or its immediate environs. Above all, there are essentially no French-speakers, and very few bilingual Canadians, west of the Lakehead. For nearly 2000 miles, there is almost no French spoken in the home.

But nevertheless, at the moment, there is a bill being considered in the Canadian Parliament demanding that all Supreme Court Justices be able to hear arguments in French.

That doesn’t mean having a translator and listening to a French-language argument—it means the judges themselves have to be French-speaking, have to be bilingual.

Of course, this also means, as a practical matter, that there are going to be no more Western Canadians on the Supreme Court. And that’s really the main point to grasp about institutional bilingualism: it’s about power—it’s about the distribution of power and perquisites in a society.

I lived in Canada as a young man and I wrote a book about Canadian politics (The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited). Canada is a really interesting society. It’s responsible for a inventing a great number of modern political diseases that have subsequently infected the entire world..

One of them is multiculturalism, which in a nutshell is the determination of the elites throughout the First World not to press immigrants to assimilate—unlike in the U.S. in the early 20^th century, where they had “Americanization” campaigns. Now it’s the direct opposite. The elites encourage immigrants not to assimilate.

Another of those modern political diseases is “bilingualism”.

As I said earlier, this is fundamentally about power. People like to say, “Well, it’s a great thing to speak more than one language.” I think this is hogwash, myself. I’ve never felt the absence of more than one language (I know Dr. Porter would disagree with me!) I do feel the absence of math. I wish I were better at math than I am. I think that’s because of the scientific world we live in.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about institutional bilingualism—requiring the government of the state, and institutions within it, to function in both languages on demand.

That’s exactly what’s happened in Canada. As a result of the 1967 Official Languages Act, the Federal Government, right across the country, now functions in both languages. And that means, as a practical matter, that it is substantially staffed by Francophones from Quebec. Institutional bilingualism has made a huge difference on the Federal Government’s hiring practices.

In certain areas of the county, for example, in Newfoundland where my first wife was born, or in the rural West, the Prairie provinces, a major thing that kids did in those areas was to go into the RCMP—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But that’s very difficult to do now, because of these bilingual requirements. As a practical matter, people do not learn two languages unless they’re in an environment where they hear both languages spoken. And most Canadians are not.

But the demographic realities in Canada are that only about 17% of the population speaks both languages. And over half of those are “Francophones”—Canspeak for people who speak French in their home. One out of every three Francophones is bilingual. But only one out of 15 of Canadian “Anglophones” are bilingual. So it’s a highly asymmetrical situation. Institutional bilingualism puts the majority language community at a serious disadvantage.

Now, there are basically two ways in which you can become an institutionally bilingual country. One is, you can bring a lot of immigrants in who speak a different language and persuade them not to assimilate. This is what the Americans have been working on since the 1965 Immigration Act. It has come a long way and it has created a whole new minority—“Hispanics”.

If you look in detail at the numbers, you see that 1990 was the first time the US census reported a category of native-born Americans, individuals born in the country and over the age of 14, who couldn’t speak English. It had never been picked up before.

The Census has another category, too: “linguistic isolation”—the number of families in which no one over the age of 14 speaks English. When I last looked at that, in the 2000 census, that number had doubled. And now it appears to have doubled again.

So we are steadily working on building foreign-language enclaves in this country.

But the second way you can move toward institutional bilingualism is to have a large part of your national territory that is entirely inhabited by people who don’t speak the majority language and don’t want to learn it.

The Canadians had this in the province of Quebec, where essentially all the Francophones in Canada live. Quebec is a nation-state in every sense except for political independence, and it’s very close to that now.

The Canadian elites, for reasons we can speculate about, were desperate to keep in Quebec in Confederation. So they decided to bribe it with, among other things, this Official Language policy. It created jobs all over the country. And it also had serious consequences for Canadian political discourse.

Now, the Americans are working on this second method too, of course, by considering the idea of bringing Puerto Rico into the union and making it a state. As far as I can see, every single Republican presidential candidate is in favor of this—not having given it two seconds’ thought, of course.

If Puerto Rico comes in to the Union and becomes a state, I don’t see how, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, it’s going to be possible to stop institutional bilingualism spreading across the country. (We have an article about this on VDARE.com this morning)

I said earlier on that institutional bilingualism has a serious effect on political discourse. When Canada’s Official Language act was passed, it immediately became sacred, rather like the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. It was bitterly opposed at the time, for cogent and legitimate reasons, but once it was passed it became sacrosanct, a sacred cow. It is impossible for any public official to criticize the Official Language Act in Canada.

In the early 1970s, I was an editor for the Financial Post in Canada. And a young man came to see me who was running for the Progressive Conservative leadership—the equivalent to the Republican Party in the U.S. I asked him about the then-hot issue of free trade between the US and Canada. Free trade was a hot issue, but it was fiercely opposed by the Canadian Nationalists.

The young man immediately fell apart. He said, frankly, that he didn’t know anything about free trade—this was only the most important economic issue for Canada over its entire history that he didn’t know anything about. He said that, when he went into politics, he had to choose between learning French and learning economics. And, he said, “I chose French”.

He was from Western Canada. And, you know, to learn a language so you can function and debate as an adult, is no mean task. It’s very time-consuming. I wasn’t surprised he didn’t have time to study economics.

So, anyway, I promptly lost interest in him. And he went on to win the leadership and, eventually, to become the Prime Minister of Canada. His name was Joe Clark.

But note this effect on Canadian public debate. At the time Clark said this to me, in the middle 1970s—none of you will remember this now, not even Bob [Vandervoort]—socialism was really on the march. Everybody thought that we were going to move to a permanently socialized society, with government-mandated wage and price controls. Nixon introduced wage and price controls here, long-time Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had given a speech in which he said, the free market doesn’t work, we need to have wage and price controls. We all really thought we were going to move all the way to a social democratic state.

And no one was opposing it, least of all Joe Clark, who just went along with the flow.

It’s hard to remember that now because it’s all been blown away by the great inflation of the early 1980s and by Ronald Reagan, God rest him.

But Canada was very slow to get that message. And one reason was the way in which their political climate was so messed up by this language stuff.

Canada is a warning. The way in which they imposed institutional bilingualism on federal and provincial [= state] institutions was a terrible thing. It led to the dispossession of people who aren’t bilingual. It’s been highly regressive. It’s meant that the power has remained in the hands of central Canada, when the demographics suggest it should be moving to the West, and specifically in the hands of Quebec, of course. And it’s had a highly regressive social effect. It meant, basically, that the government and the Canadian elite institutions are essentially all staffed by the same types of people—namely Francophones, and bilingual Anglophones, from Montreal and the central Canadian region.

Charles Murray has just written a book (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 ) that says the elites here are getting out of touch with the majority. Well, that effect is enhanced in Canada by the effect of the Official Languages policy.

But there is also something very good about Canadian language policy which I didn’t think enough about at the time. That is, although the Federal Government institutions in Canada work in French and English, the Quebec government works entirely in French.

Over a period of several years in the 70s and 80s, successive governments in the province of Quebec passed legislation which essentially crushed the use of English in Quebec. You could not require an employee to speak English in most circumstances. You couldn’t even display signs in English in Quebec. So for example, if you go into an English language bookstore in Montreal, you’ll see a sign that said “Romans”— which means “novel.” All the books themselves are in English, but the sign is in French.

It does have this subliminal effect that you see in reverse when you go into the Vancouver airport. You forget about the presence of any Anglos in Quebec, in Montreal—although that’s a city which they essentially built, it was an English speaking city until very recently.

I think this example of what the Quebeckers have done, although it’s not pretty, is most interesting. It has actually completely broken the back of the Anglophone resistance to Quebec separatism. If people don’t like Quebec separatism, they leave. in fact the Quebec Anglos are now the most bilingual of all the ethnic groups in Canada. But they tend to be quite sympathetic, or at least resigned, to Quebec separatism.

Montreal was a bastion of the British Empire. It is the city with the greatest number of road signs to Queen Victoria in the world. But now it’s a French speaking city. In 50 or 60 years, Montreal Anglos have gone from being Romans to being Anglo Argentineans. Their ethnic patterns and social lives are slightly different. But they’re essentially assimilated.

I think that something like this Quebec language legislation is going to have to happen here in the U.S.

It’s not enough to have Official English as the government level. I get email all the time, from people in places like eastern Washington State, who say their kids can’t get jobs in McDonalds and stuff because they don’t speak Spanish. This creeping institutional bilingualism is a ferocious attack on the living standards of the American working class, the blue collar workers—just as current immigration policy in general is.

It will take Quebec-style legislation to stop it. They’ve shown us the way.

I will finish up with a hopeful anecdote. My first wife, who died some years ago, was from Newfoundland, which is an island in the North Atlantic. It’s sort of a salt-water Appalachia, really. No French at all is spoken there. But she was completely “bilingual”—that is to say, in Canadian terms, that she spoke French and English.

This was because her father, who like all Canadians thought it would be a good idea to work for the federal government, pushed her through French in school.

But it had the opposite effect of what they thought it was going to do. It had absolutely no effect at all on her attitudes to Quebec—tolerance for them and stuff. She retained all the traditional Newfoundland attitudes to Quebec, which is to say that she thought they were all thieves and should give back the Churchill Falls. (It’s a great rip-off off of Newfoundlanders, it’s rather arcane, we can talk about it later).

The important practical effect was that we had to go to Paris every year. In fact, she was living in Paris when I married her, and she had to come to Washington, for which she didn’t forgive me for a long time.

The moral is that it doesn’t work—these great social engineering programs don’t work.

Even though Joe Clark was a completely useless Prime Minister, nearly as bad as George W. Bush, the fact is that there is a Canadian government now that is predominately from English Canada. It did not require a Quebec vote to win. They’ve assembled a majority out of English Canada alone to win, something which I predicted in my Canadian book 25 years ago would eventually happen.

Now, they haven’t actually done very much about anything—because they’re still under the ideological hegemony of the Liberals and the Official Language myth.

But it’s going to happen.

PETER BRIMELOW WRITES: New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ unconstitutional lawfare forced us to suspend our VDARE.com webzine in 2024. But she hasn’t yet got her filthy paws on the Berkeley Springs Castle in Berkeley Springs WV, which Lydia bought in 2020 as our own conference venue when it became clear that a combination of communist thuggery and corporate cowardice made it impossible for us to hold conferences at commercial venues anywhere in the Land Of The Free. The Castle is now owned by a separate West Virginia charity run by volunteers, including Lydia, and is available for private functions, weddings etc. (inquiries here). It has also hosted events by other persecuted patriots and we still hope someday to resume our own VDARE conferences there. Meanwhile, events like the (strictly non-political) Historical Tours that Lydia announces here help us stop the Castle from falling down. The tours are strictly non-political, but if any readers come, I’ll be happy to meet up with them.

Lydia Brimelow

Feb 18, 2026 • 1 min read

Spring is just around the corner, and we are thrilled to announce our 2026 Historical Tour schedule at the Berkeley Springs Castle! Join us for a journey through time as we open our doors to share the stories, secrets, and stunning architecture of this Gilded Age treasure.

Tours are led by our knowledgeable volunteer guides and last approximately one hour and twenty minutes. Space is limited, so we encourage you to book early!

2026 Tour Schedule:

April 25, Saturday, 1:00pm and 4:00pm
May 2, Saturday, 1:00pm and 3:00pm
May 9, Saturday, 1:30pm
May 16, Saturday, 1:00pm and 3:00pm
May 23, Saturday, 1:00pm and 4:00pm
June 6, Saturday, 1:00pm and 3:00pm
June 13, Saturday, 1:00pm and 4:00pm
June 19, Friday, 5:00pm
June 20, Saturday, 1:00pm and 3:00pm
June 27, Saturday, 1:00pm and 4:00pm

More dates coming soon! We will be adding additional tours, including special Apple Butter Festival weekend dates, so stay tuned.

Ticket Information:

• General Admission: $25 (Ages 6 and older)

• Children 5 and under: Free (please reserve a complimentary ticket)

Tickets are available now! CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE

We can’t wait to welcome you to the Castle!

PETER BRIMELOW writes: Patrick Cleburne was one of our most popular writers on VDARE.com (his archive here). Scandalously, VDARE.com was forced to suspend in 2024 after its unconstitutional mugging by New York State Attorney General Letitia James. But Cleburne has just resurfaced on Substack, like other VDARE.com refugees such as James Fulford, Kenn Gividen, Federale, Andrew Morrison. Subscribe to them all!

We just have to hope Substack doesn’t do pull another YouTube.

Cleburne, manifestly driven by savage indignation, does not charge subscribers. But he is also now free from VDARE.com’s narrow focus on the immigration issue, hence his recent acerbic refutation of a new book reflecting the communist-dominated academic conventional wisdom on the Vietnam War. (“In other words, 50 years after America suffered a humiliating defeat which should never have happened and for which the culprits have never been suitably punished, the American publishing industry has produced…a stale hatchet job.”)

And, although it certainly does involve the immigration issue, I’m not sure I, as VDARE.com’s Editor, would have had the nerve to drive home, as Cleburne has done here, the hypothesis for which he was developing evidence on VDARE.com: that the Biden Regime’s inexplicable relaxation of the Unaccompanied Child Program was motivated by pervert rings that extended into the (proudly LBTQ-a.k.a. pervert prominent) Biden White House.

We all know that the Regime Media will not ask this question.

But here’s James Fulford with VDARE.com links on Jeffrey Epstein’s death: BREAKING: Epstein Dead, Democrats RELIEVED!

Biden’s Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Atrocity

History will condemn all of us that this was not stopped.

By Patrick Cleburne, first posted February 9, 2026

Of all the evil things the Biden Administration perpetrated, their Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) policy was in my opinion the most wicked.

Under this, foreign children crossing the border without adult companions were admitted and then turned over to anyone willing to take them. Minimal qualifying of these people was done, and follow-up wellness checks were ineffectual.

According to Grok

“more than 552,000 UACs were encountered at the Southwest border during the Biden years with 491,762 being handed over to the Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for distribution within the US.”

On February 2 this year, ZeroHedge ran an Epoch Times update: Border Czar Homan Says More Than 145,000 Illegal Immigrant Children Located. This said-

…an August 2024 report by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General, which showed that more than 323,000 illegal immigrant children were unaccounted for in the United States.

So the Biden ORR lost touch with 65.6% of the children it placed within the US.

Furthermore

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,”

Much to its credit, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) posted on October 12, 2023 a chilling 46-minute Podcast with the accurate headline Unaccompanied and Unsafe: Biden Policies Facilitate Exploitation and Abuse of Child Migrants. This was an interview between CIS’s Jessica Vaughan and Tara Lee Rodas which thoroughly discussed this scandal. Rojas tried heroically to be a whistleblower throughout the later Biden years.

Needless to say, the MSM completely ignored this. CIS, for reasons I cannot fathom, never posted a transcript. That meant that most journalists would skip the video (more on this below).

In Obama’s second term his administration moved aggressively to expand and consolidate the illegal immigrant presence in America.

They had already realized that the standing orders to the Border Patrol to accept UACs and hand them over to ORR for ‘resettlement’ was a loophole in immigration control and they now exploited this forcefully. Per Grok, in the first Obama term some 39,000 went to ORR, in the second some 161,000.

At the time it was generally implied these children were going to relatives. Nevertheless, the impact on social services such as schools and the blatant end run around immigration laws caused outrage. The Obama Administration ignored this and so of course did the Congressional GOP: Obamacrats Stay With No-Borders/Kidinvasion Stratagem. GOP Leadership Stays Bribed

The failure of the Congressional GOP Leadership to take any interest in this matter is of course directly responsible for the hugely intensified use of this loophole in the Biden years. As noted, referrals to the Office for Refugee Resettlement more than tripled over the already egregious second Obama term.

When Biden’s managers gained power in January 2021, they immediately shut down US border enforcement. This had actually been the Democratic Party’s objective since Obama’s second term: Pelosi Stated Obamacrat Immigration Policy: Not Open Borders: NO Borders. GOP/AdelZuck response: Zzzzz. By 2023 they were even transporting in by air hundreds of thousands of “refugees’ they had recruited: Regime Media Rushes To Cover Up Biden’s Flying In 320,000 Illegals In 2023.

Estimates of the numbers admitted and crossed illegally range up to 10 million. The equivalent number in Trump’s first term was 1 million. (Numbers per Grok).

With this great leap forward in the Great Replacement, why was the messy and expensive Unaccompanied Alien Children loophole exploitation expanded? Children could and did cross with Parents and the entire Biden border policy was an end run around immigration law. Yet the Biden Administration hugely increased the risks to all unaccompanied child illegal aliens by dismantling virtually all vetting of would-be sponsors - and continued to try weakening them. Compared to the overall influx they engineered, the incremental UACs numbers were modest.

Distressingly, I believe the answer lies in the possibility I raised in COULD The Biden Regime POSSIBLY Have Ramped Up The Unaccompanied Child (UAC) Program… To Supply Pedophile Rings?

Many of these kids are made to work for unscrupulous employers, their sponsors acting as gangmasters. But I doubt the anticipated profitability of this could have been such as to induce the Biden Mob to make the sweeping regulatory changes that they did.

What would be profitable enough: sex.

My theory: Perverts in the Biden Administration and their friends in the prostitution Industry pushed through these changes, for their profit and pleasure. In this depraved Age, of course, little boys are as vulnerable as little girls.

In the course of this essay I presented an 800-word synopsis of the 46- minute CIS discussion between Jessica Vaughan and whistleblower Tara Lee Rojas. It starts

Both ladies put sex-trafficking front and center of their concerns). They mentioned it repeatedly. For instance, at 10:05 Rodas tells of a young girl complaining she did not know the woman she had been placed with, who was pimping her out.

Biden employed some very strange people as Pádraic O’Bannon noted in: Maybe the Biden Regime IS Sex Trafficking Kids. After All, It Hired An Advocate For Underage Homosexual Prostitution.

Sex sells newspapers. But not in the Biden era where UACs where concerned. VDARE noted in in MSM Ignores Veritas' Expose of Biden Child Sex & Labor Trafficking that a powerful two-part James O’Keefe documentary was shut out in 2022.

Tellingly, when the New York Times got around in 2023 to running a story on the situation: As Migrant Children Were Put to Work, U.S. Ignored Warnings by Hannah Dreier April 23 2023 interest was shown in cruel employers and delinquent Federal officials, but none at all in the glaringly obvious risk of sex predation.

Dreier continued to evade the issue the following year as discussed in Biden Perverts’ Child Trafficking Scandal—NEW YORK TIMES Starts Shifting Blame To Capitalism And (Guess Who!) Whites. (Link to her story here). This is bizarre, not to say delinquent behavior.

In all likelihood, fear of antagonizing the powerful LGBTQ lobby lay at the root of this unprofessionalism - if not actually ordered by such forces in the NY Times management.

Revolver noted on February 3 And just like that, Pizzagate is back in the news… This points out that the discovery of child sex rings in countries like Australia and suspicious references in the Epstein files makes dismissal of those 2016 rumors more questionable:

It means don’t shut up just because the wrong people are uncomfortable.

Democrats in general have been conspicuously uninterested in the fate of Biden’s UACs. But the Congressional Republicans have not been much better. An honorable exception to this was Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley: Hawley Almost Goes There, Hints That Traitor Joe’s Regime Is Sex Trafficking Illegal-Alien Kids. (This essay provides the happy news that President Biden boasted

‘nearly 14% of his 1,500 agency appointees identify as LGBTQ”)

The culprits in this dreadful scandal have two problems. First, President Trump appears to have ordered vigorous investigation into the facts (as yet not impeded by federal judges). Second, there are hundreds of thousands of young people who actually experienced this treatment. As they grow up and become articulate, horrible stories will emerge. And these will probably be seized upon by the ethnic-grievance specialists among the growing crew of rent-seeking Hispanic politicians.

America will then have to decide whether to be more ashamed of the atrocity or the coverup.

See also Are Biden Regime Perverts Facilitating Child Sex Trafficking, Child Labor Abuse?

and

View Powerful Muckraker Video On How Biden’s Alien Kid (Sex?) Trafficking Is Being Paid For By You

Funny thing: January saw another BLM-style elite moral panic breaking out because two communists decided to commit Suicide By Insurrection in Minneapolis—but absolutely no concern that there were THIRTY-FOUR (34) black-on-white homicides found in the same month, as opposed just two (2) white-on-black homicides, both arguably self-defense.

And this happens every single month. FBI data for 2019, the last year available (why?), reported the year’s total of black-on-white homicides at 566, which implied an average of some 47 a month. But my long-time VDARE.com colleague Kenn Gividen can’t usually find that many killings in his monthly survey (January survey here), basically because racial Hate Facts are increasingly suppressed by the Regime Media. (Subscribe to Kenn’s AbateHate.com—it covers a lot more than black crime— here!)

Similarly, Kenn reports that one of his sources, the National Gun Violence Memorial, has now apparently blocked him. Needless to say, the gun-grabbing Leftists who run it don’t report race, but Kenn was often able to use the pictures they post to figure out the truth. So, given the totalitarian reflexes of the modern American Left, he must be suppressed!

Before VDARE.com was mugged by New York Attorney General Letitia James, we used to report Kenn’s work under the running head “A Month In The Death Of White America” (Example here). Maybe that’s why she mugged us.

What is going on here is a Holocaust (TM) and it’s a scandal and a disgrace that no Regime Media outlet is covering it by listing each month’s victims, as we did at VDARE.com. The imploding Washington Post deserves its fate.

Haitians are also in the news, because of Biden-appointed immigrant kritarch Ana Reyes’s absurd February 2 attempt to prevent the Trump Administration from allowing their 16-year (!) Temporary Protected Status to expire.

And, right on cue, we have a Haitian killer: daycare employee Theah Loudemia Russell, pictured above, who choked 11 month Hervey Mucklebust to death by forcing her fingers down his throat. Incredibly, Russell had earlier attacked another child similarly and had a record of erratic behavior, but was still employed.

All of which raises the question, again, of what exactly the authorities are doing in Minnesota. (This happened in a suburb of Minneapolis).

The Regime Media don’t ask whether Russell was a TPS beneficiary, of course. But she is reported to have made frequent trips to her native Haiti—showing, despite the ululations, that it’s actually safe enough for TPS beneficiaries to return.

(The immigration status of perps is suppressed even more intensely than their race, but at least three in Kenn’s January haul appear to be immigrants: here, here, here).

Heartbreaking especially to parents, Kenn reports another case of fatal white child abuse: 17-month Kai Tesoro died from abuse inflicted by his mother’s black boyfriend, Christian Moniz Rabino. Incredibly, after a plea deal, Rabino was sentenced only to probation.

The killing of white women by black Significant Others is the single most consistent theme we find in Kenn’s work. Examples this month: here, here, here.

The reverse is very rare.

But in January 2026 another aspect of the black Significant Other problem was noticeable: the collateral killing of the miscegenating woman’s white family members by her black Significant Other.

Kai Tesoro, above, is just one. Perhaps the most telling example: Charles Broomfield, the black estranged fiance of Jacqueline Neil, white, shot her and her two white teenaged sons to death—while sparing his own mixed-race son with Neil.

Another example of a Black Significant Other Collateral Killing here.

Some other themes:

• Good Samaritan killings. Rule (10h) of John Derbyshire’s epochal The Talk was “Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.” VDARE.com continued to post proof as long as it was in existence. January 2026 saw two examples: here, here.

• Drug deals gone wrong. Drug deals are just dangerous for whites. January 2026 examples here, here.

• Social relationships with blacks are just dangerous. This again is John Derbyshire territory. For example, I (and apparently others) suspected that one appalling case in January 2026, the killing by Nijyle Lewis, 25, black, of Amanda Smith, 23,white, along with her white mother and brother, might be yet another case of Black Significant Other/Collateral Killing. But it seems, at least according to the Regime Media and the police (who of course can’t be trusted but why would they lie, they support miscegenation?), that Lewis was just an “associate,” not of Amanda Smith, but of her mother.

  Another example here.

• Whites caught in black crossfire. Example here.

• Utterly inexplicable random killings. Enduring these seems to be part of the price of integration. January 2026 example here.

• Social media sales meetups. Something I don’t remember noticing before: the killing of whites who meet up with blacks to make a sale or purchase arranged over social media. It looks like this is the New Mugging. January 2026 examples: here, here.

Kenn concludes his January 2026 post with his normal summary of government data demonstrating that blacks are vastly more criminal that whites. It’s boring to have to kee repeating this, but it’s neccessary because of the false consciousness induced among normies by the Regime Media.

Just as it is now doing about ICE.

Peter Brimelow writes: Tucker Carlson’s reach is amazing. This interview was posted at 2:30 p.m. January19 and at 7 p.m. two people came up to me at a meeting I was attending in downtown Berkeley Springs WV to congratulate me.

I’m posting here the lightly-edited transcript with supporting links provided by my long-time VDARE.com lieutenant James Fulford (subscribe to his substack). My subtitle is Tucker’s. Thanks to everyone.

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

TC: Peter Brimelow, thank you so much for doing this. I thought of you last week when I read this. I don’t know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.

This is a tweet less than a week ago from a basically anonymous account and I’m quoting: “If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority. Then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when there are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive.”

Elon Musk retweets it and says “100 percent .” And then Elon Musk writes this: “If current trends continue whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct!”

All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it.

But I read that and I thought, here’s the world’s richest man, who owns this platform and a lot of other things, saying this. And Peter Brimelow, whom I know, who’s a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for than that.

So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.

PB: It feels kind of tingly!

TC: Tingly?!

PB: On the one hand, I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction and the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on VDARE.com, which was my website, about Birthright Citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.

On the other hand, we’ve been ruined, and we’re now facing personal ruin of course, because of this attack on us by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

As nobody knows who I am Tucker, I should say that, in spite of my accent, I’ve been here for 55 years and I’m a long-time financial journalist. I worked for Forbes and Fortune and Barron’s and so on.

And I wrote for National Review a lot. I wrote a cover story on immigration in 1992, “ Time To Rethink Immigration,” that’s sometimes credited with kicking off the modern debate.

And there was a brief civil war within the Conservative Movement, which we lost. Buckley stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.

And for the next while, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page was absolutely dominant, they were going on about the need for Amnesty and so on, 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 it up into quite a force until about two years ago it was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. She just basically subpoenaed us to death. And she has in fact now sued us both personally and through the foundation.

So we’re a bit like General Flynn, you know. No middle class family can stand up to this. General Flynn had to sell his house and we’re going to be driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess.

TC: It’s a horrifying story. I’ve kept abreast of it through your wife who texts me and is 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. 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 the then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back. Can you tell the story?

PB: Sure. I was never on staff at National Review, I was what they called a Senior Editor, and I wrote for it a lot. In 1992, I wrote this very long cover story, it’s about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the Editor by 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 Conservatism Inc. 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 is still saying as far as I can tell.

Then in 1997, Bill just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O’Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told them to shut up about immigration, which of course they all eagerly did. He put the Washington Bureau in charge, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru.

And so for two or three years you couldn’t get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public. But then the internet came along and rescued us. And I started VDARE.com.

TC: But why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O’Sullivan run it (another Brit—

PB: Yes, indeed.

TC: —who now is in Budapest) stepped back in to shut down that conversation specifically?

PB: Of course, I’ve had nearly 30 years to think about that. Over time, my answer’s evolved.. At the time I thought he was just jealous. This is actually a thing that you see–I was a financial journalist for a long time—in the corporate world. The original entrepreneurs will come back and fire the managers that they put in to replace themselves.

Also, I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors, That was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then-Republican majority in the House.

TC: So the Republican leadership, Newt Gingrich, etc., who came in in 1994 to much fanfare, achieved not a lot, they’re the ones who pressured Bill Buckley?

PB: I think that was true, but I also think that the Neoconservatives in New York hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neocons, people like [Commentary Magazine Editor] Norman Podhoretz. And I think they pressured him—I mean, I know they pressured—to get rid of John.

TC: Now, why would they care?

PB: Oh, because the Neoconservatives were a predominantly Jewish faction. They had this sort of Ellis Island view of America. And they were extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they felt as Jews that it might leave them out in the cold.

TC: 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?

PB: Right

And I actually think there was a certain jealousy there. If you look at ideas on the Right in recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism. But here was a non-neoconservative faction—we would have then described ourselves as paleoconservatives—coming up with a whole new issue .

Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when Hart-Celler 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 that they hadn’t discussed immigration between the passage of the 1965 Act until the early 1990s. People simply didn’t realize what was going on.

TC: Why?

PB: 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.

It’s like academic life. Where there’s a new academic theory. It’s not that it conquers the other theories by having better arguments. It’s just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off, and they’re replaced by younger academics.

And that’s true for politicians too. A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue. I include Ronald Reagan in that. Immigration simply wasn’t an issue when he was growing up.

And that’s why he was hornswoggled by the IRCA Amnesty in 1986. He genuinely thought that 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.

TC: But I’m a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force.

PB: Let me just back up a second. Looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor-driven. And we weren’t aware of that in the 1990s. I didn’t think about donors and their role in politics really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued about issues. We just simply didn’t realize how dominant and how important the donors are.

Particularly given that Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. He depended on National Review financially. It financed his lifestyle to a considerably extent. And I think that—

TC: Wait, he depended on the magazine?

PB: Yeah, yeah—

TC: I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended upon him.

PB: That’s what he wanted you to think!

TC: And the winters in Gstaad and the sailing across the Atlantic, the Bermuda race and-

PB: 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. The more I think about it, the more I think that probably was the reason.

TC: Basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code. I mean 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.

PB: My experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When you went to those dinners he used to put on at [the Buckley NY pied a terre] 73 East 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, in writing these silly novels and so on. He basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics.

I have a letter from him, actually, saying how wonderful my immigration story was. I forget exactly what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect. That sort of stuff.

He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just told them to stop covering it. The official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable. They just didn’t do any journalism on it.

Which is how he was about drug legalization. He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about it.

TC: Huh! Why?

PB: I guess he was balancing a number of issues.

In the case of immigration—immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the early 1990s…

TC: I remember!

PB: As we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on Megyn Kelly. And he was attacking you for some reason or other, I forget what. And then he suddenly says, well, ““Tucker has been a wonderful advocate in the past, particularly on the immigration issue.”

Well, as I understand it, you’re interested in the idea of an immigration moratorium.

TC: Of course.

Well, this is news to me!—that’s what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about your views on immigration! 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.

In those days, if you advocated immigration control, you were immediately suspected 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 was very friendly with Norman Podhoretz—he didn’t talk to me for the last 10 years of his life, he died just a few weeks ago, at the age of 95—and just before he’d died gave an interview in which he said he’d changed his mind on immigration! He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed!

And he credited John O’Sullivan, the Editor of National Review, for helping change his mind. He didn’t mention me!

TC: Why didn’t he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life?

PB: Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character. And I had deviated on the immigration issue.

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 boneheaded on the immigration issue.

TC: He’s certainly a lightweight. It’s hard to know what he believes or doesn’t, but if Jonah Goldberg is your intellectual force, then you’ve been degraded.

PB: Well, Norman 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.

TC: I knew her. She was a great person, actually.

PB: So I replied and said that. And he didn’t get back to me. He just gradually suspected me more and more of Thought Crime.

And Norman was an extremely passionate man—

TC: [Laughing] Oh, so famously!

PB: He didn’t socialize with opponents.

I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry that….

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

PB: And we actually owe his wife Midge Decter a lot because she was the Chairthing of the Philadelphia Society, which is a conservative affinity group, and she invited me to speak on immigration in 2005. My first wife had just died, and that’s where I met my current wife, Lydia, who of course ran the VDARE Foundation with me, she was the publisher of VDARE.com. And you’ve had her on of course.

[Transcript of Lydia’s interview with Tucker here].

TC: 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?

PB: 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?”

TC: What?

PB: 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. So Buckley didn’t want to admit that he was dumping them both.

So he got really ruffled, because he wasn’t used to being challenged. He said “He’s resigned to write a book! He’s resigned to write book!” And we basically never 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. If you were Senior Editor, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events, to Buckley’s dinners and that kind of thing.

And I never wrote for it again.

TC: Why did they dismiss you, do you think?

PB: The Washington Bureau was always upset with the immigration issue because it embarrassed them in Washington cocktail parties. And Buckley put the Washington Bureau in charge of the magazine. So they were happy to do it. And they didn’t want to write about immigration.

And I think also, you know, mud sticks, Tucker.

TC: Mud sticks.

PB: So, you know, this constant whispering campaign of how I was a racist and anti-Semite for raising these issues, it has stuck. So that, even though Ben Shapiro is now in favor of just talking about immigration, I don’t see him apologizing to me.

TC: Of course not. He doesn’t care about you, or other people, at all.

PB: I just had a really interesting experience: Lydia and I were at an ISI book event and I bought Matthew Continetti’s book [The Right The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism]. I mean I actually bought it, I put down my money! it’s a rotten, awful book, says I was born in Canada, which I obviously wasn’t.

TC: Well, he’s a silly—I’m mean, this is Bill Kristol’s son in law.

PB: Bill Kristol’s son in law, well, that’s the point. I like to collect inscribed books—in fact I forgot to bring your book, I’m sorry—and he wouldn’t inscribe it. He said: “I have nothing to say to you.”

TC: On what ground? I mean, I don’t think you’ve ever said an antisemitic thing—that I’m aware of—in your life.

PB: Well, Continetti is a convert, of course , so he’s probably particularly ardent.

But the weird thing about this was that Continetti has actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think of his father-in-law.

TC: But he said to your face, “I won’t inscribe your book because I have nothing to say to you?”

Peter Brimelow: Essentially. It was kind of surprising.

We live out there in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia and we don’t have to face this stuff. But I guess when you were in DC, you faced it all the time.

TC: Yeah, well, I left, But I also believe in forgiveness, and that’s kind of the difference, I think. We’re commanded to believe in forgiveness and to treat people as human beings.

PB: Well, Norman did not believe that.

TC: No, I’m very aware of that!

PB: It was a principled position with him!

TC: It’s a principle, but it’s a satanic principle that you can’t forgive other people. That is, you’re not forgiven if you don’t. So that’s my view. But wow, that’s amazing.

PB: Well, the thing is, he’d already signed the book, so I couldn’t return it and get my money back!

Whereas, conversely, Yoram Hazony was also there. As you know, he disinvited us from his National Conservative Conference because he was trying to gatekeep. And so we had a series of bitter exchanges in VDARE.com. But Hazony was perfectly friendly and he signed his book The Virtue of Nationalism and inscribed it and we chatted about children and grandchildren and so on.

TC: Yoram Hazony is a very courtly man, a very charming and warm person. I had lunch with him once. I don’t agree with him on a lot, but I liked him. It’s hard not to like him.

PB: I think he’s very good, a lot of the stuff he says about conservatism is exactly accurate.

TC: I think that’s right.

PB: He’s moving it away from being classical liberalism.

The problem of course is that he’s caught in this bind because he doesn’t want to admit that Israel is an ethnostate, because he does not want America to have an ethnostate. He wants it to be a civic nationalist state.

TC: What do you mean? Israel is by its own description an ethnostate. (That’s not an attack, by the way).

PB: I’ve never been able to get him to explain how you cannot say that there’s a racial component to Israel when of course the Jewish religion is racially-based. That’s why they have the matrilineal principle: you’ve got to have a Jewish mother.

And I’ve never seen him respond to that, and I don’t think he can, because he doesn’t want to encourage straight-up white nationalism in America.

TC: 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. They can have whatever state you want, as far as I’m concerned. But it is an ethnostate. By definition. The people who founded it were not religious. A lot of them were atheists. And they identified as Jewish racially.

Again, I’ve no problem at that at all. That’s their 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?.

PB: That’s my reading of what he’s saying.

But it’s one of these situations where his civic nationalism is so intense that it might just as well be ethnic nationalism. A lot of things he says about immigration to the US are excellent.

TC: Right. 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.

PB: Well, it’s what Orwell called double-think, isn’t it? You’ve got to believe two contradictory things at once. It’s necessary to operate in large parts of the political world!

TC: So why wouldn’t people who support an ethnostate in Israel want one here?

PB: This is the profound question about the Jewish role in the American immigration debate. They’re overwhelmingly pro-immigration. However, having said that, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you’ll know there are Jews on the other side, and some very ardently on the other side

TC: Oh, I know! And I know a lot of them, That’s why I would never be anti-Semitic. You can’t generalize.

PB: 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, he’s going to be the first Jewish president.

I like to say this because the prospect horrifies people so much!

But he’s like Benjamin Disraeli in Britain. Disraeli of course, was Jewish, but his father took the whole family over to Episcopalianism when he was young.

Disraeli basically reinvented the Conservative Party in the 19th century. He came up with a complete Grand Strategy for it, based on the British Empire and imperial patriotism.

And that really carried the party through for the next 80, 90 years. The Conservative Party was the Nationalist party, and because of being a Nationalist party it got a very substantial working class vote. Because it is the blue collar workers who are the patriots. And the Conservatives were able to tap into that.

Miller’s done the same thing. He’s invented a Grand Strategy for the Republican Party—which it desperately doesn’t want to take up because it’s run by cowards and fools. He thinks they should move towards stabilizing America’s ethnic balance and eliminating this post-1965 inflow, which is causing all kinds of problems. And he’s not afraid to say that.

And not only that, but he had the cunning to survive the Kushner White House.

TC: Yes.

PB: And that was really extraordinary because Jared Kushner, of course, believed exactly the opposite. He’s basically a liberal New York Jew. But for some reason, Miller was able to survive. I couldn’t have done that.

And I couldn’t have abandoned Jeff Sessions in the way that Miller did. Miller was his closest aide; Sessions was his mentor. And then Miller abandoned him when Trump turned against him.

I couldn’t have done that either. But then he’s in the White House and I’m not!

TC: I think those are all fair and true observations.

It’s interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a demographic project. It has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white.

They’ll say that. It’s not controversial. 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 the whole point is to make America less white.

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?

PB: I have to say that Kennedy didn’t say that—

TC: At first.

PB: Yes. When he was the floor manager of the Hart-Celler Act, he gave very explicit assurances—

TC: Yes.

PB: —which we love to quote, saying this this will not alter the racial balance of America and it will not mean a million people will be coming in. Whereas in fact a million people a year are coming in.

And that’s one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having VDARE.com, even though I have my own peterbrimelow.com Substack. Because we’ve got to get legal immigration into the debate.

I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable, more remarkable than people realize. But he’s not doing anything on legal immigration.

But I’m sorry, that means I’ve not answered your question. What was your question?

TC: 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.

PB: Well, when I was writing my 1995 book on immigration—Alien Nation— that flowed out of my cover story, and which Harper Collins refused to reprint, I quoted a man called Earl Raab who was a Jewish activist, who 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, party in America impossible.

[PB: Actually, he did, sort of]

In fact it does the exact opposite, it makes it more likely.

TC: Well, exactly.

PB: But he did say that, he quite frankly said that this is why most Jews favor—

TC: It’s also made possible 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.

PB: Well, look at the New York mayoral race. Mamdami won because of the immigrant vote. The native-born American New Yorkers—and look at who they are, for God’s sake—voted against Mamdani.

So they’ve really screwed themselves up.

TC: This hasn’t worked. If your interest was to keep anti-Semitism and really crazy anti-Israel sentiment to a minimum—and I agree with that, I’m against antisemitism and basing your life on hating Israel—if that was your goal, you literally achieved the opposite result. Is that fair to say?

PB: Not for the first time.

TC: Yeah. Fair, fair. So maybe think maybe that wasn’t the goal. I’m just guessing here. Maybe there was another goal that we don’t understand.

PB: Well, I think a lot of it is deeply emotional and can’t be analyzed intellectually. There’s just a whole series of reflexes.

TC: Or spiritual.

PB: But, for example, we know that the New York Attorney General’s attack on was VDARE.com was instigated by the Anti-Defamation League, because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit 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 conferences anywhere else.

The donor was Jewish.

We had all kinds of Jewish donors and all kinds of Jewish writers. But that doesn’t make any difference to the ADL, apparently.

TC: Now to what happened to you and to VDARE. 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.com. And it becomes successful, it becomes big and it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s not racist, it’s against changing America’s population through immigration. Is that a fair summary?

PB: Well, I stayed in financial journalism for a long time. VDARE.com was kind of a moonlighting project initially.

TC: How’d you pull that off?

PB: It was very difficult. And, of course, eventually it became impossible. I was fired both from Forbes and from what used to be CBS Market Watch, it became Dow Jones Market Watch. In both cases, it was during turn-downs in the market, but they chose to fire me rather than people who were frankly less valuable to them.

So it did in the end terminate my career in the Main Stream Media.

But, on the other hand, we were developing VDARE.com very rapidly and it became quite a big deal. In 2019 we raised some four million dollars which enabled us to buy the Castle and do all kinds of other things.

Of course, it’s been utterly destroyed now. It was suspended two years ago—the whole site is still online thanks to volunteers, but we’re not updating it—and I resigned.

So I’m supporting the family now on pensions and savings and so on. And I do have a family, I have minor children. So it’s kind of irritating.

TC: Irritating doesn’t begin to describe it.

So tell the story if you would. You’re running VDARE and somehow Letitia James, who’s the—

PB: She’s the Attorney General of New York State. VDARE is a 501©3 charity and it was registered in New York State in 1999 entirely because our then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred there and it was convenient for him. This was there was a Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of lawfare or Letitia James. The idea of this kind of exploitation of regulatory power had never occurred to anybody.

Well, because we were registered in New York, even though we don’t operate in New York, one day we woke up and found we had been hit with 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 our email, she would have the names of our donors and our pseudonymous writers. And I had people writing for me whose careers would have been ruined if they were found out.

TC: So you’re not domiciled in New York, you’re not operating in New York, but the 501c3 is registered in New York?

PB: And you can’t get out, you’ve got to have her permission to get out.

TC: You can’t change states?

PB: Only with her permission. And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 501c3 and start operating out of that, she could claim that we were transferring assets and claim jurisdiction over that. It’s a huge mess. We had very expensive lawyers looking at it for a long time even before she came along and hit us.

TC: But may I ask on what grounds she should subpoena you in West Virginia?

PB: They don’t have to give grounds. What she said was she wanted to investigate the castle purchase, which we did, or more accurately I should say Lydia did, in 2020.

Because as you know, we had maybe a dozen, depends how you count, but a dozen or 15 conferences canceled our conferences. Hotels would accept a booking, then they would cancel as soon as they came under pressure from the Left. And we realized we were never going to be able to have a conference, so we bought our own venue.

And James wanted investigate that.

Well, of course, that purchase was very carefully lawyered precisely because we knew she would want to investigate it. But it doesn’t make any difference. She demanded the details and she demanded all kinds of other things.

The really killing thing for us was demanding all the email. We had to turn over more than a million documents and we knew, if she got the writer’s names and the donor’s names, she would release them.

She did that with Nikki Haley. She leaked the donors to her PAC. And the papers that were leaked had the stamp of the New York Attorney General’s office.

But of course nobody ever came after her.

TC: I’m just confused. Did she have evidence you committed a crime?

PB: No, she was looking for evidence. And she’s not found it, but she’s charged us—well, not charged because it’s a civil case—suing us anyway.

TC: 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 the destruction of our legal system. And you know, that’s a fair point—

PB: No, it’s not a fair point! The legal system already has been destroyed!

TC: That’s exactly what I was about to say.

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.

PB: 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 at their 2022 conference called “Taking Hate to Court.”

Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James’ operatives, the one who’s leading the charge against us, said to this conference that “Hate Speech”—that’s us— is protected by the First Amendment. But, he said, there are ways around that. All you have to do, if it’s a charity and you have jurisdiction, is issue subpoenas. He said “it sucks to be sued.” Just subpoena them to death.

And of course, that’s exactly what they’ve done to us. They inflicted maybe million and a half dollars in out-of-pocket costs for lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that Lydia had to spend digging through documents, which meant that she couldn’t fundraise or do any other work. The process is the punishment. They just destroy you that way.

So when we saw Sawyer’s incredible statement, we thought, oh, now it’s all over. They’ve admitted that what they’re doing is political. Tt’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 a Section 1983 action against Letitia James and her operatives personally. And we’re trying to raise this First Amendment question there. But the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it.

TC: 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

PB: That’s what we thought. But in fact, the first time we did it, they came up with a technical excuse to dodge it. We’re trying again now. We just have to hope for the best.

One of the things that is clear to me from looking at our litigation experience—which is now considerable, goes far beyond this situation—and at all the cases I’m aware of—is that there seems to be some message that’s gone out from Judge Central that anything that’s quote-unquote “white nationalist” has got to be suppressed by any means necessary.

The classic example in our case: we had an hotel cancel us in Colorado Springs. 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. In other words, Antifa could go in and he wouldn’t extend police protection

TC: John Suthers, the mayor of Colorado Springs, basically threatened to allow mortal violence against you if you went to his city?

PB: That’s right.

Now, this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the Civil Rights Era. The point was then made very clear by the courts: 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.

Civil Rights litigation is extremely damaging if you’re on the wrong side of it. There’s enormous damages involved. So it would have been a huge victory and we would have been made whole in a very dramatic way.

Our initial lawyer in Colorado Springs was so keen on this, it was so obviously an open-and-shut case, that he took it on contingency. But as soon as he realized that the city was going to resist, he ran away. We had to start paying lawyers to litigate it.

The Appeals court in Colorado rejected us. We had one good (Jewish) judge there [Judge Harris Hartz], who said this is obviously an attack on VDARE’s First Amendment rights. But the other two, who I think were Republican appointees, voted against us.

Well, we fought it right up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to accept the case.

So we lost.

But subsequently there was a case before the Supreme Court, NRA vs. Vullo. The communists in New York State were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA. And the NRA fought it and won it at the Supreme Court 9-0.

And in a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, in effect, that the NRA’s case is strong, but 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 said, what’s this? We never heard about this!

Well, it turned out that eighteen state 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, for the following reasons. And that therefore the Supreme Court should take up the NRA’s case against New York. And 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 our First Amendment rights are still not protected.

I mean, in other words, there’s a real determination on the part of the judiciary—the NRA is apparently more palatable than we are.

TC: 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.

Speaking 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?

PB: 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 whites are Americans. That’s who Americans are, you know, the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.

TC: I did know that.

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?

PB: 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, 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.

TC: That’s right.

PB: And the purpose of non-white governments is to produce non-white government and non-white results.

Unless of course you’re Chinese, or Japanese, because Singapore, Japan, they’re run very efficiently.

TC: They are. It’s just interesting that people move here because it’s a white country and—

PB: They run it right into the ground.

TC: Yes. 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.

PB: You know, I was looking at an interview I did for FORBES Magazine with Milton Friedman. I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism? And he said yes!

As you know, Friedman was very fire-breathing libertarian. But he had actually thought about this question. He said, capitalism has really only ever worked in English-speaking countries. He said, I don’t know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted.

He agreed that there’s some kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism—what economists call a metamarket, a framework.

So the question is: why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H-1B flow coming when it’s obviously going to produce people, 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.

TC: That’s demonstrable. It was true in 1917. It’s true in 2026. Do you think it’s the product of short-term thinking?

PB: Oh, in the case of business people, of course it is.

But, due to the malign influence of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, a whole generation of businesspeople do genuinely believe all this nonsense.

It’s very hard to get this out of their heads because criticism of immigration is never allowed on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.

TC: So you’ve referred repeatedly to the Wall Street Journal and also to Harper Collins. Both of them are owned by the Murdoch family. What’s been your experience with the Murdochs?

PB: Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert, in 1990, ghosting his autobiography, which was never published. For various reasons, he changed his mind.

But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally. And he continued to be extraordinarily generous until very recently. I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when you came under attack, because some communist looked into it and they found that this Thought Criminal was on the payroll. So at that point I was dropped. But he’s always been extraordinarily generous to me.

TC: That is my experience with Rupert Murdoch.

PB: And that’s not the case with a lot of these characters, a lot these Media Moguls, like Robert Maxwell. I remember Rupert telling me once that he thought that Maxwell— Maxwell, as you know, allegedly fell off his yacht off the Canary Islands and was found dead—Rupert’s theory was this guy is such a jerk, the crew probably just couldn’t stand him anymore!

TC: That is one theory. His lawyer told me that he was murdered by the Israelis for whom he worked. I don’t know the truth of that. But he certainly had a lot of enemies and there were a lot of suspects in that death.

PB: But that’s not the case with Rupert. He’s not cruel. He’s not vindictive.

TC: Rupert is one of the most personally gracious people I’ve ever met in my life. He has perfect manners. He is truly Anglo in that way. And I never had a bad time with him. Even when he fired me, I talked to him after and he couldn’t have been nicer. So I strongly agree with your assessment. He kept you on the payroll for decades?

PB: Yes. I had five children born on his health care!

TC: I had some born on his health care too! God bless you, Rupert Murdoch!

PB: It was very good!

TC: The truth should be told, good and bad.

PB: So, essentially, I was a consultant for him and he didn’t consult with me at all! Because, of course ,I would have told him to do the exact opposite of what he was actually doing.

But I have no complaints about Ruper Murdoch.

TC: Yes, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years.

But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley—Rupert has great personal decency, but his editorial product is aggressively opposed to basic American interests. What is that? This guy likes America. He treats people around him well There’s a lot of good to say about Rupert. But the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, HarperCollins, all of them, are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America’s interests. So why is that? Do you know?

PB: Well, I think he handed over the intellectual, the thinking part, of News Corporation, or 21st Century Fox, whatever it’s called now, to the Neoconservatives. And so he took on a lot of Neoconservative baggage at that point.

I mean, the Wall Street Journal used to run an editorial every July 4 saying there ought be a constitutional amendment: There Shall Be Open Borders. It was really lunatic. They may still do it.

TC: But why would he do that?

PB: First of all, because they’re very good! They’re extremely active, full of ideas, full of energy. And they were extremely good on the Cold War.

TC: They were. That’s correct.

PB: But that was then, and this is now. And they just simply haven’t made the transition.

That’s a major reason. And also he was operating in New York, and he was under a lot of suspicion there, and he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once, an “O.K. Goy” , 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 1991 Gulf War. He said, “Well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli.”

His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, as a journalist, played a major role in discrediting the Gallipoli expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by Winston Churchill to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia, to help Russia in World War I.

He said: “So I’m just, I guess I’m just basically anti-Arab.”

I said, “Those weren’t Arabs! They were Turks!”

He said “Aah, you know, they’re all the same!”

TC: Well, the Ottoman Empire is gone and they’ve done an enormous amount of business in the Gulf with Arabs who helped finance his companies.

So that’s not much of an answer. Is it?

PB: You know him better than I do, Tucker!

TC: I don’t know. He’s had such an effect on the world and on my life and, as I ‘ve said five times, I’ve always liked him and still do. But it is a mystery.

PB: Well, one of his henchmen in Australia said to me that Rupert is a businessman who wants to be a journalist and his father was a journalist who wanted to be businessman. Because Sir Keith Murdoch did found a publishing empire in Australia.

I think there’s a lot in that.

I mean, you and I are professional ideologues, Tucker. But Rupert is not a professional ideologue. He’s somebody who spends all of his time looking at numbers. He’s got a fantastic memory for numbers. I can never remember any phone numbers. He remembers every phone number he’s ever dialed. Running an operation like his 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 spends a great deal of time thinking about politics. Except in a sporting sense. He likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing. But then he likes going to Australian Football Cup Finals, too. So I think it’s kind of a similar thing.

TC: That is a very smart analysis. I think you’re exactly right. 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.

PB: Well, I have to admit, it’s many years since I bothered to read The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.

TC: Me too!

PB: 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.

TC: Is National Review still in existence?

PB: Apparently so, it has the Republican Establishment to support!

TC: Like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz! Do you know the Editor of National Review?

PB: Rich Lowry? He’s been gone for some time now, hasn’t he? [Wikipedia calls Lowry “former editor and now editor-in-chief of National Review.”]

TC: But did you know him?

PB: 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.

TC: Yeah, I think that sounds right. How much has been lost!

So, speaking of lost, what happened to VDARE.com?

PB: VDARE.com was suspended in July of 2024 because we just ran out of money. The VDARE Foundation is still in existence and Lydia is the last employee. She’s not being paid, but she’s still paying lawyers and dealing with the legal situation, which continues to ramify. We’re being sued personally and through the Foundation.

TC: On what grounds?

PB: Oh, fundamentally on 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 is all stuff that would normally be resolved with a phone call and possibly refiling and stuff like that.

They’ve not found any evidence of misappropriation of funds. In fact, we’ve just moved to dismiss on that basis.

TC: Who is suing you?

PB: New York State.

TC: So they’re using tax dollars still to sue you?

PB: Oh yes, that’s right. Enormously. They’ve spent a great deal of money on this.

They also, very weirdly, subpoenaed Facebook for all our records of all our dealings with them.

Well, Facebook banned us in 2020 as part of Zuckerberg’s campaign to defeat Donald Trump. They apparently thought we were pro-Trump. So we actually hadn’t had any dealings with Facebook for more than two years when Letita James came after us.

But nevertheless, she got all these records off of Facebook—but she’s not charged us with anything relating to 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.

TC: The Russians?

PB: To run bot farms. Do you remember that was the allegation about Russian interference in 2016—that the Russians were financing tiny little Facebook pages and that’s how they were manipulating the election? T

I think they genuinely believe that. I think one of the things about Democrats is that they really do believe their own propaganda. They really do think that Middle America is full of people wearing pointed hats.

TC: 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. Then we went to war with Russia and we’re still at war Russia over that.

PB: The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe in Democrat propaganda too! Which is why they won’t, for example, appeal to the white vote.

One of the things we did at 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 54% of the white vote. It’s an appalling performance.

So Steve Sailer. who was one of our writers, whom you’ve had on, pointed out that if the GOP could just increase their proportion of the vote to what Bush’s father got, which was like 59%-60%, that would swamp and overwhelm any possible conceivable gain among minority voters.

So we were saying the GOP should go for the white vote.

Now, this caused a great deal of trouble for us. I remember there we got an email from the supply-side evangelist Jude Wanniski. Do you remember Jude Wanniski?

TC: Very well.

PB: He said, Peter, you’ve gone too far.

In other words, an appeal to the white vote is not allowed.

But it’s just a question of arithmetic! There’s more of them than there are of minorities.

TC: Why was Jude Wanniski mad?

PB: Jude was a liberal way back when, and he still had a lot of those reflexes. But people just get very emotional about this and they still do think it is illegitimate.

For example, look at Virginia in this last election. Youngkin, who’s a complete Wall Street cypher as far as I can see, chooses as his successor in the gubernatorial race a candidate who was 1) an immigrant 2) a woman 3) black—she’s a black Jamaican immigrant. And this is how they’re going to appeal to the white vote. They’re going to get people out of the hollows of southwest Virginia to vote for this black immigrant?

It’s ridiculous. And of course they’ve got a terrible share of the white voters, like 53%. and that’s why they lost.

But they would rather lose than make a full-out appeal to white voters.

TC: Winsome Sears was not a good candidate. They chose her because she was black, despite the fact that she wasn’t good at her job.

PB: And this is epidemic in the Republican Party.

TC: Well, it’s epidemic in the country.

PB: But the Republicans have chosen so many black candidates. You’re about to see it here in Florida. Their next gubernatorial candidate is likely black unless a miracle occurs.

Why is that? They’re just, pixilated by this, transfixed by this—I’m trying to find the right word.—hypnotized by the whole race question.

They’re just race-whipped, is 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 does 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 criticism, he’s not said anything that’s explicitly white nationalist or anything like it. I see no sign that he’s anything other a civic nationalist. But for some reason he’s made a connection.

All throughout West Virginia, while Biden was president, you would see these signs supporting Trump and saying very rude things about Biden.

And this is a poor area. These are run-down trailer homes that you see with these Trump signs on them. For some reason Trump made a connection with them. it’s eerie.

Now on the other hand, he also had a disconnection with the other side! So you get this Trump Derangement Syndrome. But he was able to mobilize the white voter.

TC: Why do you think that was?

PB: There’s a concept in sociology called the implicit community. Communities that represent or appeal to some people without actually saying it explicitly. One example is NASCAR. Why is NASCAR a white stronghold? Why is everybody watching NASCAR white?

And the NASCAR operatives don’t like it. They hate it.

TC: Yeah, they’re constantly trying to diversify.

PB: The Republican Party is a classic example of this. Without ever doing anything to deserve it, Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in West Virginia. And you and I both remember then when the Democrats were unbeatable in West Virginia. The last Democrat to carry West Virginia was Clinton. And now the Democrats have ceased to exist in West Virginia, even though it’s a very poor state. But it is 90% white,

TC: Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. That’s how much has changed.

PB: So there’s something that’s going on at a very deep psychological level. There’s some kind of implicit signaling. And it’s baffling.

Now, of course, Trump did say, when he came down the escalator, just a few words about Mexican immigration. And he never looked back.

So he obviously struck a nerve there. Simply by raising immigration in his—I’m sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy—incoherent and peculiar way, constantly forgetting his lines, saying the wrong thing when he does talk about immigration. But he did raise it. And until then ,it had been driven out of Republican politics completely.

I know! We complained about it for 16 years!

TC: You were fired over it!

PB: There was almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up. But when he did, the dam broke. Now, a big difference that I find, Tucker, is that you speak to grassroots Republicans, as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus is overwhelming that immigration has got to be ended. The consensus is overwhelming.

Whereas when I got involved in this in the early 1990s, a lot of Republicans had 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 Americans do. Which is completely wrong, it’s completely the reverse of the truth, and it was back then, it was obvious that they were going into welfare in disproportionate numbers.

But people didn’t know. And the Wall Street Journal was not telling them.

Well, the Wall St. Journal still isn’t telling them, but they do know now. And maybe we played a role in that.

TC: Well, yeah, and it’s had such a complex and degrading effect on the native-born population. It’s not just a matter of competition in the job market or “My tech job went to an Indian.” It’s way more complicated than that. As immigrant communities became totally dependent on federal benefits, it changed the incentive structure for native-born communities, and a lot of them started going on at higher rates also. It created a vortex that’s hurt everybody, I think, especially the whites.

Where does it go from here?

PB: If I was still running VDARE .com, and now with my own website, peterbrimelow.com, what I’d focus on is legal immigration. Legal immigration is still running at a million a year. Now that puts in context the fact that, nevertheless, the net foreign-born population in the US has still fallen about two and a half million just during this year. That suggests an extraordinary gross outflow.

I used to track on VDARE.com the foreign born population because it’s a way of tracking the impact of immigration. It very rarely goes negative month-over-month. It went negative briefly when Trump first got in because they were frightened of him and a lot of illegals left; and then before COVID it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken to tighten up on both legal immigration and illegal immigration.

What we really need is an Immigration Moratorium. And I’m delighted to say that there is a bill proposed by Rep. Chip Roy in the House. It’s called the PAUSE Act moratorium.

And there are several other very interesting bills. A very good bill on birthright citizenship. And a bill to secure the border—in other words, it codifies Trump’s Executive Actions.

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 another law and they’ll have to admit what they’re doing.

The problem is that the White House seems 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.

I don’t know why the White House isn’t pushing these bills. Of course Trump’s got his hands full in Minnesota, where they clearly need to declare the Insurrection Act. And they keep going around blowing up foreign governments and sinking ships and stuff. I mean, which must be very entertaining.

But I would really rather than focus on ending this immigration disaster. You know, it’s whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review.

I’m 78. I can’t wait much longer! I think that they should just get on with it.

TC: And you have a number of children.

PB: Well, that’s really the point. I get attacked all the time for being an immigrant with my views. My position: I’m an immigrant doing a dirty job that Americans won’t do!

But the real reason is: I have children here. My youngest child is 10 years old. God knows what the country’s going to be like by the time she’s a grown woman.

TC: Are you bitter?

PB: I’ve been extremely blessed in my personal life, even though my first wife died.

I think things could have worked out differently for me professionally. But in my personal life, I’m very blessed.

TC: You don’t seem angry. My read is that 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, o hear your story.

PB: I guess I am bitter at the Conservative Movement, people in the Conservative Movement I’ve known for 30 or 40 years who basically haven’t defended us.

The most prominent people who have defended us, Tucker, are you and your friend Laura Loomer! So that just shows how ecumenical we are!

TC: So Loomer helped you?

PB: Oh, yeah. She supported us on Twitter when we were trying to raise money to defend ourselves. And we now 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.

TC: Have you received any help from the Department of Justice?

PB: 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 Letita James basically because Democrat judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because Democrat grand juries won’t indict Democrats. So I don’t know where that stands.

They also have an investigation into Letitia deprivation of Trump’s Civil Rights in these scandalous cases, this Hush Money case and the Fraud case. They should never have been allowed to go to court. The judges should have stopped them. But of course, the judges are on the other side.

What’s happening is these Democrat Senators not only have the power to veto federal judicial appointments, but they also the power apparently to veto 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 Democrat.

And God knows there are enough Democrats out there that need prosecuting.

We’re looking at slow motion Civil War here. New York has essentially seceded—Minnesota essentially has seceded—from the Union. Their entire 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. This is not a government under law.

So, in effect, New York has seceded 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 the 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 are women and people of color and so on. And they deliver the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law.

Ultimately they’re going to have to be purged out of the judicial system.

TC: When that happens, Trump will be attacked as destroying the Third Branch of government. But it’s been completely destroyed long before Trump.

PB: Right, right.

TC: My last question to Peter Brimelow, and thank you so much for doing this: are you hopeful?

PB: One of the sayings I want to be remembered for is based on a talk I gave in about 2015: miracles happen quite often in politics! I mean, nobody expected the Soviet Union to collapse. Are you old enough to remember that?

TC: I’m 56. Yeah. I remember it like it was yesterday.

PB: I mean, that’s literally true. Nobody, either on the left or the right, expected the Soviet Union to 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 is that we’re headed a very bad direction. Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, to physically prevent ICE from deporting illegals. That’s more extreme than anything that ever happened in the South during desegregation.

TC: Much more. It’s more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter.[Note: No one actually died at the bombardment of Fort Sumter.] I mean, this is insurrection. Actual insurrection.

PB: Insurrection. That’s right. It’s insurrection. And, of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use the Insurrection Act to impose integration.

Trump has 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.

Right now—we’re heading in a very bad direction. We’re in a situation where Democrat politicians are openly calling on people to disobey federal law, prevent ICE from deporting illegals. That’s more extreme than ever happened in the South during the desegregation.

TC: It’s more extreme than what the South did at Fort Sumter. I mean, this is insurrection, actual insurrection.

PB: It’s insurrection. And, of course, Eisenhower and Kennedy did use the Insurrection Act to impose integration.

TC: Ike sent the 101st Airborne to a high school.

PB: With the total applause from the Main Stream Media, which was then, of course, completely oligopolistic.

At least now we have Twitter, even if we are shadow-banned on Twitter.

TC: Are you still shadow-banned?

PB: 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 been able to root them out!

TC: Thank you very much.

PB: Thank you!

Happy Robert E. Lee Day! His birthday, January 19, coincides this year with the Martin Luther King federal holiday.

Lee did not loom especially large in my English childhood. We were not short of wars in British history. And I was warned by my twin brother after, as Stanford MBAs, we respectively arrived in Winnipeg and North Carolina, not to start reading about the Civil War.

“It’s like heroin,” he said. “You can’t stop.”

So I didn’t really start reading about the Civil War for more than twenty years, until I was writing my 1995 book ALIEN NATION: COMMON SENSE ABOUT AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION DISASTER.

For relief from that kind of ordeal, I generally take twenty minutes of every hour to read something completely different. I chose to read about the Civil War.

And I found my brother was right.

One conclusion from my reading: you simply have to be enormously impressed by Robert E. Lee—as an “organizer of victory”, as a soldier, on the offense and defense, and as a Christian (there is no suggestion he was ever unfaithful to his invalid wife despite what must have been enormous temptations on campaign).

I should also say, since it is currently ignored, that America should give credit to Lee for advising his men to surrender and apply for pardon after Appomattox.

Although it apparently hasn’t occurred to his modern denigrators. Lee (who applied for a pardon and was ultimately granted one by President Gerald R. Ford in 1975) could have told his followers to scatter to the hills and resort to guerilla warfare—which is exactly what protracted the Anglo-Boer War for two bitter years after the British took the Boer capital cities in 1900.

The video clip above is from Ron Maxwell’s 1993 movie Gettysburg.

Famously, this scene was entirely spontaneous. It erupted when Maxwell asked actor Martin Sheen to don his Robert E. Lee outfit and ride out to rally the flagging re-enactors. (A liberal Democrat, Sheen looks scared to death)

The white nation a.k.a. America is still there.

My opinion of Martin Luther King is somewhat lower, as discussed in what we’ve salvaged from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ unconstitutional mugging of VDARE.com below.

PETER BRIMELOW: Time To Rethink Martin Luther King Day, The January 2024 Edition

[First published on VDARE.com, January 14, 2024]

See also: “MLK Worship Gives Us DEI”—Scott Greer Is Right And Here’s 24 Years Of VDARE.com Coverage To Prove It

James Fulford writes: VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow called for a rethinking of Martin Luther King Day in 2015, arguing that MLK was a deeply flawed figure and an inappropriate role model for American whites. Now this is even more the case, because the MLK Day symbolic appeasement project has manifestly failed, as the Floyd Hoax/BLM Insurrection showed, and we propose to repeat this call until We (so to speak) Overcome.

We first posted this on January 19, 2015, when Robert E. Lee’s actual birthday coincided with MLK Day, the third Monday in January. However, in Mississippi and Alabama, Lee’s birthday is still observed as King-Lee Day, to the annual consternation of GoodThinkers [Two states still observe King-Lee Day, honoring Robert E. Lee with MLK, by Meena Venkataramanan, Washington Post, January 16, 2023].

Ms. Venkataramanan writes

The two men’s birthdays fall just four days apart, but their legacies couldn’t be more different. King gave his life to the cause of racial equality; Lee fought in the Civil War to keep Black people enslaved.

Well, that’s one way of putting it. Another would be to say that King fought for the rights of his people, and Lee fought for the rights of his people.

The North and South were eventually reconciled after the Civil War (although they’re becoming unreconciled), but black America is still refusing to reconcile with the Historic American Nation, and pushing MLK Day, while suppressing the days honoring Lee, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus is just one more example of that.

Time To Rethink Martin Luther King Day

By Peter Brimelow

First published here on MLK/Robert E. Lee day, 2015.

Happy Robert E. Lee Day! His January 19 birthday was once widely celebrated across the South (it still is mentionable in Alabama) but during the Second Reconstruction has been quietly suppressed to the point where even such a devoted son of the Confederacy as American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor was unaware, when I talked to him on Sunday night, that its local variant in his and Lee’s state of Virginia, Lee-Jackson Day, was supposed to be celebrated last Friday. (Not surprisingly—it seems to have been recently crudely scrubbed from Virginia’s webpage.)

But there’s a silver lining, sort of, in this tale of attempted historical lobotomy: It shows that public holidays come—and they go. Martin Luther King Day, rushed through Congress with Obamacare-style disregard of process in 1983, has been by now weighed in the balance for almost thirty years. It has inarguably (but unmentionably) been found wanting. It is time for it to go.

And in fact, I believe it will go, or at least be quietly suppressed like Robert E. Lee Day. The reasons:

• MLK Day’s 2027 Problem

It is obvious to everyone that there is a reason King’s FBI files were sealed for fifty years back in 1977, and only the Main Stream Media’s typically relentless Politically Correct air cover prevented this flagrant maneuver from discrediting the Martin Luther King Day legislation in 1983.

The problem that these sealed files pose, the MSM/ Ruling Class determination to repress it—and incidentally the unimpeachably reasonable nature of the MLK Day opponents’ position—emerged at President Ronald Reagan’s famous October 19, 1983 press conference:

[Sam Donaldson, ABC News]. Mr. President, Senator [Jesse] Helms has been saying on the Senate floor that Martin Luther King, Jr., had Communist associations, was a Communist sympathizer. Do you agree?

The President. We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?

No, I don’t fault Senator Helms’ sincerity with regard to wanting the records opened up. I think that he’s motivated by a feeling that if we’re going to have a national holiday named for any American, when it’s only been named for one American in all our history up until this time, that he feels we should know everything there is to know about an individual. As I say, I don’t fault his sincerity in that, but I also recognize there is no way that these records can be opened, because an agreement was reached between the family and the government with regard to those records. And we’re not going to turn away from that or set a precedent of breaking agreements of that kind.

Donaldson: Sir, what do we do then in 35 years if the records are opened and we find that Dr. King was a Communist sympathizer? Do we then try to undo the law? I mean, I’m not quite certain where the logic is there.

The President. The logic is there in that there is no way that this government should violate its word and open those records now.

I happen to—while I would have preferred a day of recognition for his accomplishments and what he meant in a stormy period in our history here, I would have preferred a day similar to, say, Lincoln’s birthday, which is not technically a national holiday, but is certainly a day reverenced by a great many people in our country and has been. I would have preferred that, but since they seem bent on making it a national holiday, I believe the symbolism of that day is important enough that I’ll sign that legislation when it reaches my desk.

The President’s News Conference, Reagan Library, October 19, 1983

At the time, there was much MSM hyperventilating because Reagan had not roundly rejected the idea that King had Communist connections [Not A 35-Year Question, Editorial, New York Times, October 21, 1983]. But this was simply a demand, now familiar, for religious conformity to the burgeoning King Cult. Reagan’s was the only rational position, especially given the (widely known but little reported) information that Senator Helms had already placed in the Congressional Record.

Note, also, the bizarre MSM claim (which Reagan sidestepped) that there would be no “logic” in revoking MLK Day if King turned out to be a Communist. To put this in perspective, consider the protracted and merciless persecution, then just getting underway, of Arthur Rudolph, creator of the Saturn V moon rocket, because of the discovery of his alleged connection with forced labor projects in World War II Germany.

More recently, consider the continuing campaign against GOP Majority Whip Steve Scalise—who now, not coincidentally, is being attacked for his votes against the King holiday: GOP House Majority Whip Steve Scalise tried to kill Louisiana resolution apologizing for slavery, by Scott Kaufman, Raw Story, January 15, 2015. What Kaufman calls Scalise’s “ties” to David Duke’s relict organization in Louisiana were, on any reading, infinitesimal compared to King’s relationships with Communists and their causes. And when Scalise gave his speech, the U.S. was not engaged in a global struggle with a white supremacist power, nor losing thousands of men in a desperate war against one of its allies.

The plain fact is that King was a Man of the Left and American radicals are quite right to complain that he has been stolen from them. Thus, given that Leftist agitations are much more organized than the MSM cares to report, it might very well turn out that King’s decision to come out in opposition to the Vietnam War in April 1967 was ultimately at the behest of America’s foreign enemies.

A federal holiday for Benedict Arnold?

All this and serial adultery too.

But whatever embarrassments these files may contain—and chilling as it seems to those of us who were around at the time—only twelve years remain before they will be opened. Of course, the way things are going, criticizing King may then be considered Hate Speech.

• “Integration” Just Isn’t Working

This week near Dover, Delaware, a viral video appears to show another instance of black-on-white violence among high school students.

Editor’s Note: YouTube has deleted the video originally embedded in this article. Should users navigate to the video’s URL, a message states: “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.”

The shaky cell phone video shows a group of black teenage boys punching, knocking down, and kicking a white teenage boy, leaving him dazed and confused on the school bus floor.

The victim of the attack had been riding home from Parkway Academy School near Dover when the assault reportedly began. The video shows him sitting alone, facing front, when the attack begins from the rear—and continues from the side and the front of the school bus. “I didn’t do nothing,” he protests.

Video: Black Teens Assault White Student on School Bus, by Colin Flaherty, Breitbart, April 30, 2014

Just another day in the life of white America in the aftermath of the Civil Rights revolution—Flaherty has chronicled scores of similar stories. But one entry in the comment thread, and the reaction to it, was really significant:

I noticed that the School Bus driver failed to intervene or notify the police. It is shockingly evident that we need to create a segregated public school system where the victims of racial violence are separated from their abusers…

This comment received a remarkable 868 positive votes.

Fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, the sophisticated arguments of its opponents go undiscussed, but the simple reality that drove segregation seems to be winning it a new generation of supporters—albeit silent, for now.

From Selma to Birmingham to Detroit, the results of the Civil Rights revolution have been uniformly catastrophic.

The worst racial conflicts since the 1960s are being used to launch a new campaign of Leftist activism. But, although there has been little overt opposition, the election returns make clear that American whites just aren’t buying it.

How long will they continue to buy the Holiday?

• MLK Day can’t be contained

Many Americans unquestionably thought that, if they just made this one symbolic concession of accepting Martin Luther King Day, they would then be left alone. (They probably think the same about homosexual “marriage.”) But it hasn’t worked out that way. Martin Luther King Day has simply become a staging area for the inculcation of more white guilt, above all in the classroom.

Thus when my son Alexander was eight, he came home from public school early in January and told us that he’d been in some kind of play to dramatize an African American being turned away from a restaurant in the bad old days of the segregated South. In honor of Martin Luther King Day. Sort of like a Christmas Pageant. (Remember Christmas Pageants?)

The Connecticut Berkshires, where we lived, are a whitopia with absolutely no history of segregation whatsoever. Alexander was deeply puzzled. He was particularly impressed by the news that it was bad for policemen to use the word “boy.”

But this area of Connecticut was a hotbed of abolitionism. Those Connecticut farm boys joined up in vast numbers, and died in vast numbers, fighting to free the slaves. There was one famous regiment raised in Litchfield County: the 2nd Connecticut Heavy Artillery, which despite its name was an infantry regiment and which was shot to pieces at Cold Harbor.

There’s still a substantial blue-collar population of colonial Yankee stock in northwestern Connecticut. The woman who cut my hair, the man who delivered my mail, had relatives who died in that battle. They were aware of it—but I have never heard any mention of it in the public schools.

I asked teachers about it, I asked the principals about it. None of them had ever heard of it, although they certainly had children in their classes whose ancestors were involved.

Those children could have been taught, even accepting the conventional Civil War morality play, that their forebears had done a noble thing. Instead, they were taught that they, whites, had oppressed blacks—even though their forebears had specifically not done so.

This goes to the issue of what we mean by a “Proposition Nation.” Maybe kids are being taught some kind of a “Proposition,” a national creed, in the public schools. But what is it?

Writ large, the result of this sort of brainwashing can be seen in the ludicrous spectacle of the Republican Establishment stampeding away from Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema just because he reposted on his FaceBook page an article from Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance called Confessions of a Public Defender, by “Michael Smith.”

It made no difference that Agema apparently picked up the AmRen story from the website of Black Republican and former Congressman Allen West, who wrote respectfully of it. Nor does it make any difference that Confessions is basically a straight description of scenes (admittedly dismaying) in heavily black courtrooms—bearing an unmistakable resemblance to scenes in Tom Wolfe’s 1987 best-seller Bonfire of the Vanities.

VDARE.com has defended Agema before, when he was under attack for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. He didn’t resign then, and we hope he doesn’t resign now.

But the unfortunate reality is that debate about race has gone backward in the three decades that Martin Luther King Day has been celebrated—at least in part because of the emotionalism that it systematically exacerbates.

This emotionalism is not an accident. Just as the hyping of the Ferguson fiasco and the Trayvon Martin scam bears all the signs of a concerted campaign to rally the Left’s core voters, so the intensifying King Cult, and the regular Two-Minute Hates against race deviationists like John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, Frank Borzellieri, and James Watson, reflect the profound instability of American politics. As the Democratic Party tips away from whites, it can now only hope to form (to put it brutally) Obama-style Minority Occupation Governments. At all costs, the Left must keep the historic American nation from uniting before it is swamped by government-imposed nontraditional immigration—which it began to show alarming signs of doing (no thanks to the GOP leadership) in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

This comes naturally, because the Politically Incorrect fact is that neither the Left’s black, Hispanic, nor Jewish components have any strong tradition of free speech. The question is whether they can cow the historic American nation into accepting its subjugation.

Diversity is not strength: It is weakness. The celebration of a deeply flawed figure like Martin Luther King was a confession of weakness, and the attempt to turn him into a national role model has required unsustainable myth-making. Perhaps in the future, Americans will be allowed to celebrate their own races’ heroes separately, just as Italian villages have different patron saints. Right now, however, the cost of the King cult to white America is too high.

(The “you” here is Governor Tim Walz, who had X/tweeted this:

Red State Minnesota was “disenfranchised” by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 decision REYNOLDS vs. SIMS, which forced one-man one-vote on the states. This means that big, frequently black and non-white immigrant cities dominate rural, frequently white areas in the absence of balancing mechanisms—such as is provided at the Federal level by the U.S. Senate.

This decision was another Earl Warren disaster. It is a classic case of the difference between democracy, which is crude head-counting, and a republic, which has provisions meant to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

There are only three roads to redress.

• SCOTUS just magically decides to reverse itself, as it just did with the 1973 ROE vs. WADE abortion ruling.

• The U.S. Congress decides to do something. Nuff said.

• the disenfranchised parts of each state secede, either to become a separate state or to join a neighboring state.

State secession was one of my favorite themes at VDARE.com, because it was clearly exacerbated by mass non-white immigration, and we published many articles about it.

Here’s one of the last, by Eugene Gant, posted just months before we were lawfared into suspension by New York Attorney General Letitia James:

TEXIT Just A Symptom—Immigration-Driven Displacement Really Is Breaking Up U.S. States (January 30, 2024).

I’m always early, but I’m not wrong.

Mysteriously, despite huffing and puffing by local Democrat officials, the non-fatal shooting in Portland OR by federal agents of two individuals who tried to run them over with their truck is not getting national MSM traction like the Minneapolis shooting of protestor Renee Good.

And it’s not because the Portland perps turn out to be Venezuelan illegal alien criminals allowed into the U.S. by the Biden Regime. They canonized George Floyd, didn’t they?

Still, this is going to happen again. And it’s important to put it in perspective. What’s happening here is an insurrection. Democrat elected officials are encouraging their followers to block the Federal government’s attempt to enforce federal law.

In this situation, people are going to get hurt.

The only questions: (1) were law enforcement officers trying to enforce the law? (2) were the shooting victims trying to stop them?

The rest is irrelevant. Particularly irrelevant is the effort by lady lawyers and people who have never been in violent confrontations to second-guess split-second decisions by law enforcement officers under stress. (See the thoughts of VDARE’s retired Border Patrol Agent Andrew Morrison, who actually has been in violent confrontations, here). Obsessing over collateral damage is simply going to prolong and intensify the problem.

I made the same argument back 2014 when the Black Lives Matter race riots were brewing up.

Nobody listened.

And look what happened.

But hey, now there’s a second chance!

The Answer To Race Riots Is Ruthless Coercion. What Is America Waiting For?

(By Peter Brimelow. First published on VDARE August 16, 2014)

The Democratic governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, announced late Saturday a state of emergency and a curfew in Ferguson. This obviously is an attempt to repair his disastrous earlier decision to order local and county police to stand down and to put the area under the symbolic overall control of a black highway patrol captain, Ron Johnson, (shown below marching with masked demonstrators), which inevitably emboldened more violence and looting Friday night.

Some of the people Johnson is marching with are masked, and wearing the colors of the Bloods.

But at the same chaotic press conference, Captain Johnson made clear that Nixon’s mistake is not really being reversed:

Johnson…said law enforcement would not be heavy-handed in enforcing the curfew.

“We won’t enforce it with trucks, we won’t enforce it with tear gas,” he said.

The fragile peace shattered in Ferguson earlier in the day when looters again targeted neighborhood businesses while law enforcement in riot gear largely looked on without intervening.

[Missouri governor imposes curfew in Ferguson, declares emergency, by Ralph Ellis, Jason, Hanna and Shimon Prokupecz, CNN.com, August 16, 2014. Emphasis added].

There has to be a limit to how much there is to steal in a poor community like Ferguson and to how many nights its young men want to spend roaming the streets (especially when it rains, as it began to do on in Ferguson Saturday morning).

So it’s possible Nixon and Johnson may get lucky and things will just calm down.

But they will flare up again—quite possibly if and when the local authorities dare not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer involved—particularly because the Left is obviously gearing up to use this type of discontent as an excuse to launch more social engineering drives to seek out and destroy America’s remaining whitopias. (See Ferguson Is a Microcosm of Our Racially—and Politically—Polarized Country| In the St. Louis suburb, the white ruling class has created de facto apartheid, by Brian Beutler, New Republic, August 16, 2014 [note comment thread!]; Around St. Louis, a Circle of Rage, by Tanzina Vega and John Eligon, New York Times, Aug. 16, 2014)

So here are some pointers to consider when this racial melodrama is replayed—either in Ferguson in the next few days or a similar town disturbingly near you in the future:

• It’s a scam.

Violence is absolutely endemic in minority America, most of it directed against minorities. Even riots aren’t uncommon—here’s a completely forgotten example in Cincinnati in 2001. Violence only becomes news, as Steve Sailer has documented, (see here and here and here) when it serves the purposes of the increasingly Cultural Marxist Democratic Party and its Main Stream Media auxiliary. Of course, black on white violence, although quantitatively far greater than white on black violence, does not serve that purpose, so it suppressed with amazing chutzpah.

• The Answer To Rioting Is: RUTHLESS COERCION!

Get that?

Contrary to Jonah Goldberg in his August 16 Ferguson Agonistes in National Review (which seems to be having a particularly bad time with its peasants on this issue), I don’t think “rioting is almost never justified” (my emphasis).

I think it’s never justified.

In other words, what Governor Nixon and Captain Johnson are doing, to the usual MSM applause, is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. They should meet any sign of rioting with ruthless coercion:

The time to halt a riot is right at the start, by pinching off the criminal spearhead with precise and overwhelming force. The cops will usually be caught flat-footed (no pun intended) by the initial outbreak. But they need to spring into a pre-arranged mobilization that should always be as ready in every major city as the fire-department or hospital disaster-response program.

That was the late Eugene Methvin…writing in the pre-purge National Review (June 10, 1991).

Personally, my sympathies, like those of most fair-minded Americans, are entirely with Police Officer Wilson (who is clearly going to be legally lynched like the Rodney King cops and who should probably flee the country).

But his guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant here. There is no right to riot—period.

(I am informed, to my surprise, that current law enforcement doctrine in the wake of the Los Angeles riots is precisely to suppress incipient riots in the way Methvin describes—which the Ferguson police did not. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of the conventional MSM account of what happened there. Surprise!).

• What about an apology from black community leaders?

Yo (I believe the expression is) Al Sharpton! Jesse Jackson?! Why aren’t you denouncing the destruction of (often, as it happens, black) property that was in no conceivable way related to Michael Brown’s death? (Regardless of his criminal record).

Recently, the black murderers of five young whites in a case that VDARE.com has been tracking—since 2001!—as “The Wichita Horror” had their death penalties overturned on an absurd legalistic technicality.

These murders were infinitely more atrocious than anything that happened to Michael Brown.

Yet there are no riots. (Nor was there even any national MSM coverage.)

Why the contrast?

And this is just one of many black-on-white atrocities. Instapundit noted that a story about the horrific murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom was trending today on the Knoxville News-Sentinel but that no one knew why. One of his commenters asked why that hadn’t produced riots.

For that matter, why don’t they denounce systematic disproportionate black criminality?

• Where is the GOP?

A friend of VDARE.com writes to say:

“A quick check of Missouri and federal law by anyone with even a 6th grade education would show a huge over-reach by the governor. There is NO basis for his actions and no legal justification for removal of local authority.”

Even on this legal point, I see no sign that anyone in the Missouri GOP (full of lawyers) has protested Governor Nixon’s actions—or, indeed, said anything at all.

In 2012, the useless Mitt Romney carried Missouri 56%-42%, with 65% of the white vote, which comprised 78% of the total. (Source: CNN Exit polls)

The question is: why?

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.

The Regime Media is having a propaganda party for the 5th anniversary of the Jan 6 Entrapment, so here’s the video text and video we released on VDARE.com shortly afterwards. Rereading it, I’m struck by its brilliance and perceptiveness. See it, and more, on VDARE-TV.

CAPITOL "INSURRECTION" HOAX: How Our Lying Press Would Have Spun Jan 6 Protest If Trump Were A Democrat [VIDEO]

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow was not at the January 6 Patriot protests at the U.S. Capitol, just as he was not at the 2017 Charlottesville Unite The Right Rally (although PayPal cut VDARE.com off anyway).

But afterwards, on January 15, he tweeted:

He was right. We’re going to show here that quite enough video footage exists to make that case.

It’s just that our Lying Press doesn’t want to make it.

Let’s start off by saying that, if Trump were a Democrat, the Lying Media would be pointing out that

• There is ample precedent for protestors invading the Capitol.

Anti-Kavanaugh feminists did it in 2018. And Democrats applauded them.

Hundreds were arrested for invading the Capitol, including comedienne Amy Schumer, a relative of New York Senator Chuck Schumer.

But we can find no reports that anyone was seriously punished—least of all Amy Schumer.

Labor union activists invaded the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011--and stayed for a month. Again, Democrats applauded them.

You didn’t know about these precedents? That’s because they’re being deliberately suppressed. A search of the media bellwether New York Times reveals no, that’s ZERO, mentions of the Kavanaugh or Wisconsin parallels since January 6.

For that matter,

• there actually was a violent attack on a major federal building very recently—the May 30 attack on the White House—when the secret service had to order the Trump family into the bunker and over 60 Secret Service agents were injured.

Remember that?

But that’s gone down the Lying Press Memory Hole too—only one mention in the New York Times since June 1. And we’re not aware of any mass arrests or serious punishments—certainly nothing like the immense witch-hunt that’s being going on since January 6.

Furthermore:

• If Trump were a Democrat, Ashli Babbitt (remember her?) would be a saint, if not a Goddess.

Although you probably don’t know this, it’s very far from clear that Heather Heyer was deliberately killed at the Charlottesville Unite The Right Rally—James Fields appears to have been trying to escape when he drove into the crowd blocking his way.

But it’s absolutely clear that Ashli Babbitt, although an unarmed woman surrounded by security, was deliberately shot by a Capitol Hill cop.

Ashli Babbitt was a decorated veteran and a female business owner. Heyer was an overweight small-time Communist. But it’s Heather Heyer who has been canonized, with a foundation named after her and endless Regime Media adulation, whereas Ashli Babbitt has vanished from the Main Stream Media after a couple of sneering profiles and insinuations about her private life. (Have you heard anything about Heather Heyer’s private life?)

And remember, this is in addition two Trump supporters shot dead during the election campaign—Lee Keltner. in Denver, and Aaron Danielson in Seattle.

And one, Shane Moon was run down in Vancouver WA, absolutely deliberately, by a Leftist driving a truck, sustaining brain injuries. But, in unbelievable contrast to James Fields in Charlottesville, the Leftist was not charged.

• If Trump were a Democrat, the cop who killed Ashli Babbit would have been lynched.

But in fact—

• The killer cop’s name has STILL not been released (why not? Why isn’t the Lying Press asking?)

• He has not been held in custody.

• There are even reports that he will not be charged at all. [No charges recommended for officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot, source says, by Elisha Fieldstadt and Pete Williams, NBC, February 2, 2021]

Contrast that with, for example, the treatment of South Charleston cop Michael Slager, who in 2015 shot a black suspect escaping custody—something that was completely legal in most of the country until banned by yet another disastrous Supreme Court decision quite recently.

Michael Slager’s name was immediately publicized so he could be demonized in the Mainstream Media—denied even funds for his defense by GoFundMe. And he held was in solitary confinement for nine months before the trial, not even allowed to meet with his baby son, born while he was in custody. (His state trial ended in a hung jury, but he was hit with double-jeopardy federal “civil rights” charges, apparently double-crossed on a plea-bargain deal and sentenced to a savage 20 years in prison).

• If Trump were a Democrat, the demonstration would be celebrated as “Mostly Peaceful”—to use the term the Lying Press invented to describe last summer’s deadly Antifa/ BLM riots.

In fact, this demonstration really was Mostly Peaceful.

And, most importantly, it was unarmed.

Get that? This alleged “insurrection”—this alleged “coup d’état”—carried no weapons.

The Capitol Hill police, all too obviously, were armed. (To say nothing of the U.S. Marines down the street at Eighth & I).

Were the protestors supposed to tickle them all to death?

So desperate are Regime prosecutors to smear the Trump protestors as armed and dangerous that they’ve leaked the news that one had an “arsenal” a.k.a. a gun collection…. back home in Tennessee!

If Trump were a Democrat, the demonstration would be celebrated as a multiracial nirvana.

In fact, it was denounced (with obvious co-ordination) as “White Supremacist”

If Trump were a Democrat, co-operation between the police and the protestors would be played up

And what exactly happened when this “violent mob” stormed the Senate and House chambers? They walked in, respecting the ropes at the entrance nonetheless!

Can’t load tweet

https://twitter.com/thatonemedina/status/1350985332897021954:

Unknown MIME type: text/html

And when they entered the Senate chamber?

And when they were asked to leave? THEY LEFT!!

If Trump were a Democrat, we would be hearing more about Antifa/ BLM role in the protest.

Both the VDARE.com video team and our writer J.R. Kipling were present on the Capitol steps—unknown to each other. And both separately reported that there was something unusual about the individuals who actually precipitated the move into the Capitol.

In this video you see journalist Jade Sacker coordinating with a known anarchist and founder of Utah based group “Insurgence USA”, John Sullivan (aka Jayden X) to enter the Capitol. They led a group of patriots on the front lines into the building as Jayden X shouted, “We got to get this sh*t burned,” and “It’s our house”. Jayden was later invited onto CNN for an interview with Anderson Cooper, where he sat beside Jade Sacker to give his account of the protest.

In this video, you see Jayden conveniently behind police lines filming the protest from inside the Capitol:

And here you see a small crowd of Antifa walking towards the Capitol on January 6.

Can’t load tweet

Unknown MIME type: text/html

Note carefully: we’re not saying that ALL the Trump protest was entirely an Antifa/ BLM false flag operation.

We’re saying that, if Trump were a Democrat, “agent provocateurs” would be outed and blamed for their role in stoking violence.

We know this because Democrat elected officials shamelessly claimed that “white supremacists” and “right-wing agitators” were responsible for the Antifa/ BLM summer of riots

And this Big Lie has worked. Polls show that some 30% of Americans do believe the Antifa/ BLM riots were the work of “white Supremacists.”

If Trump were a Democrat, his supporters would be celebrated for their role in countering the break-in.

VDARE.com’s video team can personally attest to the peaceful nature of the crowd in D.C. on January 6. As we stood on the terrace watching protestors attempt to breach the door to enter the main level of the Capitol building, some nefarious members of the group took to breaking windows.

But this was widely condemned by the crowd.

A man next to our team rushed off of the concrete platform where the team stood to join in on the crowd who would pull the ne’er-do-well away from the window as many shouted “They’re Antifa! We need to get them! People need to know it is not us!” and “Throw him to the cops!”

Can’t load tweet

Unknown MIME type: text/html

The VDARE.com team also captured a now infamous moment when a police officer was dragged from the doorway on the terrace level of the Capitol into the crowd and beaten. But in this video, you can not only see Trump supporters holding back the man fighting with the cop, but you can hear a crowd chant “Let the cop go!”

If Trump were a Democrat, (deep breath here), POLICE BRUTALITY TOWARDS THE PROTESTORS WOULD BE THE BIG STORY.

Remember, last summer some 7,750 “demonstrations” took place in over 2,000 cities, resulting in 20 deaths directly, an increase in murders in the thousands, and an estimated two billion dollars in damages. (Only 617 were officially called riots, but the media has been lying about this for years.) There were no shootings by law enforcement and virtually all the rioters who were arrested had charges dropped.

Yet still the Left alleged police brutality

Well, in contrast, there actually WAS police brutality at the Capitol.

• It seemed to be the result of an abrupt change in policy. Here’s a protestor saying police worked with them at first to understand the demands of the crowd, only to turn around and deliver entire canisters of mace at point-blank range in their faces.

Can’t load tweet

https://twitter.com/ALQadiPAL/status/1346960691278848000:

Unknown MIME type: text/html

Can’t load tweet

Unknown MIME type: text/html

And this brutality apparently resulted in the deaths of three Trump supporters, who reportedly had “underlying medical conditions?”

When was the last time you heard of protestors dying of “underlying medical conditions” at a demonstration?

It happened here because the police mishandled the demonstration.

Their names were Benjamin Philips, 50, of Ringtown, Pennsylvania; Kevin Greeson, 55, of Athens, Alabama; and Roseanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia.

You’ve not heard those names—because the Regime Media hasn’t been celebrating them or anything about them.

So let’s back up a second here.

You constantly hear that the Capitol Hill protest “left five dead.” You never hear that all five of them were Trump supporters— including even Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died a day later of causes that federal prosecutors admit they can’t tie to the protest. [Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, CNN, February 2, 2021]

Two Capitol Hill police officers, Jeffrey Smith, Howard Liebengood, later committed suicide—something unfortunately epidemic among law enforcement officers and not clearly related to the protest.

• If Trump were a Democrat, pundits and lawmakers would be scrambling to appease the protestors

as they did for BLM—pushing massive legislation to defund police as cities burned and innocents were killed—including police officers.

In this case, what is needed is an inquiry into what actually happened in the 2020 election— and sweeping election reform to prevent whatever fraud there was from happening again.

Here we’ve shown you how the Capitol Hill protest could have been reported differently if our Rulers had wanted that. It would also have been nearer the truth.

But our Rulers don’t want the truth. Since the inauguration of Biden as President, America is witnessing a Communist-style coup. As in Eastern Europe after World War II, the Left aims to criminalize opposition and establish absolute control over the flow of information, with the help of censorship by the Big Tech oligarchs.

VDARE.com’s mission is to fight back on behalf of the Historic American Nation. Help us now—while you can.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.

(First published February 9, 2021).

For various reasons, I wasn’t able to analyze Kenn Gividen’s tally of black-on-white homicides for November (34, posted here) so I’m combining it with his December tally (30, posted here). Total for the two months: 64.

Note: we know that these homicide numbers may well be too low. In Kenn’s comment on December, he makes the point that FBI data for 2019, the last year available (why?), reported the year’s total black-on-white homicides at 566, which implied an average of some 47 a month. Kenn hasn’t been able to find those monthly numbers in his monthly searches—although what we do see is bad enough, God knows. The overall murder rate surged after 2019, but then did fall back, but not that much.

The fact that Kenn is unable to find these missing black-on-white murders by scanning public sources speaks to the relentless and intensifying campaign of suppression and disinformation about black crime waged by government agencies and the Regime Media.

And of course the false consciousness resulting from this campaign enabled the 2020 Black Lives Matter moral panic, an outrageous blood libel on white America.

I pause here to inquire: why isn’t even one Regime Media outlet reproducing what Kenn and I did at VDARE.com before we were battered into suspension by NY AG Letitia James—our immensely-popular Month In The Death Of White America series, just listing without comment the names and (often heartbreaking) pictures of the relentless toll of white victims?

Of course, we all take this media malfeasance for granted. But why should we?

Government and media malfeasance is peculiarly a problem now because Kenn’s research is picking up a phenomenon I don’t remember noticing before: murders by extraordinarily young black teenagers. For example, Emeril Tytron Rachel, a black 13 year-old, killed Kelby Gavin Miller, but Rachel’s race is known only because he appeared on security cameras released to the public during the search.

Generally, the race of underage criminals is not reported because their identity is also withheld. Kenn thinks this is one reason black-on-white homicides are underreported.

There may be a case for withholding names, but why race? After all, gender is reported. Isn’t that a potential sexist smear against males in general?

Other themes:

• White women killed by black Significant Others. This is a perhaps the single most consistent pattern that we see: the reverse very rarely occurs. Are young white girls warned about this?

And it’s not just a blue-collar phenomenon. Thus Christina Chambers, a respected former sports reporter and broadcast educator in Birmingham AL, was killed in December by her black husband Johnny Rimes, also a former sports reporter and a financial analyst, in an apparent murder-suicide.

Speaking of which:

• Black perp suicide common. Another example here. This speaks to the pathological impulsiveness behind black killings.

• Black-on-white homicide at interracial parties, often collateral damage to wild shooting. (Example here). Maybe it’s the time of year but it’s a definitely a Thing.

• Blades. We all know that gun control would eliminate “gun deaths,” but how could “knife deaths” be eliminated? Mandatory chopsticks? Several cases in these tallies, but one example here—two elderly white women killed with a machete by their fellow black resident of a senior home. He killed a service dog too.

• Drug deals gone wrong. Drug deals are always dangerous for whites. Example here.

• Utterly random killings of attractive white women. cf. famously, Iryna Zaruska, murdered B-on-W in Charlotte NC. There’s a new, weirdly underreported, case here.

• Social relationships with blacks are just dangerous. This is John Derbyshire territory, but e.g. we have one case of a black murdering his white stepfather.

And this is the tragic story behind my featured image: Ariel Spilner, shot by a black “friend,” Jamica Mills, whose birthday party she was attending.

• Home Invasions.

My impression from Kenn’s data is that home invasions are increasing e.g. here.

But the most outrageous home invasion case resulted in a white-on-black killing: Dayton Knapton shot and mortally wounded Sivan Wilson, one of a gang attempting to steal from his garage in White Lake MI, a suburb of Detroit.

And although Wilson died from a shot fired inside the garage, Knapton has nevertheless been charged with manslaughter because he fired after the fleeing gang, by a lady Democrat, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen D. McDonald.

McDonald is running for Michigan Attorney General to succeed the appalling Dana Nessel.

She apparently thinks that ritually lynching a white American for defending his home will help her with the depraved Democrat primary voters.

Endnote: Because of New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ ruinous lawfare—“very suspicious” according to Real Clear Investigation’s Jim Varney—VDARE can no longer pay Kenn Gividen for his work. I do urge patriots to subscribe to his substack AbateHate.com.

PETER BRIMELOW WRITES: James Edwards, host of the Political Cesspool radio show, asked a number of us to grade Trump’s first year for the December 22-29 2025 issue of American Free Press, where he is a columnist. The result has been picked up by Kevin MacDonald’s Occidental Observer (here) and Ron Unz’ Unz Review (here). Both allow comments.

(Note about my ID line: of course I was an editor, not “the” editor of Forbes Magazine and the Wall Street Journal, as I should have thought to specify. But I was indeed the Editor of VDARE.com—and am the Editor of peterbrimelow.com, which went unmentioned, to my chagrin).

Some of the Occidental Observer and Unz Review comments on the American Free Press, symposium, from disillusioned Trump supporters, are scathing. Naturally, this causes me to reconsider my assessment. Am I getting too soft in my old age? (I’m not as old as Trump—but dismayingly close).

I faced a similar dilemma in the early 1980s. I had been a bitter critic of President Richard Nixon from the Right and worked for his heroic primary challenger Rep. John Ashbrook in 1972.

But then I found myself much more tolerant of Ronald Reagan.

Was this, I asked myself, because I was by then a married man—and thus more intimately acquainted with various ignominious practical necessities familiar to professional politicians, such as Lying Low, Playing For Time, Running Before The Wind, and even (up to the point of but not of course including!) what Shakespeare called the Lie Direct?

My considered answer: no.

Reagan was the greatest American president of the twentieth century.

His success was so total that the two parallel crises that brought him to power and on which he focused to the exclusion of details—the Cold War and inflation—are now discounted and forgotten.

Similarly, Trump like Reagan has, as practical matter, tightly focused on issues that I care about. Thus he has ended, and is reversing, illegal immigration.

Of course the ultimate issue is legal immigration, on which Trump has flip-flopped infuriatingly. But some of the flopping is very good.

And there’s also the similarly inspiring rhetoric. Trump’s famous 2018 “shit-hole countries” comment, implicitly a justification of the 1924 Immigration Act’s National Origin system, may well resonate through history, albeit less elegantly, like Reagan’s 1987 “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall” speech.

Is the die cast?

In any case, as I said despite all Trump’s flaws on the eve of the (now increasingly suspect) 2020 election:

[L]ike so many American patriots, I must say that I will always thank Donald Trump for that great night of November 8, 2016.

Although assailed with impending political dispossession, constant cultural humiliation and relentless Main Stream Media propaganda, we can still say with G.K Chesterton’s donkey:

Fools! For I also had my hour;

One far fierce hour and sweet:

There was a shout about my ears,

And palms before my feet.

Happy New Year to all my, and VDARE.com’s, readers.

Peter Brimelow, former editor of Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and VDARE (U.S.): 10/10. He gets a 10 because he’s not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. It really is that simple. The Biden administration was an absolutely catastrophic, an incipient communist coup—communist in content but fascist in form because it often worked through private sector entities. It turns out, for example, that it was the federal government that was pressuring banks to force payment processors to drop Dissident Right content creators. (My wife, Lydia, and I mentioned we suspected this in our VDARE swan-song videos). A second Biden/Harris administration would have been worse. Appropriate symbol: the J6 martyrs would still be in jail.

Trump is infuriating in many ways, such as the rhetorical flip-flopping, Zionist whoring, and apparent inability to get Congressional Republicans to actually do anything. But from my immigration-obsessed perspective, he has already triggered a serious exodus — the foreign-born population has fallen by more than 2 million in 10 months. He seems to be hampering legal immigration through regulatory changes (which also occurred during his first term). And he’s surfacing issues that VDARE.com was writing about going back 25 years—Birthright Citizenship, the Refugee Racket, cultural incompatibility of Third World immigration, etc. It adds up.

Peter Brimelow writes: My wife bans me from the internet over Christmas. So this is my first chance to thank to our friends who have donated to defray our personal costs against New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawfare charges against us as individuals

And also to resume my campaign, as a British American, to import the eminently sensible Boxing Day break as a statutory Holiday!

Cinco de Mayo—Diwali—why not?

Here’s my longtime VDARE colleague James Fulford, 12/25/ 2023, before our suppression by Letitia James:

Boxing Day, 2023: If We’re Going To Import Foreign Holidays, Why Not Import A British/Canadian One, And Give Americans A Day Off!

James Fulford writes: Christmas Day—Monday, December 25—is a public holiday in the U.S., but for most Americans, it’s back to work Tuesday!

That’s because Britain’s traditional December 26 holiday of Boxing Day (also celebrated in Canada and Australia) has not caught on, perhaps because Americans are traditionally such hard workers. Mark Steyn, born in Canada and educated in England, points out that it’s hard to make Americans take off the days that they’re entitled to.

In rural states, most Federal holidays—Presidents Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc—go unobserved except by banks and government agencies. It’s all I can do to persuade my assistant not to come in on Christmas Day—”just for a couple of hours in the morning in case there’s anything urgent,” she says pleadi

Happy Christmas Bank Holiday Thursday!, by Mark Steyn, December 26, 2018, originally published by the Irish Times in 2004

This cultural difference is why there’s an Economist Christmas Double Issue every year. American subscribers, of course, get a holiday double issue, but either way, the Economist’s editors aren’t even trying to get any work out of their globalist hacks until early January.

Well, as Peter Brimelow says below (and has been saying here since 2015), why not import a global holiday like Boxing Day, instead of Kwanzaa or Festivus?

Part of what the French call ”The Great Replacement” of the white nations is the imposition of alien celebrations. The most obvious is Cinco de Mayo, lovingly chronicled by VDARE.com here, exposed as a Hanukkah-style fake by our Allan Wall here.

In this spirit, I (on behalf my fellow immigrants from Britain and the former British Empire) want to propose the importation of Boxing Day, December 26, the day after Christmas Day, equally recognized with Christmas Day as a public holiday in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. Unlike Cinco de Mayo, this would actually be a useful holiday, for example for the millions of tryptophan-trashed Americans faced with the prospect of struggling back to work after Christmas Day.

In Britain in the 1970s, crippled by high marginal tax rates before the supply-side revolution, Boxing Day gave the British additional opportunity to trade income for leisure. With any luck, depending on the calendar, they could stop work from Christmas Eve or earlier until the New Year or later, in effect unilaterally reinstating a version of the Twelve Days of Christmas.

Of course, it helps that the dark British winter, with super-short days (it’s in the latitude of Labrador) and constant overcast skies, inspires hibernation.

To see how it works, note that Christmas this year (2015) fell on a Wednesday, so Boxing Day is on a Thursday. The British would conclude that there’s hardly any point in working on the Monday before Christmas Eve or for that matter going back to work just for Friday December 27. Similarly, what’s the point of working Monday, December 30, when all civilized people take off December 31, New Year’s Eve? Plus, of course, New Year’s Day.

This means that many in Britain would be off work from Saturday December 21 until Thursday January 2.

Given that Democrats like Bernie Sanders have obviously forgotten the lessons of the 1970s and propose reimposing high marginal tax rates on income, Americans will need this Boxing Day opportunity too.

Furthermore, it’s been obvious since the Supreme Court’s cowardly 2007 wimp-out in Skoros that Congress will have to legislate to protect the Historic American Nation’s Christmas from its fanatical foes.

Reinforcing Christmas Day—still specified in law as a federal holiday—will bring home that it really is a day ”different from all others.”

Merry Boxing Day!

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.