Herbert and Marion Sandler

Peter Brimelow writes: Patrick Cleburne was a valued contributor to VDARE.com until it was forced to suspend in 2024 because of its unconstitutional mugging by NYAG Letitia James. I urge everyone to subscribe to his substack, which is free. Warning (and possible incentive): he is Free At Last from my restraining editorial hand.

Herb & Marion Sandler: From Minority Mortgage Profiteering To Promoting America’s Destruction

Police Office Jarod Alexander of Ingram, Texas. H/T ProPublica

Financing 6.300 word articles involving several months of research and travel is a tall order nowadays even for Legacy Media giants. Happily, for suitably Leftist outlets, the massively-funded ProPublica foundation is here to help.

Last Sunday, The New York Times “Co-Published” He Helped Deport 200 People. Now He Has Misgivings by Francesca D’Annunzio and McKenzie Funk. October 25, 2026. ProPublica preferred the headline A Texas Cop Signed on to Help ICE Deport His Neighbors. It Tore the Town Apart for its own website.

Paradoxically, from an immigrant patriot point of view, this article actually reports the huge success of President Trump’s revival of the 287 (g) partnership program. This program enlists and financially incentivizes local law enforcement agencies “to perform specified immigration officer functions under ICE’s direction and oversight”.

The article, which takes the town of Ingram TX (110 miles from the Mexican border) and one of its two patrol officers, Jaron Alexander, as a case study, bewails that by the end of 2025

Ingram was by then one of more than 750 task force model partners around the country, up from not quite 500 when it signed up in October.

Currently the ICE website says

As of October 27, 2026 2:10 pm ICE has signed 2,618 Memorandums of Agreement for ​287(g) programs covering ​38 states and 2 ​U.S. Territories. ​

Grok says that at the end of 2024 at the close of the Biden Presidency only 135 agreements were in force. Both Obama and Biden were against these arrangements, because they worked.

Ingram bore the full brunt of the Biden No Borders policy. Latinos had come to make up 45% of the population (the 2020 census had said 32.4%), some residents were calling it “mini Guanajuato,” (the central Mexican state from which many came) and saying that Mexicans were taking over the town.

ProPublica disapprovingly says the City Council of Ingram consists of six white men. Ingram is in Kerr County, which voted 76.73% for President Trump in 2024 (and almost identically in 2016 and 2020).

The hero of this story (from the immigration patriot point of view) is Officer Jaron Alexander. He pointed out to his Chief the resources available via 287 (g) and went into action with his colleagues towards the end of 2025.

With spectacular effect. As of August 194 individuals had been handed over to ICE - ProPublica says 10% of the town!

As Latinos fled and avoided Ingram, the daily takeout orders at one Mexican restaurant on the edge of town dropped to 50 from 200. A corner store catering to immigrants lost around half its revenue and most of its Latino regulars. Landlords in a mobile-home park just outside town struggled to find tenants.

Most of the ProPublica article consists, literally, of sob stories, complete with a supporting video. A couple of local businessmen have been found to, predictably, whine about the loss of their cheap workers. Somehow ProPublica was able to invade Alexander’s privacy to obtain his pay stubs

…city records show that his earnings from the agency already totaled $18,793.25 in nine months, more than a quarter of his base salary.

Alexander’s irrefutable defense:

“If you’re taking federal money to do a job,” he says, “I think you should do the job.”

(Of course, stopping people who realize he might trigger their deportation must increase the risk of his being injured by far more than the 33% proportion to which this equates. To say nothing of the dangers created for him by ProPublica:

…he tries to do his shopping and errands in another town 30 minutes away.

In reality, the account reveals Alexander to be a compassionate man, who sometimes drops matters when wailed at enough (and lied to, as ProPublica reports, without disapproval). Not surprisingly, he is showing signs of battle fatigue, much to ProPublica’s delight.

Patriots fighting for their Country often get battle fatigue.

So whence came the funds to create this massive hit piece?

Herbert and Marion Sandler H/T Pic Time 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis

Herbert Sandler (1931-2019 and his wife Marion Sandler (1930 - 2012), both Jewish, founded and built up Great West Financial Corporation. Benefiting greatly from the minority mortgage lending bubble, they adroitly sold the business in late 2006 (right at the top) to the Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Their share of this according to Wikipedia was some $2.4 billion. Before the end of 2008, huge losses on this portfolio forced the venerable Wachovia into a rescue/merger.

What had happened: A foolish effort during President George W Bush’s Administrations to increase non-White home ownership by relaxing lending standards had triggered a major collapse - the 2008 financial crisis. Steve Sailer documented the blunder in a number of articles available in the VDARE archive, notably America’s Minority Mortgage Meltdown/ Diversity Recession: The Smoking Gun? and Tenth Anniversary Of The Minority Mortgage Meltdown.

In late 2008 the NBC Saturday Night Live show produced one of its greatest skits about this episode, prominently featuring the Sandlers (from 5:03)

“Nancy Pelosi”: This is Herbert and Marion Sandler. Tell us your story.

“Herbert Sandler”: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed sub prime mortgages and the bundled them to sell to Banks such as Wachovia. Today our portfolio is worth almost nothing though at one point it was worth close to $19 Billion.”

“Nancy Pelosi”: My God! I am so sorry. Were you able to sell it for anything?

“Herbert Sandler”: Yes. For $24 Billion.

“Nancy Pelosi”: “I see. So in that sense…you’re not actual victims?”

“Herb Sandler”: “No…ho ho ho. That would be Wachovia Bank… And thank you Congressman Frank, as well as many Republicans, for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities,”

With half their loot, the Sandlers set up The Sandler Foundation which has an impeccable list of Leftist recipients, and also ProPublica, precisely to fund major investigative journalism projects of this type.

I have no doubt both Sandlers would be delighted to see their money being spent to impede immigration law enforcement and to obstruct by intimidation the efforts of a small American town to avoid being swamped by foreigners.

On an alert reading of this account, President Trump’s activation of 287(g)’s Task Force Model has been a smashing success for Ingram Texas.

But it calls for valiant patriots on the ground.

No wonder ProPublica and The New York Times are so anxious to intimidate Jaron Alexander and his heroic colleagues.

VA State Senator Louise Lucas in debate mode

Peter Brimelow writes: James Fulford was my chief lieutenant for 25 years at VDARE.com. I urge everyone to subscribe to his substack as he suggests politely below:

The Challenge Of Dealing With Minority Officials Who Run Afoul Of The Law Is A Pre-Eminently Democratic Problem

by James Fulford

Please Sign Up As A PAID Subscriber: Remember, I’m only on Substack because VDARE was forced to suspend operations by NYAG Letitia James’s lawfare, so if you’re a free subscriber, please upgrade to paid!

The indictment of 82-year-old black Democratic Virginia State Senator L. Louise Lucas (see pic above) brings up an old problem for the Democrats—minority politicians being corrupt…and getting caught.

Of course she’s one of the people who Tweeted when Trump was indicted that “Donald Trump just learned no one is above the law!”

My headline above is from a 2009 USA Today article by Rutgers political scientist Ross K. Baker on Roland Burris’s apparent perjury (for which he was never charged) on his way to being appointed to the Senate.

A danger for Democrats

The challenge of dealing with minority officials who run afoul of the law is a pre-eminently Democratic problem and will certainly arise again when the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct makes its report on some questionable activities by Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Rangel is accused of failure to report income, circumventing New York City’s rent-control laws by occupying four of the cut-rate units, not the allowable one, and using official House stationery to raise money for a school of public affairs at the City College of New York that is named for him.

In light of the reluctance of Democratic leaders to stand up to the chorus of support for Burris, they could find themselves accused of dealing less aggressively with minority corruption than with malfeasance by whites. This would be difficult enough given the importance of minorities to the Democratic coalition. What compounds the situation is the readiness of African-American politicians to make the accused into racial martyrs. [The Burris problem - Opinion - USATODAY.com, February 25, 2009]

There’s more, at this archive.org link, and for a Mainstream Media publication, it was very brave—although it’s no longer on the web.

And yes, this is a major problem for Democrats, and it would be a much bigger problem for them if the Mainstream Media would report it. You will never see a headline that says “Black Congressman Arrested For Bribery.” The only time I saw a headline that read “Black Charged With Fraud,” it was Conrad Black, and he was (a) white, (b) not actually guilty, and (c) eventually pardoned by Trump on the basis.

Typically the accused’s race only comes out when he or she plays the race card

She, in this case, is not being reported as a black criminal—none of these headlines say “Black Charged With Corruption” although there are photographs:

But of course, she’s posturing as a black victim of racism:

And white liberals are defending her on that basis:

The fact is that while no one in the media will mention that a malefactor is black, they will mention it when a politician wants to use it in his defense.

Here’s something I wrote about when I was just starting at VDARE.com in 2001.

The media never mention anyone’s race, sex, or immigration status if they can avoid it.

I found out in 2001, five years after I first heard of him being sent away for having sex with an underage girl, that Congressman Mel Reynolds is black.

No one mentioned it, so I didn’t know until I came across a story where he mentioned it himself.

In classic Clintonian style, Reynolds smeared his young accuser as a “liar” and “nut case.’ A diverse jury of six blacks and six whites believed the troubled girl, not the conniving Rhodes Scholar. Yet, Reynolds bitterly blamed racism in a 40-minute courtroom tirade: ‘When they shackle me, like they shackled my slave ancestors and take me off to jail, nobody in this room will see me crawl.’ [Mel and Bill: bosom buddies, By Michelle Malkin, January 31, 2001]

I was particularly surprised to hear this, since the only color that had been mentioned was the color of the girl’s underwear (peach) discussed by Reynode by the FBI.

This started me on my path of trying to find out what the journalists are trying to hide from the public:

Hiding The Race Of Criminals—The Media’s Deliberate (And Dangerous) Lie

James Fulford Jan 25

Appeal for Subscriptions: I am glad to have any subscribers at all, but I continue to need paid subscribers to literally stay alive. Remember, I’m only on Substack because VDARE.com was forced to suspend operations by NYAG Letitia James’s lawfare, so if you’re a free subscriber, please upgrade to paid!

Read full story

“Race is destiny in American politics,” as Peter Brimelow has repeatedly pointed out. It means that minorities will have different voting habits and traditions, as well as different activities in office. That includes differential rates of corruption and white collar crime. To quote something John Derbyshire wrote in February, 2001, in The Case For Racial Profiling:

I do, however, think it is naive to imagine that the “racial profiling” hubbub would go away, or even much diminish, if all state and federal drug laws were repealed tomorrow. Black and Hispanic Americans would still be committing crimes at rates higher than citizens of other races. The differential criminality of various ethnic groups is not only, nor even mainly, located in drug crimes. In 1997, for example, blacks, who are 13 per cent of the U.S. population, comprised 35 per cent of those arrested for embezzlement. (It is not generally appreciated that black Americans commit higher levels not only of “street crime,” but also of white-collar crime.)

As long as Democrats insist on being the “Black Party” they’ll continue to have massive levels of corruption among their elected officials.

And here’s something to think above: after his eight years as President (annual salary $400,000,) Barack Obama’s various friends in the media have increased his net worth to $75, 000, 000.

James Fulford has been writing about the national question for over 20 years, mostly for VDARE.com, more recently for WhitePapers.

Thanks to Fergus Hodgson for image. Flag on left, province of Alberta; flag on right, province of Saskatchewan. Middle flag…a future Prarie nation?

Canada’s French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec elected a separatist government on October 5.

This amused me, because I predicted in my much-denounced 1986 book The Patriot Game

The Patriot Game By Peter Brimelow Chapterized

43.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

that Pierre Trudeau’s attempt to reengineer Canada into a bilingual, multicultural post-national monstrosity—dramatically accentuated by the elite-driven implosion of Britain—could not, in the end, appease Francophone (= French-speaking in Ottawa-speak) identitarianism. It would just dispossess Anglophone (= English-speaking) Canada.

And here we are.

Similarly, on October 19, the oil-rich province of Alberta (which, by the way, is about the same size as Lydia’s home state of Texas) will vote on a rather mealy-mouthed referendum to start the process of negotiating secession.

Everyone says this referendum will lose, with maybe 20-25% of the vote. And maybe that’s right. English Canada is apparently in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, exacerbated by its hegemonic Central Canadian media’s mainlining the U.S. MSM—in itself proof that the the two countries are in fact inextricably interlinked.

But I’m equally amused by the emergence of Alberta separatism, because I also predicted it in The Patriot Game (see “dispossess,” above).

So here we are again.

And, unlike Quebec, Alberta is not just a cultural but also a flat-out economic loser in Canada’s Confederation—see this brilliant analysis here. It’s actually amazing that Alberta has stood still for this for so long.

The possibility of Western separatism was met with utter incredulity by the Central Canadian elite when I reported it 40 years ago.

You’ve heard of the Will To Power. In Canadian politics, there is a Will To Complacency. In The Patriot Game, I reported regular proclamations that Quebec separatism was dead, going back to Pierre Trudeau himself in 1964, four years before Levesque’s Parti Quebecois was even formed.

A week is notoriously a long time in politics. Yet decades can pass in the blink of an eye.

And so here we are (see above). Alberta separatism has finally forced itself into the public agenda.

And if it loses this time? I recommend to Alberta separatists what separatist Quebec premier Rene Lévesque said after losing the 1980 referendum: “A la prochaine fois”—until the next time.

And in fact the subsequent 1995 referendum only lost by 1.2%.

Now another one is coming up. Care to bet against the trend?

The point is that are fundamental forces underlying Quebec’s move to independence that cannot be debated away.

And in English Canada?

Identities brew up very quickly in the Anglosphere. England itself, of course. is more than a thousand years old. But the United States of America was notoriously rampant in not much more than a hundred. And the States of the Deep South, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, were less than fifty years old when their men fought to the death in defence of the newly-brewed Confederacy.

And these identities morph—for example, the entire Anglosphere now faces the threat of non-traditional immigration.

I opened The Patriot Game by stipulating eight points about Canada, which I will summarize in truncated form here. I am happy to report that when I was writing this, the late Arnold Beichman, married to a Canadian woman and trapped in my Manhattan loft because National Review Editor John O’Sullivan was late as usual for lunch, whooped happily in agreement.

• 1] There at at least two and conceivably seven incipient subnations within Canada

• 2] Quebec is a genuine nation-state

• 3] Anglophone Canada is part of a greater English-speaking North American nation

• 5] Canada’s political system is badly designed, and misrepresents Canadian reality

• 6] Canada has an unusually large New Class—a group inventing polices that benefit itself (currently anti-Trumpism) and seeking rents from e.g. transfer payments, bilingualism, affirmative action.

• 7] This new Class has developed a Gramscian”Dominant Ideology” (egalitarian, multicultural) which has replaced Canada’s former (British, Imperial) identity,

• 8] Canada’s politics are volatile, disguised by the Parliamentary system and the first-past-the-post system.)

Pat Buchanan immediately saw what I was driving at, from an America First point of view, and wrote the column posted below.

For the record, I now think that, until the U.S, gets its immigration disaster under control, Alberta would be better off with independen possibly some sort of associate status.

Is Annexation Of Canada In The Cards For US?

by Patrick J. Buchanan. Originally published January 18, 1988, reposted on VDARE.com November 29, 2011

Twelve decades ago. we Americans made our last serious effort to annex Great Britain’s vast possessions to the north, Irish veterans of Grant’s Army of the Potomac, Fenians they called themselves, decided to capture Canada, provoking a war with Great Britain, out of which would come the liberation of the Emerald Isle. Their battle hymn ran thus:

“We are the Fenian Brotherhood, skilled in the art of war.

And we’re going to fight for Ire’ land, the land that we adore.

Many battles have we won, along with the boys in blue,

And we’ll go and capture Canada, for we’ve nothing else to do.”

The Fenian boys made a mess of it: after crossing the Niagara River and prevailing at “the Battle of Limestone Ridge.” Parliament, irate at the newest manifestation of Yankee greed, passed the British North America Act, creating the Dominion of Canada. A little patience, and Canada, or parts of it like British Columbia, might have fallen peace fully into the lap of the United States. But the Irish-Americans blew it.

Comes now a book suggesting that the break-up of Canada, with the English-speaking Maritime and western provinces moving into close association with the United States, may be only a matter of time.

The Patriot Game [free pdf.]

The Patriot Game By Peter Brimelow Chapterized

43.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

was penned by Forbes editor Peter Brimelow, a British expatriate living in New York. who spent seven years in Canada. Brimelow’s thesis runs thus:

In recent decades, the dominant Liberal Party has prevented Quebec from breaking free, and Canada from breaking up only through the cultural and economic appeasement of Montreal. Having adopted a constitution making Canada bilingual, Ottawa has rigorously imposed the French language on the state bureaucracy and the English-speaking provinces, while allowing Quebec to institute policies of rank discrimination against her Anglophone minority. English speaking Canada is being massively taxed for income transfers to raise Quebec’s standard of living to the national average. Given a crisis, the arrangement could collapse.

Other strains are surfacing. Ottawa’s socialist and protectionist policies have impoverished the nation. leaving Canadians with 70 percent of the standard of living of Americans (roughly the same as America’s blacks) though Canada is richer in resources, freeloads on Western defense, and has no vast urban underclass to support.

The “patriot game” is “Canadian nationalism,” which Brimelow derides as a “fraud,” a hoax, promoted by Canada’s New Class of academics, journalists, bureaucrats and a business elite to keep out American imports and American magazines, films, books and television shows against which Canada’s media magnates cannot compete. The average Canadian is not anti-American. Brimelow writes: America’s problem lies with the Ottawa and Toronto elites, who appease Quebec and milk the outer provinces.

Quebec is becoming more and’ more French, more and more separate In character from English- speaking Canada, which has more in common, culturally, linguistically, economically, with the Americans, than with Canada’s New Class.

“I don’t even know what street Canada is on,” Al Capone of Cicero, Ill., once observed, nicely encapsulating the attitude of most Americans. But Americans would do well to pay attention to a neighbor with one- tenth our population, who possesses as much of the earth’s surface (6 percent) as does the United States.

Whenever I do an interview with Emerald Robinson, my breath is taken away with how perfectly beautiful she is.

Emerald recently (October 5) talked to me about Federal Judge Mae D’Agostino’s shocking attempt to dodge our irrefutable video proof that New York State Attorney General Letitia James is involved in a conspiracy to violate VDARE’s First Amendment rights. Video and transcript below.

As an editor, I worry that people are getting bored with our Political Correctness martyrdom. We’re bored too. But it’s still gotten almost no attention even from “conservative” commentators—and it’s life or death for us.

Emerald Robinson: Apparently, in the state of New York, you only get your First Amendment rights if [New York State Attorney General] Letitia James approves of your politics. And the organization VDARE is now asking a very simple question: How many times are federal courts going to dodge what it calls the First Amendment Smoking Gun?

VDARE has spent year after year after year arguing that New York Attorney General Letitia James didn’t just investigate a charity. The organization says her office used the enormous power of the state to target their political speech, which they despise.

And one of the most damning pieces of evidence comes from the Attorney General’s own lawyer, Rick Sawyer, who at a 2022 Anti-Defamation League conference openly described just how much power the New York Attorney General’s office can wield before a case even reaches court. Watch:

Rick Sawyer:

I mean, I can speak a little bit about Attorney General’s offices. So Attorney General’s offices have a massive amount of power within their jurisdiction. So in New York, we have subpoena authority for any kind of Hate Crime that’s under Section 79-N of the civil rights law. We have subpoena authority against charities. We have subpoena authority against any business that’s engaged in business in the state of New York.

And so we have—and this is all before we even file a lawsuit, by the way, for people who aren’t lawyers—we can get massive amounts of discovery without even having to go to court. And so that’s part of our unique role. We have the opportunity to do massive investigations into organizations that are sham charities that are advancing “Hate Speech.” We can look into groups that are making money off of Hate. And we can look into individuals who’ve committed Hate Crimes without even going to court.

And we can enter into creative settlements like we were discussing earlier today, before even filing a lawsuit.

So, you know Attorney General’s offices, I would say, are an untapped resource in in this area. A lot of our offices are waking up to the power we have.

Emerald Robinson: Wow. When a government lawyer brags that his office can get massive amounts of discovery without even going to court at all, and talks about using that power against groups engaged in protected speech, yeah, you should get concerned.

Joining us now, and to give us the latest in his years-long saga against Letitia James’ political weaponization of her office, is Peter Brimelow with VDARE. He is also the regular OG of Cancel Culture. It’s good to see you, Peter.

Peter Brimelow: Thanks for having me on, Emerald. That really is a Smoking Gun. I mean, he’s just saying the quiet part out loud. And he directly said, in that speech to the Anti-Defamation League, that “Hate Speech” is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But then he goes on to explain how to get around it. So how much more blatant can you get?

But, as you know, up to now we’ve been unable to get a federal court to pay attention to it.

Emerald Robinson: Well, that’s right. The latest installment is that a U.S. federal judge named Mae D’Agostino—she’s a Biden appointee, we shall note—ruled on September 10th that she must “abstain” from addressing your free-speech claims. Tell us about this latest judicial trick.

Peter Brimelow:

Well, we’ve had two go-arounds in the federal courts. In the first one, they simply did what she’s trying to do here, which is to find some technical excuse to avoid ruling on the First Amendment question. This one stems from the fact that Letitia James sued the VDARE Foundation and us personally last September, which was over a year after we’d just had to suspend VDARE because we’d run out of money. She’d already inflicted between $I-$1 1/2 million dollars of costs on us, even before suing us over anything.

But when she sued us, it opened the whole case up anew, and we were able to try to get an injunction from the federal court to stop her going ahead because of this blatant expression of intent to violate the First Amendment. It’s clearly a conspiracy against civil rights.

And the federal court, all of this year, has been basically trying to dodge this question. And that culminated in this ruling that this woman made a few weeks ago. She’s basically trying to say that the matter should be returned to state courts.

Which is not, in fact, true. Constitutional issues are usually resolved in federal courts.

And, of course, we know that in New York State, with a New York State jury and a New York State prosecutor, and New York State judges, we have absolutely no chance.

Look what they did to Donald Trump. I don’t think there’s been enough outrage about the way Trump was treated in the New York State courts.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, especially if there’s been no accountability for them to even do it to a past president who’s now become the sitting president again. I mean, why would they back off?

Peter Brimelow: Trump is trying to get redress. The DOJ is pursuing a theory of conspiracy against his Civil Rights in upstate New York courts. But the problem is that the whole prosecutorial apparatus there, even at the federal level, is infected by Democrats. So it’s been extremely difficult to get these charges off the ground.

Letitia James has clearly engaged in serial mortgage fraud going back forty years but, up to now, they’ve been unable to launch a prosecution against her because of sabotage by Democrat prosecutors and Democrat grand jurors.

Emerald Robinson: I think there’s also some distaste at the federal level for addressing that as well—

Peter Brimelow: Certainly among the career civil servants in the DOJ. As for [USAG] Todd Blanche, I guess we’ll have to and see.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, we’ve been asking about that.

But for VDARE, you’re kind of caught in this litigation loop, right? And we’ve seen this with other things. We’re talking about these Dominion lawsuits today. We’re talking about the FBI seizure of Mike Lindell’s phone and the targeting of him through Arctic Frost. What they can do without going to court, they can get you in this litigation loop, subpoena loop, and just drain you of funds.

And they have unlimited funds, right? It’s the government. They can just keep going and going.

So if the federal court does not address this, Peter, what recourse do you and your wife and VDARE have?

Peter Brimelow: Well, we’re in completely uncharted territory. We will probably be personally bankrupted by this, because, of course, we’re having to pay for our own lawyers quite separate from the VDARE Foundation’s lawyers. And the VDARE Foundation is rapidly running out of money.

I think what Letitia James wants to do is seize the Foundation and seize the domain name. (Which is why I no longer use my mailto:pbrimelow@VDARE.com email, because it looks like the New York State courts are going to give her the domain name. Use editor@peterbrimelow.com]).

But I think her ultimate objective is to get her filthy paws on the Berkeley Springs Castle.

Because we got so fed up with being canceled out of hotels when we were trying to hold conferences during the first Trump administration, and because we had very generous donors, Lydia bought a castle here in Berkeley Springs WV so that we could have our own conference venue.

And we did have a number of very successful conferences

You came to one of our Twelfth Night parties, Emerald! (Am I allowed to say that?)

Emerald Robinson: You can say that!

Peter Brimelow: The Castle has been spun off into a separate West Virginia foundation.

And Letitia James has a bad record here, because she seized the headquarters of the Irish Historical Society in New York a few years ago. Now, that case, there was a split on the board, but there’s no split on our board.

So we’re assured by our lawyers, the extremely expensive lawyers who lawyered the whole transaction of buying the Castle and then spinning it off into a separate foundation, that it’s unbreakable. She can’t get her filthy paws on the Castle.

But New York courts—New York State courts—have shown that they’re capable of anything. So we just don’t know what’s going to happen, except that we’re probably going to be personally bankrupt.

Emerald Robinson: It’s a lovely castle. It’s a lovely property, and it’s a beautiful venue to get together and have discussions, debate, you know, think, discuss. It’s absolutely gorgeous, and the surrounding town is just lovely.

And, you know me, I’m an Appalachian girl, so I love the mountains, and it’s nestled in the beautiful mountains there in West Virginia. It’s absolutely stunning.

And you had lots of plans, right? You were going to promote debate, promote discussion. I love it because I personally enjoy the old-school kind of political salons, literary salons, sitting and talking about what you’ve read and what you think about it. And it was a perfect venue to do that.

What do you need people to help you, Peter? How can we help you and VDARE?

Peter Brimelow: Well, immediately, as you know, Emerald, about this last atrocity, I just ask people to publicize it.

My observation of these judges is that they’re not swayed by considerations of the law or facts or common decency. The only thing that seems to sway them is publicity and being in the public eye.

I mean, that’s why that judge [Colombian-born Judge Juan Merchan] backed off of punishing Trump for the alleged campaign financing infractions about the [Stormy Daniels] hush money payments.

He let the thing go to trial. He let Trump be convicted. He then said he was going to wait to sentence him until after the election.

And then he gave him an unconditional discharge.

Well, if he was going to get an unconditional discharge, why did it even go to trial?

The answer is that Trump was president, and that the judge didn’t want to take the heat of giving a sitting president a suspended sentence. He’s a coward.

And so, as I say, my first request is basically that people just circulate our story. If you go to the VDARE site on X, which is @VDARE, or my own Substack site,

PeterBrimelow.com

My website VDARE.com, destroyed by NY AG Letitia James' lawfare in 2024, focused tightly on immigration with some line extensions; here, I'll be more expansive e.g reflections on life with 3 young daughters and 3 cats.

By Peter Brimelow

you’ll see the video you just played, and the discussion is pinned.

And beyond that, I’m afraid to say that, like everybody else, we need money. We have two GiveSendGos up. One is for the VDARE Foundation itself, and the other frankly, is for us personally, because, you know, we just wrote a seventeen-thousand-dollar check last week to our personal lawyers.

They’re trying to depose Lydia in New York sometime in this fall, but we’re not even at the stage of depositions yet, so the personal cost will be colossal.

I mean, it’s extraordinary—given that I suspended the site two and a half years ago—it’s quite extraordinary that they’re continuing this case. I truly think that James actually wants to seize the Castle.

Emerald Robinson: And so I’ll also mention that a good place to find what is going on with VDARE and the Brimelows is Peter Brimelow’s Substack www.peterbrimelow.com . That’s got the latest article, Do Federal Courts REALLY Intend To Dodge VDARE’s 1A Smoking Gun AGAIN? You can subscribe there as well.

And, look, you just never know. You know, we’ve had this discussion with the alleged pipe bomber’s mom here on Lindell TV. You just don’t know when you might be the target of the federal government.

Peter Brimelow: When I was at Forbes more than twenty years ago, Paul Craig Roberts—do you remember him? He was a Reagan administration official—published a book breaking from the Conservative Inc. consensus on prosecution. He said that there actually is prosecutorial abuse in this country. And Steve Forbes told me to go down and write an article about this because it had been completely shunned by the Conservative Establishment.

And, of course, I didn’t do anything until I was actually on the plane going down to Florida, when I actually read the book. It absolutely blew my mind.

This has been going on a long time—prosecutorial abuse. It really stems back to the relaxation of standards from the War On Drugs, from the War On Terror.

But now it’s being used to suppress political speech. Of course, Letitia James is a particularly radical example.

Emerald Robinson: I like what you said about the publicity aspect of this—so share out this story!

We do know that they’re not really particularly brave. Most of these people involved in weaponization, when it’s turned back on them, are quite cowardly.

Peter Brimelow, thank you for coming and sharing your story once again. We—and we’re sad it’s been years and continues to go on—but we’re all rooting for you. Thank you, Peter.

Peter Brimelow: Thank you, Emerald!

Peter Brimelow writes: Time is running out to buy tickets for the Berkeley Springs Castle Apple Butter Tea, which coincides with Berkeley Springs WV’s annual Apple Butter festival on October 10. Details here!

VDARE.com was unconstitutionally lawfared into suspension by New York State’s rogue Attorney General Letitia James in 2024, but Lydia and I continue to be responsible for the Castle. It’s now owned by a separate West Virginia foundation and entirely run by local volunteers, including Lydia, who serves as its president. It hosts many non-political community events but also continues to offer a Free Speech haven to persecuted patriots—including, one day, hopefully, resumed VDARE Conferences.

(I’d be happy to meet up with any readers who plan to come—let me know!)

Please Sign Up As A PAID Subscriber: Remember, I’m only on Substack because VDARE was forced to suspend operations by NYAG Letitia James’s lawfare, so if you’re a free subscriber, please upgrade to paid!

The level of Indian immigration—call it the “Indian Question”—has been brought up on Twitter by Bo French, a GOP candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission who Tweeted this:

Drawing attention to the number of Indians at the University of Texas is apparently racist—according to Indians at the University of Texas. UT students attacked by Bo French call his comments “disgusting” and too familiar

In a statement Monday night, university officials indirectly addressed Bo French’s comments, calling students at the game Saturday night “incredible fans.”

by Megan Menchaca, Texas Tribune, September 14, 2026

I wrote about the Indian invasion of Texas recently for White Papers here:

White Papers

Remember The Alamo!—The Indian Invasion Of Texas

Tyler Oliveira, who risked life and limb to film a poop-throwing festival in India, has now come home to America, and is filming Indians—with questionable work visas—in Texas. The above image is AI, the video is real…

Read more

6 months ago · 31 likes · 1 comment · White Papers Policy Institute and James Fulford

But I also want to point to the work VDARE.com did on this stuff over the past 25 years.

Indian immigration to the US almost didn’t exist for most of America’s history—it was banned by the Immigration Act of 1924, and before that, it was in very small numbers.

In Peter Brimelow’s 1995 bestseller Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, Indian immigration doesn’t get much mention. The only time it comes up is when the Indian Embassy is asked whether Americans could emigrate to India.

It turned out that, according to the Indian Embassy, foreigners could pretty much only immigrate to if they were of “Indian origin”, I E. racially Indian, like Vivek Ramaswamy or Dinesh D’Souza—an explicitly racial policy.

But the figure of 36,755 Indian immigrants to the United States in 1992 was mentioned. That’s not many compared to what we have now according to the Migration Policy Institute:

Indian immigrants are the second largest foreign-born group in the United States, numbering about 3.2 million as of 2024.

• The Indian immigrant population grew 78 percent between 2010 and 2024, triple the rate for the overall foreign-born population.

• Indian nationals received 71 percent of all H-1B visas for highly skilled workers in fiscal year (FY) 2024, and more than 363,000 Indian students were enrolled in U.S. higher education in 2024–25, the largest international student group.

• Educational attainment among Indian immigrants tends to far exceed other groups: 82 percent of adults held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2024.

While Indian immigration was only a cloud on the horizon no larger than a man’s hand in 1995, by 2000 it was one of the issues raised by VDARE.com.

See, for example, New H1B Scandal - Tax Evasion! by Brenda Walker, September 24, 2000. It turned out that one advantage for US companies hiring H-1B could avoid some taxes, and pay their Indian employees less by taking advantage of the fact that they weren’t paying taxes.

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s comment: This was

a classic example of government regulation, of the employment of labor, having unintended consequences - creating a black market opportunity for tax-free workers. Americans, whom the IRS does know how to track, need not apply.

In the immigration area, comments Norm Matloff, UC-Davis computer scientist and one-man army against the H1B legislation , “there are many other related dodges. Did you know that universities don’t have to put taxes on [withhold] their teaching/research assistants from China, due to a tax treaty?”

Similarly, the American economy’s apparent demand for illegal immigration, much touted by immigration enthusiasts, is in large measure the black market shadow of American government.

The H-1B Visa wasn’t even invented until 1990, when it was signed into law by George H. W. Bush, and it’s the lust for cheap (more or less indentured) labor by tech companies that has caused a lot of this immigration.

Unlike illegal Mexican and South American immigrants, Indian immigrants may use less in government services than they pay in taxes. But that doesn’t mean Indian immigration is a Good Thing—it just means they displace a better class of American.

America gets Indian immigrants of all varieties, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. Sikhs tend to be active, and take over whole communities. See The Sikhs of Vancouver (Canada) by Duncan Hengest, August 8, 2012.

Sikhs have been taking over both the Canadian and American trucking industries, displacing native-born truckers and causing a number of deaths, partly from not speaking English, not being properly qualified, and not being familiar with North American ice and snow:

LOS ANGELES TIMES Celebrates Sikh Truck Driver Taking American Jobs, by Brenda Walker, July 2, 2019

Immigrant Mass Murder: Sikh Truck Driver Charged With Killing Four Family Members, by me, July 2, 2019 (This wasn’t a crash, but a Sikh-on-Sikh multiple murder.)

Linda Thom On Sikh Truckers In The Northwest, October 6, 2019

Tropical Truckdrivers vs. Canadian Ice and Snow: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? October 6, 2019

When there was a mass shooting by a white guy at a Sikh Temple in 2018, Peter Brimelow noted that one possible motive for the attacker, a former truck driver, might have been Sikh displacement of whites from the trucking industry. But of course nobody bothered to ask.

Six people were killed, which is, of course, indefensible—but a much smaller number than the people killed by Sikh truckers—one crash in Canada killed 16 people. Is that indefensible, or is Noticing it indefensible?

Here’s the BBCs answer:

Under Trump, however, the US Government is “reclaiming American trucking”.

One common justification for Indian immigration is that it brings Indian doctors. Maybe, but this must be offset by the remarkable tendency of Indian immigrants to commit both financial (Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare) and scientific fraud:

Why Does America Tolerate Indian Immigrant Medical Fraud? by Thomas O. Meehan, July 26, 2014

Indian Diversity Superstars And The Cancer Of Dishonesty At The Heart Of American Medical Research, by Thomas O. Meehan, January 27, 2015

Why MSM Won’t Name Medicare Fraudsters: They’re All Immigrants, by Mark Antonov, November 19, 2018

Trump Prosecuting Immigrant Health Care Fraudsters That Obama Ignored, by Thomas O. Meehan, July 20, 2017Above, I noted that Indian immigration policy, unlike American policy was race-based, although any kind of Indian-origin person could qualify. Indians, specifically Hindus, have their own form of racism: the Caste System.

On her mother’s side, Kamala Harris is a high-caste Indian, but no one cared about that. She was running on her (not very large) percentage of African (Jamaican, not African-American) ancestry:

• A New York Reader Wonders If Anyone Will Ask Kamala About Her High-Caste Indian Privilege

However, there is a lot of Indian caste discrimination among immigrants to the U.S.: see VDARE.com Roundup: Indian Caste Discrimination, Indian IQ, And Indian Affirmative Action and Brahmins Discriminate Against Untouchables in Silicon Valley.

This is a new kind of racism in America, and has actually led to some Civil Rights lawsuits over Indian on Indian workplace discrimination.

Why would American Tech CEOs take that kind of risk? Well, a lot of Tech CEOs are Caste Hindus themselves. Before Elon took over Twitter, and reestablished free speech, that included Parag Agrawal, the CEO of Twitter:

See

“The Indian CEO Virus”—Is It Good For The Historic American Nation?, by Eugene Gant, January 31, 2022

My Readers (American And Indian) Comment On “The Indian CEO Virus” by Eugene Gant, March 30, 2022

The phrase “Indian CEO Virus” is not VDARE.com’s, it comes from this post by Indian billionaire Anand Mahindra

Of course, the problem of having Indian CEOs controlling America’s social media companies is that they don’t have the same belief in free speech that Americans do. See:

Immigrant Activist Nandini Jammi Trying To Ruin Revolver News—These Indian Invaders Take No Prisoners, By Patrick Cleburne, December 12, 2022.

Indian “CEO Virus” Comes To Virginia Politics. Indian Leftist Gets Indian Conservative Booted From Education Board, by Eugene Gant, February 13, 2023

Colonization By Indian Leftists—The Downside Of “Merit-Based Immigration”, by Jesse Mossman, April 16, 2018

Turkeys Vote For Christmas—GOP Votes To Import Leftist Indian Overclass (And Also Depress Tech Wages), by Washington Watcher II, July 15, 2019

The final post I want to remind you of is this one, because the question is still in the balance today, as Bo French and others are finding out:

JOHN DERBYSHIRE: How MANY Indian Immigrants Do We Want? Or ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK? By John Derbyshire, January 27, 2024.

VDARE.com was not passionately opposed to all Indians. We would get occasional letters from friendly Indian and Indian-American readers.

An Indian Reader Writes On MSM Coverage Of White Supremacy And Decries The Sikh Caste System

A High-Caste Indian Reader Writes On Ramesh Ponnuru

An Indian Reader Writes On MSM Coverage Of White Supremacy And Decries The Sikh Caste System

Then there’s Razib Khan, Bangladeshi-American writer on population genetics.

In VDARE.com FACING MORTAL THREAT! , Peter Brimelow wrote of the “fate of blogger Razib Khan, fired after less than 24 hours as a New York Times contributor just because he had some years earlier written a letter to VDARE.com opposing something we had published.” See

Razib Khan Hired And Fired By The New York Times, Both On The Same Day!

A Reader Wonders How A Guy Named Razib Gets Fired For White Supremacy from 2015.

Peter and Lydia Brimelow remain friends with Razib Khan.

The question remains, however: are Americans allowed to ask how many Indians they want in their country?

The story to date:

The VDARE Foundation just got yet MORE bad news in its lawfare hell, which has now lasted nearly four and a half years. (Litigation costs forced us to suspend posting on the VDARE.com website in July 2024).

U.S. Federal Judge Mae D’Agostino (Biden appointee) ruled on September 10 that she must “abstain” from addressing VDARE’s free speech claims. This is a judicial trick whereby the federal courts punt matters over to the states to let them do the dirty work of thwarting constitutional rights.

D’Agostino completely ignored what we’ve called the Smoking Gun: new video evidence of one of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ thugs openly boasting that he intended to get around our First Amendment rights.

This means we will have to appeal, to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

And it means that NYAG James’ litigation against us in New York State court grinds on—inflicting further ruinous expense upon the VDARE Foundation; and upon my family.

It was always obvious that NYAG James’ massive “investigation” of the tiny VDARE Foundation was simply aimed at suppressing our First Amendment-protected criticism of America’s post-1965 immigration disaster. Why else would she inflict outrageous $1-2 million “investigation” costs (depending how you count pro bono help) upon our organization before even us suing us about anything?

(Note that even now she has sued only us over civil complaints focused on alleged paperwork issues. She is not alleging any crimes).

But then we got irrefutable proof of James’ malign intent. A journalist friend found a YouTube video of New York State Assistant Attorney General Rick Sawyer, who seems to be James’ chief enforcer against the VDARE Foundation, boasting to the November 2022 Anti-Defamation League “Taking Hate To Court” conference that, while “Hate Speech” a.k.a. us was Constitutionally protected, state Attorney Generals offices can use their subpoena powers to suppress it—without even securing a judgement: “Putting people through the ringer like that really, really makes them think twice about acting out [a.k.a. speaking out] in the public sphere.”

It’s 31:16-32:44 on the full video linked above, clip below:

Here’s the transcript:

RICK SAWYER:

Hate’s protected in in the United States Constitution, the First Amendment protects Hate, Hateful Speech, it protects Hateful Thoughts.

What this these kinds of lawsuits help do, is show you the lines that you have to color in if you want to be doing these kinds of dog whistles [a.k.a. exercise your free speech rights] and that itself, I think is, I mean I think you [Jordan Matthews, Jones Day partner, previous speaker on ADL panel] put it probably better than I’m about to, but that itself is an accomplishment, where you say— you’re corralling what people are allowed to do and what people think that they’re allowed to do. [And say]

And there’s also the question of specific deterrence, the deterrence against the individuals who are actually being sued.

Because, you know, even if you don’t end up with a $14 million judgment at the end of the day, the lawyers in the room know that it sucks to get sued—not for the lawyers but for their clients!

It’s massively expensive, it opens your whole life up to Discovery, it can ruin your credit, it can ruin, you know, your opportunity to do a lot of things that you would otherwise be doing with your time [emphasis added—a.k.a. publishing articles documenting America’s post-19965 immigration disaster] when you have to respond to Discovery requests, get ready for depositions, testify uh etc.

So, you know, putting people through the ringer like that really, really makes them think twice about acting out [a.k.a. speaking out] in the public sphere…

Sawyer went further in his conclusion—51:20 in full video above, clip below:

Here’s the clip:

And here’s the transcript:

RICK SAWYER:

I can speak a little bit about Attorney Generals’ offices.

So Attorney Generals’ offices have a massive amount of power within their jurisdiction. So in New York we have we have subpoena authority for any kind of hate crime that’s under section 79n of the Civil Rights law, we have subpoena authority against charities, we have subpoena authority against any business that’s engaged in business in in the State of New York.

And this is all before we even file a lawsuit [emphasis added], by the way, for people who aren’t lawyers.

So we can get massive amounts of Discovery without even having to go to court.

And so you know that’s part of our unique role. We have the opportunity to do massive investigations into organizations that are, you know, sham charities [that’s us!—VDARE Foundation is a 501©(3) charity] that are that are advancing, you know, Hate Speech we can look into groups that are making money off of Hate, and we can look it into individuals who’ve committed acts of “Hate Crime” [needless to say, the VDARE Foundation has never been never associated with any kind of “crime,” let alone “Hate Crime”—but, throughout this ADL conference, speakers use “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crime” interchangeably]—without even going to court [i.e. state Attorney General commissars can act unilaterally, without any kind of oversight].

And we can enter into creative settlements [we’ve not been offered any “creative settlement” yet, but it will probably involve handing over the Berkeley Springs Castle, although it is a separate West Virginia charity], like we were discussing earlier today, before even filing a lawsuit.

So, you know Attorney Generals’ office, I would say, are an untapped resource in this in this area.

A lot of our offices are waking up to the power we have. I’ve been working with Attorney Generals’ offices across the country to kind of develop capacity in this area [i.e. Democrat State Attorney Generals are conspiring against America patriots’ Civil Rights].

And it’s something where you [ADL conference attendees] as voters and constituents can keep pushing forward.

This is the Smoking Gun. In fact, it’s a Smoking Cannon. Sawyer explicitly says he intends to get around First Amendment protections for “Hate Speech” (i.e. speech he and Letitia James don’t like) through abuse of his subpoena power— “putting people through the ringer like that really, really makes them think twice about acting out [a.k.a. speaking out] in the public sphere.”

Tellingly, the VDARE Foundation appears to be the only 501(c)(3) charity that the New York Attorney General has announced suing since Sawyer’s 2022 rant. He was talking about us.

This is particularly remarkable because New York City’s own Department of Investigations has identified homeless charities fraud in the state involving tens of millions of dollars—extracted from taxpayers, not donated by private individuals as in the case of VDARE. Yet none seem to have been prosecuted. Whistleblower Daniel Wiesenfeld specifically criticized the lack of action against “rampant nonprofit homeless shelter fraud” in his celebrated recent email [NY prosecutor claims Letitia James’ office directed him to target Trump| Agency-wide email sent by assistant attorney general to hundreds of colleagues was quickly deleted from state computer servers, by Brendan J. Lyons, Albany Times-Union, August 29, 2026). (Not surprisingly, given James’ blatant assault on Trump’s civil rights, Wiesenfeld has been subsequently interviewed by federal prosecutors Fed investigators met with Tish James whistleblower who claimed he was pushed to dig up dirt on Trump: sources, by Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, New York Post, September 2, 2026)

The ADL has been gunning for VDARE for a long time. In 2021, we featured in an article it published claiming that “Extremist and Hate Groups May be Abusing Non-Profit Status,” obviously aimed at inciting the federal Internal Revenue Service against us. In 2022, according to a spokesman for its Center on Extremism, it made a “formal complaint” to New York Attorney General Letitia James, urging her to proceed against us.

The VDARE Foundation made a genuine effort to comply with NYAG James’ June 2022 subpoena demands. It raised the First Amendment issue in federal court only in December 2022, when it became obvious she was not acting in good faith.

James’ response: to ask for a delay because of COVID and Christmas. Then, in a characteristic violation of legal ethics, she used the time to file in New York State Court. And with lightning speed, which has proved to be her pattern, Judge Sabrina Kraus

[Credit: Law.com]

ruled in favor of NYAG James’ motion to compel. This enabled Federal Judge Frederick J Scullin to dodge our entire First Amendment issue on res judicata grounds i.e. the case was already being adjudicated in state court.

Of course, we appealed Judge Scullin’s decision.

And we attempted to introduce as evidence Sawyer’s Smoking Gun, which we had only just discovered.

But the federal appeals court rebuffed our attempt to introduce this Smoking Gun—without explanation.

Then, on December 17 2025, appeals court Judge Richard J. Sullivan again used the res judicata excuse to wriggle out of facing our First Amendment claim.

One commentator thought VDARE had inadvertently established an important precedent.

The (India-based!) legal research platform CaseMine drew this helpful moral:

Organizations facing politically sensitive investigations (for example, groups accused of “hate speech,” controversial religious or political organizations, or groups with contentious fundraising practices) must now recognize that comprehensive, well‑developed constitutional arguments should be presented in the initial state subpoena proceeding. Holding back for federal court is risky: if the state court rules, federal claims based on the same transaction will likely be precluded.

When State Subpoena Proceedings Bar Federal First Amendment Suits: Claim‑Preclusion in VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James (2d Cir. 2025): 2d Cir. CaseMine, December 12, 2025.

Great. CaseMine’s conclusion is exactly the opposite of what our understanding of correct procedure was. We understood some compliance with the state subpoenas would demonstrate good faith and present a better posture when we did have to fight on First Amendment grounds.

(CaseMine also displays touching faith in the impartiality of New York State courts. President Trump would not agree).

Nevertheless, James’ suing the VDARE Foundation and Lydia and myself personally in September 2025, changed the situation completely.

Now we could litigate in Federal court to defend our First Amendment rights directly—unimpeded by the New York State court’s attempt to create a res judicata excuse derived from the previous dispute about abusive subpoenas.

Finding for the VDARE Foundation on First Amendment grounds—of which the scandalous boasting of NYAG thug Rick Sawyer is irrefutable proof—would have ended our Letitia James nightmare at a stroke.

Which is why signs that the Federal courts are again trying to evade Sawyer’s incriminating assertion are so ominous.

Needless to say, as a journalist for more than fifty years, I am stunned by this utter indifference to the underlying principle of free speech—which has been described as “The Indispensable Right.”

SAWYER.

BOASTED.

HE.

COULD.

GET.

AROUND.

“HATEFUL.”

“SPEECH’s”

FIRST AMENDMENT.

CIVIL.

RIGHTS.

PROTECTION.

BY.

LEGAL.

HARRASSMENT.

· How much more explicit about attacking First Amendment Rights could Sawyer get?

· Is there anything more important than government suppression of speech? (Paging The Indispensable Right author Prof. Jonathan Turley).

And the Federal judiciary doesn’t care?

An even more ominous development: New York is a one-party Democrat state. We have concluded that’s a problem.

But at the Federal level we’ve now met several fairly orthodox Republican judges.

And, distressingly, they’ve all been useless. All appear to be completely intimidated by the reputation of the Big Bad VDARE.

Any imputation of White Nationalism, however inaccurate, is apparently lethal, although it’s not illegal (yet).

So what now?

We just don’t know. It partly depends upon how much of New York taxpayers’ money Letitia James want to spend on litigating against us, more than two years VDARE.com suspended publication.

The answer appears to be: a lot.

This is not our only terrible recent experience in the hydra-headed world of Leftist lawfare.

I’ll be issuing more bulletins when I can face it.

It is, however, the most serious. This is the most dramatic evidence of conspiracy to violate our First Amendment rights. And we know that, if the Federal Courts will not stop Letitia James’ lawfare, we have absolutely no hope of justice in New York State courts—Prof. Turley has called New York State “The Land That Law Forgot.”

FYI: I think the most comprehensive explanation of VDARE’s torturing to death by lawfare is still this, from May 2023. A list of subsequent turns of the screw through March 2025 can be found here. Lydia’s April 2026 summary is here. The best (and in fact only) MSM account of this atrocity is Why Is New York’s AG Targeting a Castle in West Virginia by James Varney, Real Clear Investigations, October 28, 2025.

A real bright spot in our lives has been continuing support from VDARE.com’s loyal readers and friends.

You can give to the VDARE Foundation here. (Because of Letitia James’ persecution, the Foundation can no longer accept donations from New York State residents).

You can give to the Brimelow family’s legal defense here. (New York State residents welcome).

(I launched this personal appeal at Christmas. Daughters now eight months taller!)

Lydia and I send you our profound thanks.

A final note: my observation as a cynical layman is that judges are not swayed by considerations of law, or fact, or common decency.

They are, however, swayed by public pressure. I urge all our friends, and in fact any friend of free speech, to spread the news of this atrocity as widely as possible.

Peter Brimelow writes: Back in 2007, I announced (reposted below) that I was stopping VDARE.com remembrances of 9/11, especially bitter because one of our writers had lost a son. But at the nadir of the Bush Blight, I noted “America’s elites didn’t really care. They just just got on with their agenda(s).” Specifically, they had absolutely no intention of stopping America’s post 1965 immigration disaster—not even halting Muslim immigration.

Twenty five years after 9/11, I do have to acknowledge some changes. (Notably, and unexpectedly, in my personal life). The second Trump (Stephen Miller?) Administration has in fact reduced illegal and legal immigration dramatically—albeit through Executive Action, which can be reversed. And my sense is that the GOP/GAP base has in fact moved decisively against immigration. Plus, although we perhaps have another Forever War in the Middle East, Trump, unlike Dubya, has not committed ground troops. Yet.

Not enough. But something. I guess.

The Irrelevance Of 9/11

by Peter Brimelow, September 11, 2007

I suppose a whole generation will always remember where they were when they heard about 9/11, just as an earlier one never forgot where they were when they heard JFK had been shot. I was exactly where I am now, looking at a computer screen behind which, through the window, the Connecticut Berkshires roll away to the horizon, when I glanced at the TV and saw the World Trade Center in flames—just as I now see Mayor Bloomberg presiding over a remembrance ceremony.

I went upstairs and told Maggy, ill in bed with the cancer that was to claim her life just 17 months later. Together, we watched the utter destruction of an area we’d both known so well when I worked for Alan Abelson’s Barron’s Magazine some 20 years earlier.

The same eerie feeling of complete change and no change comes over me when I contemplate the political consequences of 9/11. Osama bin Laden, whose head could surely have been obtained through a traditional commercial transaction with one or other local warlord, remains irritatingly at large. The government of Afghanistan, taken from the majority tribe and given to minority tribes, is obviously reverting, amid the usual chaos. Iraq [now Iran] continues to be the object of Washington’s intense attention, as it has been since the first Gulf War, for reasons that deserve analysis but manifestly had nothing to do with 9/11. Domestic terrorism in the U.S., which could have been as serious as the Irish Republican Army’s recent bombing campaign in Britain (why no War On Terror against them, by the way?) mysteriously did not materialize—even though episodic outbreaks of Immigrant Mass Murder syndrome have shown how easily individuals with rifles could paralyze the country. Above all, the Bush Administration continued with its fanatical drive to accommodate the Mexodus, heedless of border security.

I find I don’t feel like writing a VDARE.COM reflection on 9/11 this year. It’s a game. America’s elites didn’t really care. They just just got on with their agenda(s).

VDARE.COM has readers who lost loved ones in 9/11 and in the subsequent wars. To them I extend my own commiserations.

Peter Brimelow writes: VDARE.com was unconstitutionally lawfared into suspension by New York State’s rogue Attorney General Letitia James in 2024, but Lydia and I continue to be involved with the Berkeley Springs Castle. It’s now owned by a separate West Virginia foundation and entirely run by local volunteers, including Lydia, who serves as its president. It hosts many non-political community events but also continues to offer a Free Speech haven to persecuted patriots—including, one day, hopefully, resumed VDARE Conferences.

I’d be happy to meet up with any readers who plan to come!

An Elegant Escape: Apple Butter Festival Tea Tickets Are On Sale!

By Lydia Brimelow

As crisp autumn air creeps back over the Warm Springs Ridge and Berkeley Springs prepares for the annual Apple Butter Festival, we are delighted to invite you to step back into a more refined era at the Berkeley Springs Castle.

Tickets for our exclusive Apple Butter Festival Tea are officially on sale!

Join us on Saturday, October 10, 2026, for a sophisticated afternoon of fine teas, delectable bites, and the unmatched atmosphere of our historic Great Hall. It is the perfect opportunity to experience the regal charm of the Castle during one of the most vibrant weekends of the year.

Event Details:

• Date: Saturday, October 10, 2026

• Seating Times: 12:00 PM and 3:00 PM

• Location: The Berkeley Springs Castle

Space for these seatings is limited to ensure an intimate and memorable experience for all of our guests. We expect these tickets to move quickly, so we encourage you to secure your spot soon.

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE

Whether you are a local resident looking to rediscover the Castle’s magic or a visitor seeking the quintessential Berkeley Springs experience, we look forward to sharing an elegant afternoon with you.

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

PETER BRIMELOW writes: Many thanks to Dan Ryan of the National Conservative Institute of Australia for patiently hunting me down to do this interview. (It was late for him in Brisbane QLD and early for me in Berkeley Springs WV, hence my shower-slicked hair). We covered a lot of ground in an hour. Dan assures me that National Conservatism gatekeeper Yoram Hazony will not be upset that we talked!

Hope he’s right.

Possibly because of my peculiar personal odyssey (U.K.-U.S.-Canada-U.S.) and the time (1990-1991) that I spent in Australia while ghostwriting Rupert Murdoch’s autobiography (never published!), I’ve given a lot of thought to the Anglosphere, and specifically the Britosphere, the constellation of what used to be called “Dominions,” the self-governing white states within the British Empire.

You can see copies of The Patriot Game, my book on Canadian politics which for some reason I have never been asked to revise, over my right shoulder!

My conclusion: all the Anglosphere gets the same damn diseases at exactly the same time. That’s because, regardless of what their rent-seeking elites want to claim, they are a political and cultural unity.

In that early morning, my Australian memories were not activated fast enough to note the case of Geoffrey Blainey, perhaps Australia’s most distinguished historian, lynched Enoch Powell-style in 1984 because he expressed doubts about Asian immigration into Australia.

(But we did talk about Pauline Hanson!)

I’m delighted, and personally inspired, to see that Geoffrey Blainey is still writing at the age of 96, albeit apparently no longer focused on immigration.

Blainey popularized the Australian concern about the “Tyranny Of Distance”—their remoteness from Britain and the civilized world.

Yet Dan and I were chatting instantaneously via streamyard.

Boggle.

Here’s VDARE’s Australia archive, dating back more than twenty years.

PETER BRIMELOW writes: Virginia Dare’s birthday, August 18 is bittersweet for us. Before VDARE.com was unconstitutionally subpoenaed into suspension by New York State Attorney General Letitia James in 2024, we used to celebrate it with a VDARE fundraiser that our supporters, bless them, always seemed to enjoy. Now, of course, thanks to Letitia James continuing persecution, we also have to raise money to meet our own personal legal costs.

But at least we put Virginia Dare back on the map. Political Correctness was clearly shaping up to erase her. I’m reposting here my exchange with the author of a paranoid book about her (VDARE seems to provoke paranoid books). Needless to say, despite my patient refutation, he described me in his book as a “White Supremacist.” Which justifies my refusal to deal with him except by email.

[Breaking news: since this exchange, more archeological evidence has surfaced suggesting the Lost Colony settlers did indeed migrate inland and may even have found shelter among friendly Indians].

WaPo’s Andrew Lawler, Virginia Dare And The “Myth Of Whiteness”

(First published May 24, 2018)

On Virginia Dare’s 430^th birthday last August 18, I wrote #DareToCelebrate Virginia Dare’s Birthday! Will Her Statue Be Torn Down Next—Along With America? Right on cue, the Washington Post on Thursday morning carried How a child born more than 400 years ago became a symbol of white nationalism, subhead “Virginia Dare and the myth of American whiteness,” [by Andrew Lawler, May 24, 2018].

Lawler quotes me:

Even now, white supremacists and their allies claim Virginia Dare as their own. Peter Brimelow, a friend of former White House aide Stephen K. Bannon and current White House adviser Stephen Miller, founded the Vdare Foundation and vdare.com in 1999 to warn Americans about the danger posed by African and Asian immigrants. [PB: What! No Hispanics?]

“I picked the name because I wanted to focus attention on the very specific cultural origins of America, at a time when mass nontraditional immigration is threatening to swamp it,” he wrote me. Brimelow originally is from Britain. One of his website’s postings notes that the Lost Colonists “simply found themselves outvoted, which is going to happen to us if we are not careful.” [Lawler, of course, does not link to the source of the quote, but it is from this interview with Alan Colmes, shortly before his tragic early death.]

No hyperlinks, of course, not that we care because MSM readers are notoriously incurious, but there is a link to Lawler’s forthcoming book The Secret Token: Myth, Obsession, and the Search for the Lost Colony of Roanoke. I presume he will be sending a review copy to PO Box 211 Litchfield CT, 06759.

Pausing briefly to point out that I have repeatedly said on VDARE.com that I’ve only met Bannon and Miller one time each, and that Lawler’s “white supremacist” smear occurs in the very same paragraph that quotes me saying that Virginia Dare exemplifies America’s (Anglo) cultural origins, I urge readers to note that Lawler does not really blame us for Virginia Dare emerging as “a symbol of white nationalism” at all—he blames the entire sweep of American history.

To do this, of course, he has to suppress the fact that progressive demigod President Franklin D. Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt enthusiastically gave a speech commemorating the 350th anniversary of her birth, and actually suggested the commemorative stamp.

But Lawler is easily able to do this because of what now drives the American Left: a determination to extirpate every vestige of white America from the land they carved out of the wilderness. Neither Washington nor Jefferson nor Robert E. Lee nor Steven Foster or even Virginia Dare will be left standing. “White supremacism” is equated with “white nationalism” and, ultimately with “whiteness” itself.

Their messianic nihilism is that of France’s Jacobins or China’s Red Guards. As Lawler puts it:

The infant of Roanoke offers us two very different futures. We can be martyred for some imagined race, or we can recognize that to be American is, in its essence, to be willing to redefine our beliefs, goals and even our ethnicity. Only by getting lost can we become something new.

Guess who will get to “redefine” America.

Lawler made repeated efforts to see me last year, when he claimed to be writing for National Geographic. I insisted on being interviewed by email, with the result that our exchanges (consolidated, slightly edited, and hyperlinked) are preserved for posterity.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Peter Brimelow <pbrimelow@vdare.com> wrote:

Peter Brimelow: Sorry about this, Andrew, just got small children to bed. However, I think my written answers are not “Establishment”.

Andrew Lawler: When did you first hear about/learn about Virginia Dare?

When I first started studying American history, in high school in UK, circa 1965. In those days, it was axiomatic.

What was the moment/scene when you decided to link her name to your website?

Late 1999. I have all kinds of theories about naming websites, e.g. people confuse names amazingly—Forbes, Fortune, both of which I worked for—which I’m sure you don’t want to hear about.

Also, I was preoccupied with my small daughter, born as I then thought late in my life, and empathized with John White.

What do you think took place on Roanoke Island after Gov. John White left in 1587?

Obviously, I have no more idea than anyone else. Mortality was terribly high in those days, especially for women, and it’s quite possible they left no genetic trace even if sheltered by local Indians (which is certainly not impossible).

[btw what’s the story on the Lumbees right now? Haven’t checked for a while].

What do you think happened to Virginia Dare as well as the other colonists?

See above.

Research into the Roanoke voyages in the last 60 years shows a surprising diversity of colonists beyond purely English born; nine nationalities, as well as Catholics and at least one Jew. Most of those had essential expertise (navigation, metallurgy) that few English born had in that day. This information, based on historical documents, seems at odds with the old idea that this was purely an English colony when it was, in fact, a surprisingly multinational endeavor. How do you relate this to your views about Anglo Saxons as the root of the United States?

This is what I think I called in Alien Nation the horse/rabbit fallacy—a stew made of one horse and one rabbit is not half horse-half rabbit. Diversiticrats swoop on trace elements to try to deconstruct the Founding, but what language did the colonists speak? What laws did they acknowledge? If they weren’t an English colony, what was?

Several historians, including the distinguished David Quinn, argue that hundreds of Moors, black Africans, and South American Indians likely were left on Roanoke Island by Sir Francis Drake in 1586 after his Caribbean raids. If this is true, then these lost colonists outnumbered the English several to one. Does this possibility, unproven but apparently quite likely, alter your view of the Roanoke voyages and the founding of the United States by whites?

No. Is there any suggestion these maroons survived and interacted with the Roanoke colony? Did they change its language or its laws?

Historians generally agree that the ill-prepared and ill-provisioned Roanoke settlers didn’t have a chance of survival in the New World without extensive Native American assistance. Do you think this is true?

I don’t know specifically, but the fundamental fact is that the English crossed the Atlantic and founded self-sustaining communities in the New World—not the other way around. Moreover, they founded colonies in many other places. This has to mean something.

Virginia Dare was first popularly used as a symbol of white purity and Anglo Saxon dominance in the 1890s, in an era of Jim Crow laws that forbade African Americans basic civil rights, such as voting. She was often referred to then as “the first white child born” in the New World, since Spaniards and Portuguese and French did not count as white for many Americans in that day. How does “your” Virginia Dare relate to the Virginia Dare of that era?

It’s obviously ludicrous to claim that Portuguese, Spanish and French did not count as white to Americans in the 1890s—they looked to Europe, not Latin America.

But they did certainly see that Virginia Dare as their cultural ancestor (not necessarily “Anglo-Saxon”, c.f. Theodore Roosevelt’s boast that he had no British blood, but certainly Anglophone).

Re Jim Crow, I’m just not into white guilt. The problems of white-black relations in America, which are profound and very far from solved, are quite separate from the genesis of the Historic American Nation—which the Founding Fathers saw, as a matter of historical fact, as a white ethnostate.

So how do you define white? It is a definition that obviously has changed often since the days of the Founding Fathers (just look at the bewildering array of NC laws on this matter from colonial days until the 1960s).

This is just Left-deconstructionist hogwash. Just because an entity has fuzzy boundaries doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Jews argue about how to define a Jew, but no-one doubts Jews exist.

Would you advocate genetic testing to determine “whiteness”?

What have I ever written or published on VDARE.com that would imply a need for that?

I do think supporters of the Affirmative Action spoils system will eventually be driven to genetic testing to get around the Rachel Dolezal problem, but that’s on them.

Do you think Virginia Dare became popular in the 19th century because of fears of immigrants and African Americans? (I found that her popularity coincides with an increase in immigration and laws restricting African American rights in the 1830s and then the 1890s). Is she making a comeback for the same reason?

You mean her popularity spiked in the 1830s AND the 1890s?

I’ve seen it argued that there was a colonial revival here in New England in the 1890s, whitewashing clapboard houses etc., related to the concurrent immigration crisis, but I don’t know—seems to me that the Virginia Dare legend more likely to be an expression of burgeoning American nationalism and identity-awareness, especially after the Civil War.

The Roosevelt Administration made a big deal of the 350^th anniversary, which obviously was in a period of no immigration and no Civil Rights movement. Roosevelt made a speech drawing a progressive moral from the Virginia Dare story—she was a proto-democrat etc. So your hypothesis doesn’t really work there.

Is Virginia Dare making a comeback? I picked the name because I wanted to focus attention on the very specific cultural origins of America, at a time when mass non-traditional immigration is threatening to swamp it. Of course, it leads to all kinds of smears because she was white, but in fact there were earlier white children in Florida and Newfoundland. There’s just a lot of anti-white (and anti-Anglo) prejudice in the American chattering class.

My question about the diversity of Roanoke members is whether we have clung to an idea of “pure Anglo Saxon blood” and “first white child”—the popular 1890s-early 1900s idea—that turns out to be simplistic and just plain inaccurate. Yes, they spoke English and followed English law, but there was apparently far greater diversity among the settlers than once thought. This is not a political statement, but the result of sober historical research. Does this research alter in any way your views about the “Anglo” nature of the effort?

Well, none of the Lost Colony survived that we know, so it’s a moot point. Generally, my impression is the reverse: the heavily British nature of the early settlements is actually very much underplayed nowadays, because of the determination to retcon multiculturalism/ diversity into American history. But it’s obviously what John Jay was relying on in the famous passage in Federalist #2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs …

From memory, I think the white population of the colonies in 1790 was 80% British, 60% English in 1790. That’s not very diverse.

On the Lumbee, they are clearly a mix of several Native American tribes, Europeans (Scottish and French mainly), and a variety of West Africans. Whether they took in the Lost Colonists is not possible to know, even through DNA, at least until we find the bones of Virginia Dare. How do you see this ethnic mixing?

So they’re tri-racial isolates, like the Melungeons etc.?

I don’t think there were many Scots or French in the Lost Colony (perhaps you disagree) so I guess that means that particular legend is looking frayed.

How do I see this ethnic mixing? You mean, can I be tricked into admitting I’m a Nazi? Try again.

I am genuinely interested in the Lumbees—and facts are facts.

Lastly, those pesky labels. I read that you don’t consider yourself a white supremacist. What moniker do you prefer?

It seems to me that “white supremacy” has to mean (1) a belief that whites are objectively superior and/or (2) the desire to have whites rule other races (specifically blacks in the South).

Since I am aware of the findings the East Asians are on average more intelligent than whites, and do not advocate ruling other races, I cannot be described as a “white supremacist” while retaining a modicum of meaning for the term. It would be like calling you a Communist because you’re trying to deconstruct an American legend.

On the other hand, it’s clear that the Left is now experimenting with using the term to mean any white who is not a total wimp about race.

The moniker I prefer is “American patriot.” I regard myself as a civic nationalist, which is what Trump seems to be i.e. I don’t regard America as an exclusively racial construct. On the other hand, it does have a specific racial core (something Trump has never acknowledged, I have no idea what he thinks, if he thinks about it at all).

There’s a discussion of this issue here. To quote me:

A few years ago, on VDARE.com, we actually had a debate on the issue of Citizenism vs. White Nationalism. This was in the days when Jared [Taylor] accepted the term “white nationalist.” [He’s stopped because he thinks it’s hopelessly smeared]. He debated Steve Sailer. Sailer made the argument that a nation is an ethno-cultural entity and the cultural aspect means that you can assimilate people who are not of the same race into the nation-state. Jared was more pessimistic.

Now, my heart belongs to Steve Sailer on this issue—because I’m a wimp. But my head belongs to Jared. Because of the Political Class’s fanatical determination to Elect A New People, I do think that politics will precipitate out on racial lines.

What is your definition of who is white and who is not? I’m looking for your view, whether it is counting haplotypes or some other measure.

Why are you so concerned about this? Personally, I don’t see any need for a complex explanation at this point. Whites are whites—descended from the indigenous European stock, who look white, consider themselves white, are accepted by whites cf. Jews.

As I said, given Affirmative Action, the Left is going to have to move to a more scientifically accurate definition of race at some point. Racially-mixed societies, e.g. Brazil, have a lot of words to describe degrees of admixture that don’t exist in English. But I myself would prefer to abolish Affirmative Action.

You mention higher intelligence among East Asians. Do you, then, believe that different ethnic groups can be ranked according to intelligence, and, if so, what ranking do you consider the most reliable?

There’s a ton of technical literature on this for God’s sake, see The Bell Curve, The g Factor , Richard Lynn

The mixed race question is important, since, as seems likely given recent archaeological finds, the Lost Colonists merged with Native American tribes in eastern North Carolina, who in turn merged with the growing African American populations around them (this seems true of the Lumbee as well, who have European and West African haplotypes and only, at most, a tiny percentage of Native American gene types, though direct tribe members did not participate in the study). By the late 19th century, all people of color in NC (setting aside the remnant Cherokee tribe in the mountains and the Lumbee who were granted Indian status based on Democratic politics of the 1880s) were classified by law as African American. Marriage with whites was forbidden. Therefore, if there are surviving Lost Colonist genes, they are within today’s African American community. So if Virginia Dare survived and had children, her descendants today are black. Whatever one thinks of American race issues, this does feel a little ironic, does it not?

Not particularly. Blacks are Americans, aren’t they? They speak English etc. See: Civic Nationalism.

It seems to me I anticipated this back in my 1999 post introducing the site Why VDARE.com? Why The White Doe?—and also the next step:

So Virginia Dare could be symbolic of the coming racial nirvana that immigration enthusiasts are forced to start fantasizing about when you compel them to look at the statistical consequences of current policy.

Or perhaps not. The actress Heather Locklear (Melrose Place, etc.) is claimed as a prominent Lumbee. But if, through some miracle of genetic recombination, Virginia Dare is reborn in Ms. Locklear’s beautiful face, John White might well have recognized her.

(Do you really think there’s archeological evidence the Lost Colony survived at all? Looks pretty shaky to me, but I may not be up to date.)

Lawler subsequently sent me a link to The Mystery of Roanoke Endures Yet Another Cruel Twist|An artifact found 20 years ago turns out to not be what archaeologists thought, by Andrew Lawler, Smithsonian.com, April 7, 2017.

Oddly, it says “recent archeological finds” do not confirm the that the Lost Colony merged with the local Indians.

PETER BRIMELOW writes: Earlier this year, at the urging of mutual friends, I spoke to an anonymous, underground, but flourishing, group Somewhere In America. It was like going back to the early catacomb days of the Conservative Movement in the U.S. (which I remember, see below!) Or, for that matter, in Canada, where it still hasn’t quite worked out (yet).

I’m glad to see there’s a new crop coming up.

Lydia was then experimenting with having me brush my hair straight back, which it doesn’t like and makes me look alarmingly like Steven Pinker c.f. my Tucker Carlson interview. I think the experiment may now have concluded.

(A separate thanks to the patriot who recorded the video!)

Peter Brimelow: Well, thank you, [--], and thank you, [--], and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming out here.

I see I’m going to have to shout here today. [No microphone!]

Well, the big problem with immigrants is that they have funny accents and nobody can understand them!

Even my five children--I have five American children--none of them can really imitate me. They make me sound like Daddy Pig.

So if you don’t understand what I’m saying, Lydia is in the back and will indicate to me, but you can raise a fiery cross or some other cultural symbol, and I will do my best to assimilate acoustically.

So I’m going to say three things today. The first is I’ll briefly discuss who I am, because nobody knows who I am.

And the second thing I’m going to discuss what was actually the subtitle of my 1995 book, Alien Nation--Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster: the post-1965 Immigration Disaster.

“Common Sense,” of course, was an homage to Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, Common Sense, when he was also an English immigrant, was instrumental in fueling the American Revolution.

And the third thing I’m going to talk about is: what happens next?

• ·So--who am I?

I’m an identical twin. I was born in Britain in 1947. That was the year that India became independent.

So that meant that throughout my youth, Britain was on constant geopolitical retreat, giving up one colony after another.

And, you know, losing is a very bad habit. One of the reasons I like President Trump is that I actually like him talking about annexing Greenland and annexing Canada and wherever else he’s thinking about annexing—possibly Cuba?

(No, I don’t want Cuba. I’d just like Miami back!)

Because he’s reversing this habit of defeat, which is a very bad habit to get into.

So my brother and I concluded all that was lost in Britain, actually in 1967, when the Cold War was moving to its height.

The reason was that we were extremely impressed by the Six-Day War when the Israelis, basically, defeated the Arabs in six days of savage fighting.

What struck us was the utter unreality of the British Ruling Class in their discussion of this phenomenon as opposed to the extraordinary realism that the Israelis showed. Whatever else you can say about Israel—and I think some people here would like to say quite a lot about Israel!—it does have a ruthless will to survive.

And this applies to the immigration question. When Trump started talking about the Border Wall in the 2016 debates, I was gritting my teeth and clenching my fists, saying “Talk about Israel, talk about Israel!”

They’d already built a wall! It’s 675 miles long! It’s about a third as long as the American wall on the southern border would have to be. It’s triple-fenced!

And you’ve paid for it!

I don’t think he ever mentioned it.

But the Israelis obviously thought walls worked. And they did work.

And one other way in which the Israeli example applies to the immigration debate: when Trump was elected, and he was in the White House, and he was faced with inundation of the southern border, according to the book the New York Times reporters wrote (Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration), he said, why can’t we just shoot them? He was told, well, that’s against international law.

John Kelly was his chief of staff. He was a former Marine general. How could he not have known what the Israelis were doing?

Well, Trump said, what about shooting them in the legs? That’s against international law too!

I particularly was interested in this question because I’ve been trying for years to find out why the Israelis don’t have what the American Border Patrol calls Zerg Rushes on their border.

In those days, at the U.S. southern border, what they used to do is all gang together in groups of like 100 and so on, and then suddenly rush the Border Patrol control point. And Border Patrol just simply couldn’t control them, so a lot of them got through. They called it a Zerg rush. One of our board members, and a long-time writer for VDARE.com, is a former border patrol officer.

Well, I couldn’t find out how the Israelis avoided this. And then eventually a Left-wing paper, Haaretz, in Israel, published an article about it, denouncing it from Left-wing perspective. And it turns out the Israelis do shoot them in the legs. They have a special group of snipers who were trained to shoot people, they say, in the legs.

But over the course of the 18 months or so that Haaretz had records, 70 of them had bled out and died.

For some reason, it’s never been reported in the American press.

My brother and I thought that the British Ruling Class did not have that kind of will. And we were right, as we see with this ridiculous situation of the English Channel where these dinghies are setting out into the English Channel and the lifeboat service in Britain, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is picking them up and ferrying them into Britain.

The Israelis…would not do that.

So we decided to move to America. In 1970 we both went to the Stanford Graduate School of Business in an attempt to make useless literary intellectuals into something useful.

In my brother’s case, it took, and he had a long career at Wall Street. But in my case it didn’t take, and I reverted to the half-world of financial journalism.

I worked for various papers in Canada, and I worked for the Wall Street Journal and for Fortune and for Barron’s and Forbes in New York for a long time, and I wrote about a lot of highly technical financial issues and so on. And I moonlighted at National Review latterly.

Now in 1968, before we came to America, but the year after the Six-Day War, the British Member of Parliament Enoch Powell made his great speech. it’s called the Rivers of Blood speech although he didn’t actually use that phrase, about immigration in Britain.

He just surfaced the immigration debate very suddenly, after a long period of time when it had basically been repressed in respectable discussion. And that’s a phenomenon I’ll return to later.

Of course it meant he was anathematized.

Powell was the great Lost Leader of British politics. He really bears very close comparison to Pat Buchanan, also a great Lost Leader in American politics.

And Powell was especially interesting for two reasons.

When he died, I wrote that he was the greatest British politician of the 20th and the 21st century

Because in the 20th century he was involved in advocating free markets at a time when socialism, statism, the government control of the economy, was absolutely dominant in intellectual discourse. Even the Tories, the Conservatives, accepted the need for state control. As you remember, Richard Nixon imposed price and wage controls in America, even though he was supposed to be a Republican president.

But Powell was also the greatest political leader of the 21st century—because he pioneered the immigration issue. He died in 1998, so he was extremely prescient.

He realized that the mass movement of the Third World into the First World, happening for various reasons, and for also various reasons first evident in Britain, was the great issue that the First World in general, the Anglosphere in particular, would have to face.

Of course, he was part of the decisive victory against socialism. Those of you who are actually old enough to remember it, it was one of the greatest metapolitical victories of all time.

Famously, the economist Robert Heilbroner, who was a lifelong socialist, wrote an article in the New Yorker (January 16, 1989), admitting that the centuries-long argument between capitalism and socialism is over, capitalism has won. He didn’t like it, but he admitted it, with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We haven’t reached that stage with the immigration debate yet. But we are working on it.

Now, also in 1965, there was an immigration act passed in America, which is generally referred to as the Hart-Celler Act, after the two people, the Senator, and the Congressman, who sponsored it. And it kicked in in 1967.

Now you have to realize that immigration everywhere, but particularly in the US, is not like rain. It doesn’t just come and go, which is how people tend to think of it.

It’s a government policy. The government determines how many people come in, it determines who they are, it determines what race they are, what countries they come from, and it determines their skill levels. All of those are entirely determined by government policy.

So what the Hart-Celler Act did was, it opened the floodgates after a 40-year pause, when there was almost no immigration at all. In fact, there was net negative immigration in the 1940s.

The 1924 Act, which dramatically reduced immigration, was passed after the great influx of immigration between the 1880s and the 1920s, which is now referred to as the First Great Wave. So it reduced it very dramatically, and it’s also re-oriented it so that the immigrants coming in would have the same national origins as Americans who were already here. It wasn’t going to change the ethnic balance.

And it was a great success, and it was essential to assimilation.

So you had this phenomenon of Italians and Germans fighting in the U.S. Army against the Italians and the Germans in the Second World War without any serious problems. That was largely due to the 1924 cut-off that allowed assimilation to take place.

And that’s one of many such pauses in American history, by the way. They’re usually spontaneous, but they are frequently legislated. Those pauses have been essential to assimilation.

The most important was perhaps after the American Revolution, when there was a period of more than 40 years when there was almost no immigration at all into the U.S.

So the 1965 Act had two key effects.

First of all, it completely destabilized the racial balance of the U.S. In 1960, the U.S. was 90% white. At the last survey, it was below 60% white. And that’s entirely due to government policy.

People talk about the Great Replacement. There’s a term coined by Renaud Camus, a French intellectual, and if you look it up on Wikipedia or something, you’ll find it’s denounced as a “conspiracy theory.”

But it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. There is a Great Replacement going on right across the White West, right across the Anglosphere, right across North America. The population which was here is being replaced by a new population predominantly drawn from the Third World.

One of the interesting side effects of the 1965 Act, by the way, is that it dramatically cut off British immigration. Immigration from Western Europe in general, but particularly from Britain. Immigrants from Britain fell from about 40,000 a year to about 15,000 a year just overnight.

Which was a big problem for us, my brother and I, at Stanford. We were supposed to go back to the underdeveloped countries from which we came to help them develop, because we both had Fulbright Awards.

The second consequence of the Act was that the U.S. now has a much larger population, and is projected to have a very much larger population, than it would have done if that Hart-Celler hadn’t been enacted.

And the numbers are not small. If it was up to the 1924 Act, if that had been left in place, the population in the U.S. would have been 250-270 million. Instead, it’s 343 million.

This is a particularly interesting thing when you think about environmentalism.

I mean, environmentalism, since the 1960s, has been a really important force in American politics. But nothing degrades the environment more than importing 120 million people and paving over all of Northern Virginia to accommodate a million H-1B Indians.

Environmentalism is not just a question of ecology, of whether the environment is healthy or not. It’s also an amenity issue. I think the destruction of the Northern Virginia farmlands was a really serious aesthetic crime.

So the question is: where are the environmentalist groups on immigration?

And the answer is: they’re hiding.

They’re hiding because about 20 years ago, there was a huge riot. The Sierra Club used to be in favor of reducing immigration, stabilizing America’s population, entirely because they knew it was degrading the environment. But about 20 years ago, they changed sides on the issue.

First of all, they didn’t talk about immigration at all. And then, secondly, they joined various pro-Amnesty coalitions.

And the reason for this was they got enormous amounts of money from a Jewish hedge fund manager who was still hung up on Ellis Island and the Russian pogroms and so on, and thought the borders had to be kept open.

The monies were very large, and it just completely changed the Sierra Club’s mind as to what it thought about immigration.

Now, so to finish this section, I’m just going to quote from Senator Teddy Kennedy. He was the floor manager of the Hart-Celler bill in 1965

And he gave a quote, which is notorious among immigration patriots, in his final statement in the debate:

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same, as then about 300,000 a year.

Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the changes in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or the most populated and deprived nations, Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yHamzkG2A84g

Every single one of these predictions was proved false. Kennedy was either a fool or he was a liar. But either way he simply wasn’t telling the truth.

And he wrapped up with this:

The charges I’ve mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of the line of the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.

Now, this is very typical of the way the immigration debate has gone since then, since 1965. Basically, it’s not treated like a normal debate. Opposition to immigration has been seen as completely immoral.

And when they say hate, “hate of our heritage,” they’re on the verge of getting this into the Constitution—effectively banning “hate speech.” I’ll come back to that in a moment.

What they mean is: criticism of immigration has to be repressed. And it was very successfully repressed for a long time.

Discussion of immigration simply vanished from American public discourse, really, for nearly 30 years. The changes were happening, but people weren’t really aware of them.

I often compare the Hart-Celler Act, the 1965 Immigration Act, to one of those mythical (I suppose they’re mythical) Chinese executioners’ swords that can cut somebody’s head off and leave the head still standing on the shoulders. The only way you can tell what’s happening is that some blood trickles from the mouth.

Well, after 50 years, America’s head has fallen off.

So, anyway, my brother and I immigrated to the U.S. We really immigrated to the American Conservative Movement, which had nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964 and ultimately elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, which I really do think was one of the great flowers of democracy.

Of course, it subsequently degenerated into racket, but that’s how things are.

I remember talking to a Goldwater supporter at Stanford, a member of the small conservative student group that was there. That was the badge of honor, having been a supporter of Goldwater in 1964.

We started talking about immigration, and he said to us: “Immigration’s never going to be a problem in America because the country’s just too big. It’s not possible to make a significant difference to the U.S. population by any kind of influx.”

Now we had a lot of experience with American immigration policy because we spent a lot of time in American immigration offices getting papers filled out and that kind of thing. And we knew that we were the only white people there. The influx had been completely changed.

And eventually, another British emigrant published an article, I think, in Newsweek, I’ve been looking for it, now AI’s around maybe I can eventually find it, in which he made exactly the same point. He said that a new nation is being built in these immigration offices. It’s completely different from the nation that exists right now. [Still can’t find this article—help!]

And our friend, our Goldwater friend, was completely shocked. He’d never thought about it at all.

And this went on for a long time. In the early 1990s, I had a debate with Bob Bartley, who was then the Editor of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, an absolutely fanatical immigration enthusiast.

And afterwards, the head of one of the major foundations in New York came up to me and said, “This is amazing. I’d never heard of this 1965 Immigration Act and the effect it had.”

This was a serious conservative intellectual who spent a lot of money giving out money to conservative intellectuals—including ultimately me, I’m happy to say.

He had never even heard of the 1965 Act.

In 1982, I was a writer at Fortune Magazine, and they were looking for big stories to make a splash. So I proposed that we do a story about how the 1965 Immigration Act had not worked out the way that Ted Kennedy had promised.

The editors couldn’t have been more surprised if I’d hit them over the head with a wet fish. They’d never heard of this immigration issue. The New York Times had never written about it!

In those days—and it’s still true but not as much as it was—the New York Times was kind of a bellwether for the Establishment Media. And if things didn’t appear in the New York Times, they just didn’t exist.

And the Fortune editors had never heard of the immigration issue. So I didn’t get to write my story.

I did get to write it, though, after a protracted struggle, in National Review over ten years later. It was the cover story:

It was 14,000 words long and was called Time to Rethink Immigration [June 22, 1992)] And as [---] mentioned, it is often credited with kicking off the modern immigration debate.

Ann Coulter very kindly has said that it’s what changed her mind on the immigration issue. Until then, she’d just gone along with the Wall Street Journal flow and assumed that immigration was good and opposition to it was racist and embarrassing. And she hadn’t thought about the actual practical implications of introducing such very large numbers of heterogeneous and often unskilled people.

And she went on to write Adios America, of course, which is credited with giving Trump the idea to start talking about the immigration issue in 2016.

But, very typical of the way the immigration debate was working then, both I and James Fulford, my chief lieutenant on VDARE.com, read Ann’s book in manuscript and critiqued it. And then she wrote us and said she was very sorry but, on the advice of other friends, she wasn’t going to be able to credit us in the acknowledgments because she would just be attacked for it. And people would say that she had what they call tainted sources.

And so she didn’t credit us. But she felt badly about it, and I think she did credit me in subsequent editions.

But that was typical of the Reign of Terror that was going on until then, keeping the immigration debate out of public awareness.

A lot of people want to think Ann is a bimbo. But Adios America! is extremely serious. I’m an expert on immigration books. And she is very rigorous in the way she went into the law and the facts behind it. And it’s actually very funny, of course, being Ann.

So anyway, my National Review cover story ultimately flowered into my book, published in 1995. It was called Alien Nation. And the subtitle is Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster.

Now, I didn’t like the title. One of the things about working with commercial publishers is their great moment of creative thrill is to force an author to accept a title he doesn’t like and impose their own title on him. That’s happened to me a few times.

I wrote a book about Canadian politics, which they insisted on calling The Patriot Game. Of course, right at that time, Tom Clancy’s novel came out, Patriot Games. And with Alien Nation, there’s apparently a science fiction series called Alien Nation, which everybody confuses it with. It’s a pattern.

I wanted to call my book Electing a New People. That’s after the famous poem by Bertolt Brecht, the German poet, which he wrote after the 1953 Rising against the Communist government in East Germany. He said the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one.

And that’s literally what America’s doing. The American government is dissolving the people and electing a new one.

In those days, with commercial publishers, you did very long book tours, addressing dozens of audiences—like this one! You had to keep mentioning the name of the book. And if you didn’t like it, it really got on your nerves.

But I’ve eventually come to like Alien Nation, because it does make a point.

The term “nation” is derived from the Latin nascere, and it means birth. So what it implies is there’s an ethnic link, a link by blood, a community that’s linked ultimately by blood.

Of course, nations are not simply linked by blood. They’re ethno-cultural entities. There are some people there who have just assimilated the nation, who don’t necessarily share a common ethnic heritage. But fundamentally, there is a need for a common ethnic heritage.

And this is what Abraham Lincoln drew on in his First Inaugural Address, when he was trying to persuade the South not to secede. He referred to “the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave,” those Revolutionary War graves, and he argued that if they were struck, they would produce harmony.

And of course, the South and the North did indeed share those mystic chords of memory. They both fought in the Revolutionary War. (Not all on the American side, I may say—there were a lot of Loyalists in the North and the South). But they did have that in common.

In contrast, for example, Norman Podhoretz, the great editor of Commentary magazine, once wrote that—his family, of course, all arrived in the 1880s, 1890s when the great Russian Jewish immigration came in from Russia—that, to him, the American Revolution was as remote of the Wars of the Roses.

And that must affect the way in which people view their fellow Americans, if you don’t share that in common.

In any case, from about 1992 to 1997, we had a civil war within the Conservative Movement. National Review and its editor, John O’ Sullivan, and I were arguing with the Wall Street Journal, and everybody else in the Conservativism Inc., about whether or not they should talk about immigration.

And we lost this war.

In 1997, Bill Buckley abruptly fired John and purged the magazine of immigration patriots. And for a while, there was nowhere to get facts and analyses about immigration out into the public domain.

So I founded my webzine VDARE.com--actually on Christmas Eve of 1999.

And we built the organization and went along very happily, with a lot of hard work, inspired by my wife, Lydia, who reformed our back-end and fundraising procedures, until 2022, when we were mugged by Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General, a very unpleasant black woman.

This is a distinction we share, of course, with President Trump and the National Rifle Association. She prosecuted them on fantastic theories which would never have stood up in a normal court of law.

And we simply couldn’t finance this lawfare via subpoena and we had to suspend VDARE.com in 2024—n.b. even before any charges were filed.

But in the interim, I should say, we’d made a discovery after Trump’s election, that what was going on in America was really a slow-motion communist Coup. Dissenting views were simply being suppressed.

We found that we couldn’t hold public conferences. Lydia made somewhere between 10 and 15 bookings to hold conferences in hotels between 2016 and 2019.

And we would say, well, this is a controversial conference, and you might get demonstrators. And the hotels, which were all run by Americans who thought they lived in a free country, would say, no, no, no, we’re not afraid of controversial conferences. We’ve had many controversial conferences. We had a Right To Life conference once!

But they all folded. As soon as they came under pressure, and as soon as the Southern Poverty Law Center started contacting locals and organizing angry phone calls, they all folded.

Of course, all these hotels were owned by big corporations, and corporations are complete cowards, and they ran away from everything.

And they did this even though Lydia had very cleverly gotten them to sign a liquidated damages clause. Normally when you sign a booking with a hotel, they’ll say you have to undertake to pay the money if you cancel. And she would say yes, she would do that, but you have to sign it on our behalf too, to protect us.

And they would say, oh, we’re not going to cancel!

But they always did cancel, and they always had to pay us substantial sums of money. In the case of New York Hilton, I think it was over $100,000, just because they didn’t want to face protests, and local politicians denouncing them.

So Lydia bought the Castle. It’s in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which is in the Eastern Panhandle. It’s only two hours from the U.S. Capitol, if you want to stage a protest against an election count, as many of the inhabitants of our town did. Trump carried Morgan County by 52 points in 2020 and 56 points in 2024. West Virginia has become a Republican state, although very poor.

And we still hope to resume having conferences there, especially for organizations that don’t want to take the risk of having a conference that might be canceled.

It’s also open for weddings and other things, and if anybody want to have a wedding in a Castle in West Virginia, please speak to Lydia at the back. She has her card and everything!

Now, I was at Forbes Magazine for 16 years.

Paul Craig Roberts had been an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, an academic, a leader in developing the Reagan Supply Side tax policy. But in 2000, he broke from the Conservative Movement and wrote a book called The Tyranny of Good Intentions, How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

And this was a real shock for the Conservative Movement because the War Against Crime and the need to toughen up on judges and so on had been a major part of the Conservative Movement’s rise to power in the 1970s and 1980s.

So they just didn’t want to think about the idea that they may actually have overshot in the War Against Crime. And so they wouldn’t review it in the Wall Street Journal, National Review and so on.

And Craig, who I had known since I was at Stanford, got so mad about this that he called up Steve Forbes. In those days, the Forbes family very rarely intervened in the content of Forbes magazine, they left all that to the Editor. They were only interested in selling advertising. But Steve called the Editor of Forbes, Jim Michaels, and said, basically, get somebody to review this book. So I went down to Florida.

Craig was then living in the Florida Panhandle. And of course, as usual with journalists, I didn’t look at, think about, read or do anything at all about the story until I was actually on the plane flying down there.

But when I got the book and started to read it, I was blown away by it. It was a revelation.

The changes that were made during the War On Drugs, the free hand given to prosecutors in various ways, really had caused enormous amount of injustice in the US. In the first instance, it was probably against black drug dealers who may or may not have deserved it, but were not necessarily gotten in a legal way, a constitutional way. But it also goes right across the board.

Prosecutors got into the habit of crushing anybody they don’t like, principally by the mechanism of just piling costs on them, forcing them to surrender.

Craig said to me: “They can put anybody they want in prison.” There’s no defense, no recourse to what he called the Rights of Englishmen.

There’s no defense against what these empowered prosecutors can now do.

And that, of course, has turned out to be the case with this wave of lawfare that we’ve seen since Trump was elected.

It’s quite astonishing how many Trump-adjacent people are fighting for their lives, financial lives at the moment, or have actually been through hell already.

General Flynn, for example, he was Trump’s first National Security Advisor, was forced to sell his house because of the protracted prosecution against him. He was pardoned when Trump came back into power.

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, he was called “America’s Mayor” because he was there at the time of 9-11, is still facing absolutely ruinous prosecution in Arizona, which is in trial right now. [Case dismissed but Arizona prosecutors say they will re-indict].

And, of course, it’s this type of lawfare that forced us to suspend the VDARE.com website.

We spent somewhere between one and two million dollars defending ourselves against this “investigation,” where they wanted thousands of documents and so on—even before were charged. This lawfare is not a joke.

I should say, by the way, that we’re not accused in the actual complaint of misappropriating funds. We’re just charged with trivial paperwork violations—which we don’t think we did; but anyway it’s the kind of thing that would normally be settled by a phone call and refiling and so on.

No middle-class family can stand up to this kind of assault, and we’re probably going to be forced into personal bankruptcy.

So my three daughters by Lydia are not going to the Ivy League! But they won’t go to the Ivy League anyway. I would worry about their wellbeing there.

I’m gonna conclude this section very quickly by saying we actually have a video in which the New York Attorney General henchman who is leading the charge against us, his name is Rick Sawyer, gave a speech to an Anti-Defamation League conference called “Taking Hate to Court.”

And he said [31m 21s into the video] that “hate,” “hate speech”—that’s us!—is protected by the First Amendment.

But, he said, there’s a way around that! You can simply subpoena—state attorney generals have enormous subpoena power—you can simply subpoena the purveyors of hate, namely us, to death.

In other words, he made an absolutely explicit statement of his desire to get around the First Amendment.

But we’ve been absolutely unable to get the courts to pay attention to this. And that speaks to the collapse of law in the US.

So that’s why I said earlier that banning “Hate Speech” is effectively on the verge of being written into the Constitution.

Which is partly, not entirely, but very much partly caused by the tremendous ethnic changes that have gone on in the U.S. For example, in our trek through the New York State Court system, we haven’t met one white gentile judge.

And this is particularly disturbing because there’s a ton of technical evidence that the concept of an objective law is really something only whites believe in. No other race apart from whites polls that way. That is, when most groups are faced with a preferred policy outcome versus the Letter Of The Law, they would rule against the Letter Of The Law. They just rule for what they want politically.

As I say, this idea of an objective law is a uniquely white thing, and it only worked when we had an overwhelmingly white nation.

So I’ll now move on to my second section:

• ·America’s post-1965 immigration disaster.

You have to realize what America was in 1790, after the Revolutionary War. The Census in that year reported that the white part of the nation—about 20% of the population were black slaves, but they were not part of the political nation—the white part of the population was 60% English, 80% British. The rest were Germans and Dutch and so on.

And that made a big impression on them at the time, by the way.

You often found Americans rhapsodizing about how Hector St. John de Crèvecœur, the French intellectual, said, “What is the American, this new man, created from all parts of Europe?”

And there were trace elements of many parts of at least Western Europe.

But overwhelmingly it was a British nation, a white nation.

The 1790 Citizenship Act actually said that only free white persons could become citizens. And that was only rescinded in 1952, so which is well within living memory. Well, fairly well within living memory. I remember 1952!

So that’s how Americans saw themselves. They saw themselves fundamentally as a nation-state, a white nation-state.

And this was represented in this famous quote—famous among immigration patriots—from John Jay in the second Federalist Papers, trying to explain to his countrymen why the federal system could work in the U.S.

He said, of this vast area--this was even before railways, it’s quite extraordinary what they were able to do when you think every single letter and newspaper had to be carried by horse from one end of the country to another, and yet they still were able to build a vibrant debate in an area the size of Western Europe.

Jay said:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion—

—and he didn’t mean Christianity, he meant Protestantism, the country was 98% Protestant at that point—

—attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence

I remember being at a National Review Institute Conference in Washington D.C. in the mid-1990s where we were discussing immigration. And Robert Bork thought my answer to a question had not been satisfactory.

Does everybody know who Robert Bork was? This is the problem with getting old, you know, things that you remember very clearly, the younger generation don’t know about at all!

He was a very distinguished law professor, and he was a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 after the Republicans lost control of the Senate

I knew the people in Reagan’s judge-picking operation. They’d saved Bork in case the Republicans lost control of the Senate, because his credentials were so stellar that they just assumed nobody could seriously oppose him.

But in fact, of course, Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Regime Media made up all kinds of fantastic reasons to oppose Bork, like he rented inappropriate movies from Blockbuster. (Do people remember Blockbuster?) [Tellingly, my memory misled me here--an example of the effectiveness of Regime Media propaganda. Bork’s rentals were entirely innocent, although the Washington City Paper reporter Michael Dolan, who broke the story, falsely insinuated that they were not. An early example of meming falsehood into existence, c.f. Charlottesville, J6].

And they succeeded in stampeding the Democrats and the various RINO Republicans to turn Bork down.

It was really the first sign, the first major sign, that the concept of objective law in the U.S. was collapsing. It became that the only thing that mattered was: which way would Supreme Court nominees rule on certain cases on political grounds?

Anyway, Bork gets up at the NR conference, and he didn’t like my answer, so he gave a better answer. And he quoted that famous passage from John Jay.

And he said, you know, this is a big problem because it means the way Americans been held together in the past was not just by agreeing on common principles, but because they were a common people. And we are now headed towards a state which no longer possesses a common people, united in these various ways. And we don’t know if it’s going to work.

So what that means is that, at the highest levels of the Conservative intellectual world, there were people who had already had doubts about immigration. They just weren’t vocalizing it.

They were often under the spell of the reinvention of America that went on, really, after this First Great Wave of immigration, very largely by Jewish intellectuals.

They invented this concept of the Melting Pot, a concept that only came into popular parlance in 1908. It’s not a concept that Americans have been aware of and been conjuring with since the Republic was founded.

So by 1965, before the Hart-Celler immigration act kicked in, you had a white nation which was reasonably coherent, which had substantially assimilated each other, and there was a lot of intermixing between the various ethnic factions.

But there was still serious sectionalism among white Americans. In the 1960s, there were these deep divisions within the white community which existed quite apart from anything else that was going on.

And that can be traced back to different immigration patterns. There’s a famous book by a Brandeis University historian called David Hackett Fisher about immigration and how it affected the white American community: Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America.

Does anyone know anything about this? Well, it came out nearly 40 years ago. He traced cultural patterns in the U.S. to different waves of immigration from different parts of the British Isles, which do have significant differences. The most prominent one, for example, being the Puritans, who all came from East Anglia into New England and have completely distinct ways of life to the Southerners. The Southerners, who come mainly from the South of England and the West Country, who were Anglicans and not Puritans. And of course, then there’s also the Scotch-Irish from Ulster, who emigrated to Appalachia and formed a separate group. Hackett Fischer calls them Borderers. [I forgot to mention Quakers, from English North Midland, into the Delaware Valley]. And they’re all significantly distinct, although they all speak English and they’re all white.

Now, one example that struck me about this is my wife, Lydia.

She’s a Texan. And when she married me, she had to move to Northern Connecticut, to New England, because I was living there with my two children with my first wife who had died, and we didn’t want to move them.

So she moved to Connecticut. And she never really settled—because, fundamentally, Southerners and the Yankees don’t like each other. This is a very deep division. The Civil War was about a lot more than slavery. There were deep sectional divisions within the white community.

So when my eldest daughter with my first wife was going to go to university, we maneuvered her to go into Southern Methodist University in Dallas, because that’s where Lydia’s parents lived, and we wanted to move down there in search of free babysitting. (Lydia and I have three children).

So Lydia sat Hannah Claire down and said to her: when you’re on the campus, you will meet people and have brief conversations with them.

And they will then think that they’re your friend and you’re their friend, and they will do things for you. And they will expect you to think that you’re their friend and you should do things for them.

In Connecticut, it doesn’t work that way. When Lydia was putting together Hannah Claire’s high school graduation party, she said, “Well, who are you going to invite? What about so-and-so?” Hannah Claire says, “Well, she’s not really a friend.”

“What do you mean, she’s not really a friend? She’s been in the house so many times.”’

This girl had been in the house many times--but she hadn’t crossed the threshold that, in Connecticut, constituted being a friend.

Now, in defense of the Yankees, they’re not vicious. I realized this when I was a weekender, I used to have cars repaired in New York City, and then I started having them maintained in northern Connecticut.

And I thought that the car mechanics in Connecticut were hostile, because they barely spoke. They were very monosyllabic. And then one day, one of them said to me, “You know, this car—[such a thing] has gone wrong with it. We can fix it, but it will cost $400. But you should go back to the dealer, because there’s probably a recall on this, and then you could get it done for nothing.”

In other words, he was turning away business. And so I realized he wasn’t hostile at all. He was friendly. He was very honest. He just didn’t talk very much.

But these things do cause friction within the white community.

And that’s why we have a federal system in the US. So these different types of people can govern themselves as much as possible. One of the very serious negative developments in U.S. politics at the moment is the attempt to concentrate the government in the hands of Washington D.C.

Well, anyway, these sectional divisions have been enormously exacerbated by post-1965 immigration.

One example of that is California.

California was the heartland of the American Conservative Movement. It’s where Reagan came from. It’s what nominated Goldwater. But now it’s thought to be completely inaccessible to the Republican party. It’s totally controlled by Democrats. It’s a one-party state—basically because of immigration.

So the proportion of illegal immigrants in California is something like 10% of the population. It’s very substantial. And they of course all have anchor babies. And then of course there’s legal immigration into to California. Over a quarter of California’s population is now foreign-born.

So whites a.k.a. Americans in California now are driven to, I think somewhere around 32-34% of the population is white.

But I have to say, though, that the voting age population is still much whiter. However, it doesn’t matter because one of the characteristics of the Republican Party is that it’s totally afraid to appeal to its own base.

The Republican party in California has never run state-wide on opposing immigration. Even Proposition 187, which was trying to withdraw state welfare subsidies and transfer payments from illegal immigrants and was ultimately sabotaged by a Federal judge, the Republican party ran away from it. It was passed by a pure grassroots movement and it was never taken up by the Republican party.

And the result of that is that there have been many state-wide elections in which the Republican Party has not achieved 50% of the white vote in California.

People don’t seem to know this. They think it’s entirely because of the immigrant vote. But it’s because the GOP didn’t rally its base.

Another example of a sectional transformation by immigration: Virginia.

Northern Virginia was a Southern state and it’s now become something else. The northern part of Virginia (lovingly know as NOVA) is entirely populated by immigrants and civil servants.

And they move the state decisively to the Left. And that’s why the current Governor is trying to force through gun control. She’s removed tax exemption from Confederate charities. In the land of Robert E. Lee, she’s just removed tax exemption from Confederate charities!

And she’s trying to gerrymander the state. There’s going to be a referendum about that on Tuesday [April 21, 2026]. The state, which voted 46% for Trump in 2024, under her plan will only have one Republican district. The rest of the 10 districts are very long strips from Northern Virginia, incorporating just enough NOVA Democrats to swamp the votes of rural Virginians to the south. [The referendum passed narrowly, but was voided by the Virginia Supreme Court].

Well, people say a week is a long time in politics. But 50 years can be a blink of an eye.

We saw Roe v. Wade reversed after 50 years or so, although it was considered to be settled law. Regardless of what you think about abortion, Roe was clearly wrongly decided as a matter of law. The Liberal majority just made up the law to pass it.

Another example is Brown v. Board of Education which imposed school integration across the country. Again, completely absurd legal reasoning, regardless of what you think the merits of the policy were.

But one example which you’ve probably not heard of: Reynolds v. Sims, one of the last of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s catastrophic court rulings.

What that did was force the states to apportion all their legislative districts on the basis of population.

It had been the case that many states had state Senates which, like the US Senate, were not based on population per se, but were an attempt to give representation to the several different communities that exist within each state.

So, for example, typically the rural areas in a state like Illinois would have more Senators than would be indicated purely on the basis of population, because otherwise the rural areas were simply outvoted by the big city of Chicago.

Reynolds v. Sims is justified on the grounds of “one man, one vote.” But that’s not the sole issue in democracy. The issue is: what constitutes a community. Should a community be outvoted by the majority—subjected to the tyranny of the majority?

So the result of this decision is that many states now are completely dominated by their big cities, which of course are increasingly overwhelmingly non-white, increasingly immigrant-descended.

Chicago is a classic example, I think something like 70% of the population of Illinois lives in Chicago. But Illinois is 400 miles long. Lydia’s grandparents, on her Union side, lived in Bradford IL, which is three hours south and west of Chicago. It’s a completely different world, an absolutely different world than Chicago. But they have no control over their local affairs at the state level.

It’s true to a certain extent in Michigan. Michigan is dominated, although not as much dominated, by Detroit.

And it’s true in Maryland, which is completely dominated by Baltimore. And it’s true in New York State. It’s a major problem.

And what it means is that the only answer to being ruled by what is essentially a foreign community is state secession.

And that’s why you see state secession movements springing up. For example, in the Greater Idaho movement, which seeks to remove Eastern Oregon from the rule of Portland. And in Illinois itself, there are several different movements to partition Illinois and transfer parts of it to Indiana and to Wisconsin.

And that’s happened because there’s no other way to get representation apart from secession.

And that’s a theme that’s steadily rising in American politics.

So I’m going to talk about how Trump has impacted the post-1965 immigration disaster.

Firstly, post-Trump, there has been absolutely dramatic change in the GOP in regards to the general immigration debate.

When I got started on this debate, the conventional wisdom among conservative Republicans was that immigration is okay, we don’t need to worry about it.

That’s completely gone now.

Tom Tancredo, who was a congressman from Colorado, another state that’s been debauched by immigration, once told me that when he was in Congress, there was a sort of affinity group meeting of Republican congressmen, and they made the mistake of making him the chair briefly. So he showed them a video of the situation at the southern border, completely chaotic, people rushing the Border Patrol and sneaking across at night and all this kind of thing.

And he said the response from Republican members was that they all got up and walked out.

And by the time the movie was over, there was nobody in the room except him and one or two of his friends.

Because they just simply didn’t want to think about this. It upset the donors, and it meant they might be called racists, and the leadership didn’t like it, and they didn’t want to think about it.

Well, now, of course, they are thinking about it.

And we see, for example, there’s a Cuban Republican congressperson, Maria Elvira Salazar, trying to get an Amnesty bill through at the moment.

And she’s been fiercely beset by other Republicans, Brandon Gill and so on, in Texas. And her opponents make exactly these arguments that this is going to Elect a New People.

Now, as a policy matter, secondly, Trump has produced a really dramatic turnaround, and there’s essentially no border crossings now. And they were running at the rate of millions a year.

But less noted than that, he’s also dramatically reduced legal immigration by about half. And some key parts of this, like Asylum Seekers and Refugees, have been reduced by a fraction of 90%.

The problem is that this has entirely been done by Executive Action. It can be reversed, as it was after Trump went out of office in 2020 by Biden.

But I should say, one other great thing Trump has done: he’s brought Birthright Citizenship into public debate.

Birthright Citizenship, the idea that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, is a most peculiar interpretation of the law. It’s not in the Constitution, it was done by incremental judicial decree--the child of any illegal alien born in the U.S., even a tourist’s, is a U.S. citizen and entitled to all kinds of benefits and so on.

And as a practical matter, the parents, it’s very difficult to deport the illegal parents if they have a citizen child Anchor Baby.

Birthright Citizenship could be reformed by statute. Congress could simply pass a bill saying what they meant, what the Constitution meant by “subject to jurisdiction thereof,” which is in the Constitution.

Alternatively, Congress could trigger a Constitutional Amendment, which is not easy, but at least would force the Democrats to vote up or down on this in all the states, and then run in elections on it.

Now, what we’ve been writing about for nearly 25 years—we first wrote about it in 2002—has finally gotten into public debate.

I must admit that had never occurred to us as a possibility that that it could be done through Executive Action. But that is what the Supreme Court is currently ruling on. It’s not directly ruling on whether birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. It’s ruling on whether or not you can do these things by executive action.

But whatever they rule, you know, it’s incumbent on the Republican Congress to immediately start move legislation on Birthright Citizenship.

I mean, you know, the income tax was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

But the result of that was a Constitutional Amendment had to pass, and it was passed. And that’s how we have income tax.

This idea that the Supreme Court is like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with tablets that he discovered with all these rules on them, and there’s nothing to be said about it, that any Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land, is completely wrong.

It’s not the way law is supposed to work. Congress, the legislative branch, is supposed to change the law.

Anyway, what is really disappointing about Trump’s action is that he blinked on the question of this Minneapolis insurrection.

It’s only the Blue States where they’re not cooperating with the law, where the federal government has to do these mass deportations.

I thought the thing was developing very well. Trump had forced people like Tim Walz and Jacob Frey in Minneapolis to make the most extravagant statements about how they’re going to defy federal law. They were actually inciting an insurrection.

And I thought that the obvious thing to do was follow through and invoke the Insurrection Act. Jail Governor Walz. And, if necessary, push him to the point where you have a Kent State situation where there’s so many attacks of law enforcement that there’s a serious shooting outbreak

I remember Kent State and it’s quite contrary to the way you think it went. What happened was anti-war demonstrations on the campus immediately stopped and Nixon won the 1972 election overwhelmingly.

So that’s what I assumed that the Trump Administration was going to do. The peak of that thinking, which I think is what some of his aides did want to do, was the State of the Union address where he actually said everybody stand in favor of illegal immigrants being deported and none of the Democrats stood except Senator Fetterman from Pennsylvania.

That’s a great thing to run on. That’s going to make a great Republican campaign if they choose to run on it.

But Trump didn’t choose to run on it. He has apparently decided to attack Iran instead. Which is a very big bore.

Still, I have to say what he’s done is not completely reversible, because he’s done immense damages to these refugee NGOs, these refugee rackets like Catholic Charities and so on.

They have had to lay masses of people off.

They can’t reconstruct their treasonous illegal immigrants-settling activities for quite some time after Trump’s out of office, even if he’s not succeeded by another immigration patriot.

Of course, the biggest single failure is that Trump has not got behind the idea of an immigration moratorium.

That is to say: no net immigration for at least 60 years, to match the post 1965 immigration disaster

About 300,000 people leave the US every year, so you could have 300,000 coming in to take care of any hardship cases, and needed skills and so on. Ironically, it’s quite close to the number that Teddy Kennedy claimed would continue to come in if the Hart-Celler Act were passed in 1965.

• ·What happens now?

The short answer is: I don’t know what’s going to happen now.

The first possibility is that the U.S. will indeed become more of an Alien Nation.

1) We’ll see sectional break up. Boundaries could be drawn across North America.

This is a pattern. The Canadians have messed themselves up as well. The Canadian West and in particular Alberta are talking about seceding and possibly forming relationship with the U.S. You could see boundaries drawn across North America--putting compatible communities together.

What people don’t realize is that actually the U.S. is already in a state of secession. Some states have already effectively seceded from the Union. I said earlier that the Blue States, for example, Minnesota, openly say they’re not going to enforce federal immigration law. How much more insurrectionary can you get?

But the even more serious problem: it turns out the Trump Administration can’t enforce the law anywhere in Blue States easily.

Because both the Blue State judges and the prosecutors—you can only appoint them with the consent of the U.S. Senate—but particularly there’s this thing called the Blue Slip arrangement whereby senators from each state can veto people they don’t like.

What that means is that both the U.S. prosecutors and the judges in the Blue States are partisan Leftist Democrats. And that’s why you see Antifa prosecuted in Texas and not in Seattle.

And similarly, Jury Nullification has become a very serious problem.

For example Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York whom I mentioned earlier, is quite clearly engaged in serial mortgage fraud going back 40 years.

She was exposed by a very interesting forensic accountant called Sam Antar, who is particularly qualified in this area because he served some years in federal confinement for being engaged in the Crazy Eddie fraud.

Does anybody remember Crazy Eddie? It was a huge electronics discount store in New York City. There were famous advertisements of Crazy Eddie—his “prices were insane.”

The reason the prices were insane is they weren’t paying taxes of any kind!

Anyway, it’s a bit like the movie Catch Me If You Can. He flipped sides and became a forensic accountant and he’s been able to show that Letitia James engaged in serial mortgage fraud in many different cases.

But the Trump administration so far has been unable to get an indictment.

Because Grand Juries in jurisdictions like DC and the Eastern District of Virginia, which is dominated by Northern Virginia, will not indict a Democrat official.

Prosecutors in these areas are also Democrats, and they won’t generally prosecute them.

On the occasions when Trump got special prosecutors into do it, the Federal Courts said they haven’t been legally appointed because the Senate is not approving the appointment of Trump’s prosecutors. The situation is completely paralyzed.

So these states are already in a state of secession.

Now the second possibility:

2) The U.S. will move into something similar to South Africaa, with a paralyzed, parasitized white minority

Whatever else was going on in South Africa, there was a coherent nation there—the Afrikaners, Dutch-speaking whites, who have been there since the around the time the Pilgrims came to Massachusetts.

The Afrikaners developed a nation there and it controlled a state—latterly known as the Republic of South Africa.

But it had of course all kinds of other people within its territory, which was an awkward problem for them.

So although they did control the state, they were induced to abandon it. In the end, they never mounted a really serious opposition to their dispossession. They abandoned their state--with the result that South Africa is now falling apart.

And the white minority is paying the taxes that keep the whole thinh going.

I have theories as to why this happened. One is just sheer bribery. I think the mining companies may have bribed the Afrikaner leadership.

But one another reason is just ideological hegemony. South African whites weren’t just able to formulate the ideas with which they could have defended themselves.

Now that’s the nightmare scenario here in the U.S. That white America, which is to say America, will not be able to stop what’s being done to it. They won’t be able to develop the leadership before it’s too late.

What was going on in the Biden Administration, as I said earlier, was a communist coup. It was fascist in form, but communist in content.

What I mean by fascist in form is that they worked through private corporations. For example, if you go and look at the VDARE.com website archive, you’ll see a discussion from Lydia and a video presentation about this. We had a very long list of allegedly private entities cancel us and impair our functioning.

For no commercial reason—just for political reasons.

For example, bulk email tools, very important in building an audience, just suddenly up and cancelled us.

One of them was Constant Contact, which is the industry leader. When Lydia found we could no longer send stuff out, she called them and said: “What’s going on here?” The girl says: “We no longer service your industry.” Lydia says: “What industry is that?” She said: “Just a moment…Oh, it’s white supremacy.”

So that’s the reason we’d been cancelled.

It’s a long, long list. And it goes to payment processers as well, which was really crippling.

It was being done, as it turns out, by pressure from the Biden Regime. These banks were not supposed to work with people the Regime didn’t like.

Most notably gun dealerships—but we’re worse than gun dealerships! We were told that by one bank. We were more evil than gun dealerships! Worse than pornographers!

The Biden coup was communist in content because it was not a nationalist movement, it was an egalitarian movement. It’s basically a racial socialist movement transferring wealth using state power to favored races.

And it’s resulting in a Cold Civil War.

One of the big problems with a divided community like America now is, as I’ve said, that justice systems don’t work across racial lines.

But neither does democracy. And this is something that is actually contributing seriously to the heat level in U.S. politics: this national bi-polar racial distribution of who votes for which party.

The Democrats have not carried the white vote in America since 1964.

Their party is a coalition of People of Color, homosexuals and Jews, with a minority of residual whites.

I’ve seen reports that in the 2024 election, incredibly, 14% of the Democrat vote was made up of homosexuals.

I find that hard to believe, but the fact is we were going through a moment during the transgender craze when the numbers of Americans who identified as homosexuals ticked up very sharply. It was getting to five or six percent rather than one or two percent which has been for years.

Of course, as we all know, gays are everywhere and there are plenty of gays in the immigration patriot movement.

But it also is true that the Democrat Party is driven by these groups.

There is technical literature on this subject. These groups making up the Democrat base are significantly more prone to emotional disorders than normal white Americans. And I think that’s something that we now see in American politics quite a lot.

Overall, it raises the stakes in elections, because it means that each one of these parties essentially represent “two nations—in the bosom of one state.”

Neither can trust the other to control the state.

3) So the third possibility is: Will it all just go away?

I’m fond of saying that miracles happen quite often in politics.

I’m old enough to remember the Cold War.

Nobody remembers the Cold War. You have to be at least over 40, I guess, now.

But it was extremely serious. And after the fall of Vietnam it was the universal assumption the America Conservative Movement that the US was done for.

I remember I went to see Bill Rusher in 1975. Bill Rusher was the publisher of National Review and actually I think a much more important figure than Bill Buckley.

He said to me, when he realized I was a friend, I was interviewing him for the Canadian Financial Post, when he realized I was a friend we went off the record and he said to me, confidentially—all is lost. Vietnam had just fallen. Angola and Mozambique had just fallen.

The Soviets had built a Blue Water navy and they were operating in every ocean of the world.

He said: the last chance was in 1976 when we tried to nominate Reagan. Now the Red Flag will wave over the world.

This was one of the leaders of the American Conservative Movement!

But he said we persevere—because on the one hand you never know what’s going to happen next.

(And that’s a principle in Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist. There’s a whole section where he discusses why you don’t surrender because you don’t know what’s going on over the hill. The other side may be in even more trouble than you are).

And the second reason, Rusher said, is that there are theological injunctions against despair. Of course, he’s right. He was a very serious Anglican Catholic.

Anyway, it all turned around—in five years. 1980 Reagan was elected and he proceeded to win the Cold War.

Things just got better all by themselves.

So I’m going to conclude one of my favorite quotes which I’ve not used for a long time by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian dissident. He said this in his Nobel Prize speech, which was in the early 70s at the height of the Cold War.

He had been a convinced Young Communist, and in the Soviet Union they had this theory that they’d abolish nationalities. They invented what they called a New Soviet Man, who was entirely a cultural and ideological construct. All the various national groups in the former Russian Empire were going to be subsumed.

Very similar, not coincidentally, to the Neo-Conservative theory of America—that it would be a “universal nation”—the title of Ben Wattenberg’s book—that had gotten away from its ethnic roots.

Anyway, this is why what Solzhenitsyn says was so radical. He said:

In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face.

Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colors and bears within itself a special facet of God’s design.

Well, I think that the US, when I saw it when I came here in 1970, was a special facet of God’s design.

And I think we should keep it that way.

Thank you very much.

Peter Brimelow writes: I’ve recently discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 5-4 Anchor Baby atrocity on several different podcasts (Auron MacIntyre, Mike Farris, Harrison Smith, Kevin DeAnna, Tom Woods, James Edwards). All took interestingly different directions. Plus, of course, I had anticipated SCOTUS’ dereliction here.

James Edwards is also a columnist for the American Free Press treezine and he kindly invited me to do a Q&A with him there. It’s off the stands now, so I am free to post it.

I told Edwards: “I think this ruling will backfire on the Left just like the 1973 abortion ruling Roe vs Wade did.”

And there have been a flurry of statutory and Constitutional Amendment proposals introduced into Congress since June 30. But I don’t see much sign right now that Trump is going to make it the main issue in the 2026 midterms, despite my express instructions below. Maybe he thinks the Iran War will do it for him.

Note my subversive comments on 250th vs. 200th Anniversary celebrations. I was there!

James Edwards: The Supreme Court just handed down this ruling in Trump v. Barbara upholding automatic citizenship for children born to illegal aliens and people here on temporary visas. Many ideological fellow travelers are saying this basically guarantees that the invasion of our country will continue indefinitely, no matter what the American people want. What was your immediate reaction and why do you think so many of our friends were so quick to label this an unmitigated defeat?

Peter Brimelow: This decision is a blessing in disguise. There’s no doubt it puts the Historic American Nation into what the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu called “Death Ground”—if it’s not reversed, the U.S- born children of the illegals here (and Biden let in some 11 million) will eventually get the vote and elect anti-white gay race communists who will abolish America.

But the point is that at least the Birthright Citizenship issue is now in politics. When we started writing about it on VDARE.com 25 years ago, almost no one had any idea of what was going on. America was being transformed by stealth.

Some of our friends are shocked because the decision is such a legal atrocity. However, all is not lost. There are fixes. They’re hard, but they are simple.

Only five justices voted to read Birthright Citizenship into the Constitution (where it was otherwise not at all explicit, just as the notorious alleged right to an abortion nowhere appears). So, replacing one justice could flip the result. That’s why Vice-President J.D. Vance said that Birthright Citizenship “hangs by a thread.”

Plus, Congress could try to fix Birthright Citizenship by statute, imposing its own interpretation of the passage in the Fourteenth Amendment that the five justices exploited.

Or it can begin the process of amending the Constitution to end Birthright Citizenship. Which would be a huge fight. And that would be great!

Lawyers often say, “the process is the punishment,” which certainly been true with NY Attorney General Letitia James’ ruinous “investigation” of VDARE.

But in this case, the process is the prize! Democrats in Congress and in every state would be forced to justify the children of illegals and tourists automatically getting U.S. citizenship, and the whole “Birth Tourism” racket whereby foreign women are flown in to give birth, collect citizenship papers for the baby, and then fly out. Americans generally didn’t know all this was going on, and when they find out they get really mad.

I think this ruling will backfire on the Left just like the 1973 abortion ruling Roe vs Wade did. But this time, it won’t take 50 years.

The Supreme Court is not God. It is not Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments. If Americans don’t like what it says, they can legislate to change it.

That’s what happened with the Federal income tax. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1895. So, Congress proposed the 16th Amendment permitting it and it was ratified by 1913.

And this was for income tax, which everybody hates! Nobody loves Birthright Citizenship, except the Abolish America lobby.

Edwards: You have identified a silver lining, noting that SCOTUS was not ruling on birthright citizenship per se, but rather only whether it can be abolished by Executive Order. Considering that Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship would have certainly been overturned by a potential future Democratic president, could this be a blessing in disguise?

Brimelow: Exactly. I must say it never occurred to us at VDARE.com that Birthright Citizenship could be prevented by Executive Order. We assumed legislation or a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary.

But I’m actually glad that Trump tried to do it this way, because if upheld it would have prevented the Biden Rush illegal aliens’ U.S. born children getting the vote from the date of the order; and also, of course, because it has gotten the issue into political debate. The GOP leaders in Congress apparently didn’t have the courage or the imagination to do that.

If Trump had prevailed on the Executive Order, however, everyone would have all gone back to sleep. And then the Democrats would have eventually reversed the EO, as you say.

A permanent solution is ultimately needed.

I was mildly surprised the Chief Justice Roberts, who ruled with the women (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, Barrett), didn’t try to confine the decision to the narrow issue of the EO. He’s a coward and usually avoids rocking the boat. Ann Coulter, whom I respect, has speculated that he’s being blackmailed. But I suspect that he was just afraid of the female justices’ unbridled hysteria, which in turn presaged the utterly unbridled hysteria with which Democrats would have greeted any threat to Birthright Citizenship.

Three generations of Democrats, going back before the 1954 Brown decision banning racial segregation, which whatever its merits as policy was utterly lawless, have gotten used to the idea that the U.S, Supreme Court is God. And that God agrees with them.

And lot of Democrats react viscerally to the idea that American citizenship is ultimately a matter of blood rather than birth location (technically jus sanguinis rather than jus soli) because they themselves stem from recent immigration. They instinctively recoil from the idea that there was a pre-existing American ethnocultural community — a nation — to which they may or may not belong. Even though abolishing Birthright Citizenship doesn’t actually affect them at all.

Edwards: The 14th Amendment, of course, was passed after the War Between the States by the Reconstruction-era Congress to deal with the children of freed slaves. What sort of mental gymnastics must be put into play to believe that this applies to the children of illegal aliens from the far reaches of the planet?

Brimelow: Well, obviously, it’s a reach.

But, as I say, that’s no longer the issue. SCOTUS has ruled, however mistakenly, and there are ways to undo that ruling if it’s what Americans want. Let’s get on with it.

Edwards: If we don’t put an end to this insane “anchor baby” loophole, millions of other foreign nationals are going to flood across the border knowing their kids will be instant American citizens with full access to our welfare state, schools, and political system. Heritage American taxpayers would be on the hook for the education, healthcare, and eventual welfare of these children who were never supposed to be citizens in the first place. Would this be us subsidizing our own demographic displacement?

Brimelow: Of course. That’s the idea!

But the key thing is to make it clear to Americans that this displacement is what’s being done. The Regime Media will lie about it.

Edwards: In Alien Nation you laid out how post-1965 immigration was fundamentally altering the racial and cultural character of the United States. Now, 30 years later, we stand at the precipice. What hope can you give readers that common sense will prevail?

Brimelow: Well, of course, the underlying numbers have gotten much worse, just as I predicted. On the other hand, awareness of the issue is vastly greater than it was, especially among young men on the Right. So, it’s a question of the irresistible force vs. the immoveable object.

My view is that miracles happen quite often in politics. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to collapse. Nobody expected Trump. I am surprised by how long it’s taken, but everybody may be surprised by how quickly it turns around.

Edwards: What is your overall opinion of the current Supreme Court, looking at its complete body of work since the Trump appointees have been added to the bench, rather than just this single ruling?

Brimelow: It’s obviously vastly better than the flagrantly legislating Leftist Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) or the Country Club / Chamber of Commerce Supreme Courts that succeeded it. There was a whole missing generation of conservative legal intellectuals and the Federalist Society, because it didn’t address National Question issues, has not completely filled the gap.

Edwards: Shifting focus slightly to America’s 250th birthday. Your colleague, Kevin DeAnna, recently wrote that “Changing demographics mean many so-called Americans have no connection whatsoever to the historic nation and regard its history as offensive, racist, and even evil. Meanwhile, many white Americans, especially those who are young and on the hard right, are disillusioned with the entire national project.” Did the overall vibe across the country seem depressed to you on what should have been an important national milestone?

Brimelow: Well, because of my appalling age, I remember the 200th Anniversary celebrations, and they weren’t as unclouded as people think now. There had been the Watergate coup, the Democrats had handed Vietnam to the Communists, Communists had seized Angola and Mozambique, the Soviets had built a Blue-Water navy, they really appeared to be winning the Cold War.

Frankly, I think the 200th Anniversary looks better in retrospect because the recycled ads and footage that you see now was not infected by DEI casting dogma. Everyone was white. And everyone was white, the U.S. population was over 80 percent white, over 20 percentage points more than it is in 2026. So that reinforces Kevin’s point.

Edwards: On that theme, your family recently attended Trump’s Great American State Fair in Washington, which has been the focus of a lot of media attention. What was the vibe there and did everyone have a good time?

Brimelow: Lydia did go with our daughters to the Great American State Fair on the National Mall, it’s only about two hours from where we live in West Virginia. It was over 90 degrees, so she banned me on the grounds I wouldn’t survive! But they all thought it was great. Despite mean-spirited sabotage attempts by a few Democrat governors, for example our previous home state of Connecticut. She thought the relentlessly negative coverage was just deceptive.

Edwards: Your Substack is essential reading for those interested in America First immigration policies from one of its staunchest advocates. Where can people find it?

Brimelow: You can reach my Substack at peterbrimelow.com, my X and Gab are @peterbrimelow and @PeterBrimelow

And VDARE.com’s X and Gab are @vdare and @VDARE.

VDARE’s soul (if you will pardon the reference) goes marching on!

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Ryan P. Haygood, SPLC’s new President and CEO

The Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] has not yet posted its Audited Financial Statement and IRS Form 990 for the year ending October 31 2025, delaying at least three months later than usual. This is an abrupt departure from the meticulous housekeeping under the regime of founder Morris Dees and President & CEO J. Richard Cohen (who resigned alongside Dees in 2019).

And the SPLC has also switched auditors: it is now using the Atlanta-based firm of CRI (Carr, Riggs & Ingram, L.L.C.), whereas for many years it used Jackson Thornton & Co., P.C. based in its hometown of Montgomery AL.

At commercial bank credit school many years ago, I was trained to regard any change of auditors as raising a red flag.

Is something going on?

The SPLC, long America’s leading anti-white vigilante outfit, has certainly been generating some interesting news this year. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against it, initially in April, amended in June. The core of the original indictment:

• 6 counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)

• 4 counts of false statements to a federally insured bank (18 U.S.C. § 1014)

• 1 count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h))

(Not primarily for paying monies to questionable groups, as often misrepresented, including, alarmingly, by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at the DOJ Press Conference.)

These financial fraud charges will be extremely difficult to defeat, as chillingly laid out in the middle part of Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud (Bits about Money, May 1^st, 2026.)

Financial fraud laws are exceptionally savage, a hangover from the War on Drugs and the War On Terror. Under them, the only thing that matters is that a bank was misled. Why and to whom the money was paid does not matter.

The SPLC’s best chance is probably nullification by a Leftist judge or jury—admittedly all too possible in such a high-profile political case as this.

Consequently it is a puzzle to me why the DOJ is laying so much emphasis on the marginally relevant but headline-grabbing issue of the curious payments to supposed right-wingers for information or perhaps influence. DOJ is asserting this defrauded the SPLC’s donors. This may be be more of a stretch legally.

And a July 7, 2026, Washington Examiner story SPLC arraigned on superseding charges of donor fraud by Mia Cathell added the disturbing fact:

For the charged offenses, the SPLC faces up to 30 years in federal prison, a $1 million fine, and any applicable order of restitution. U.S. attorney Kevin Davidson, however, noted during the arraignment hearing that the SPLC is “a corporate defendant” and would not be subject to imprisonment as the federal statute stipulates in most fraud cases.

This very much puzzles old VDARE.com hands like myself. New York Attorney General Letitia James in her effort to destroy VDARE has filed against both the VDARE Foundation and Lydia and Peter Brimelow personally. (She is not alleging bank fraud. It’s a civil case).

The Federal financial fraud laws are intentionally designed to victimize individuals as well as institutions. In fact, their basic operational method is to terrify individuals into betraying their associates.

That the individuals pseudonymously named in the complaint are not being sued personally raises alarming questions about the seriousness of the DOJ. Merely fining the $829 million-asset SPLC a trivial $1 million is a bad joke.

Of course, these periphery charges have unquestionably hurt the SPLC’s public image. One of the startling stories arising from the DOJ’s legal offensive was summarized in the New York Post (SPLC boss funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank account, By Chadwick Moore and Isabel Vincent, June 16, 2026):

Based on the details in the June 2 superseding indictment, “Employee-2” is believed to be Heidi Beirich, a 58-year-old fascism expert who was the director of intelligence at the Alabama-based anti-extremism nonprofit between 2012 and 2019.

“[Beirich] was also in a romantic relationship with F-9. During this relationship, [Beirich] and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts,” the indictment alleges.

“Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account … and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and [Beirich].”

Heidi Beirich, now Chief Strategy Officer & Co-Founder of Global Project Against Hate And Extremism.

Some may find this amusing. But Heidi Beirich was for years one of the $PLC’s main thugs. See Hideous Heidi Beirich’s Bullying Laid Bare.

Perhaps some lawyer out there can explain why an apparent perpetrator—Beirich personally opened some of the fake accounts—who is also the beneficiary of bank fraud would not be charged.

On May 22 2026, I posted Why VDARE called Southern Poverty Law Center the “$PLC”

This recapitulated the $PLC’s astonishing financial success story and reported on its subsequent fall from grace, including founder Morris Dees’s abrupt firing in March 2019 for reasons never fully made public.

I also noted that, over the last few years, a Black takeover of the SPLC has seemingly taken place.

Judging from a screenshot from March 29 2024, posted below, now only four of the 13 Board Members are White (at least three apparently Jewish) and Blacks are in a majority.

In contrast, as recently as 2018, there only three Black members out of 13 and at least eight members appeared to be Jewish.

Moreover, in June 16 the SPLC website posted SPLC Announces Ryan P. Haygood as New President and CEO

Haygood, by an amazing coincidence, is black. Previously for ten years he was President of the New Jersey Institute For Social Justice, an outfit so obscure that it has not earned (or bothered to create) a Wikipedia page (neither has Haygood). The only news stories he has generated appear to be honorific.

The website of Haygood’s New Jersey Institute For Social Justice is as secretive as the SPLC’s. But it does disclose it was

established in 1999 by Alan V. and Amy Lowenstein and a group of visionaries steeped in the Civil Rights Movement.

and that it has appointed an Indian woman, Henal Patel, Interim President & CEO of the Institute.

(Senior Counsel, Nuzhat Chowdhury, and Senior Counsel “Democracy and Justice Reform” Rupal Motwani, are also obviously Indian—three out of the nine officers.)

So basically the Institute For Social Justice is an anti-white advocacy operation which is being forced to utilize “Blacks with Brains” to keep the shop operating.

Symbolically, the longstanding $PLC logo was changed in 2023. The new one dispensed with the Scales of Justice and is straightforwardly Black and White.

These changes at the SPLC have been accompanied by a radical reduction of transparency on the its website, which was historically quite informative. In particular, information about its Directors and Officers has been suppressed.

Yet the changes at the SPLC are significant. I noted in my May 2026 that, starting in 2020, invasions of the SPLC’s fabled “Endowment Fund”—not actually an Endowment Fund as usually understood in charity law but just a pile of money that Morris Dees seemed to like sitting on—had begun.

From Footnote 13 of the 2024 Consolidated Financial Statements (which reported the Endowment Fund at $787 Mm):

During the year ended October 31, 2020, the Board of Directors approved $30 million from the Endowment Fund for the Vote Your Voice initiative…the Board of Directors approved a $100 million investment from the Endowment Fund over the next decade to support voter outreach…The commitment…marks a more-than-threefold increase…pledged in 2020.

The total Vote Your Voice expense for the year ended October 31, 2024, was $14,068,100 (total $41,964,614 for four years).

Footnote 13 does not directly state when the “investment,” which of course is just a subsidy to black political activists, was voted. But I do not believe that any distributions from the “Endowment Fund” were ever allowed when Morris Dees was in control (ended 2019).

It is axiomatic, and has been underlined by the recent Somali and BLM funding scandals (see here and here and here), that showering money on Black-controlled outfits just enables fraud.

If anyone is dubious of the political importance of the $SPLC case, or of the organization’s tremendous power of the $PLC, I commend the section Data products and mechanistic decisioning in Bits about Money’s definitive essay Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud mentioned above.

This nauseatingly explains that from 2017

The SPLC formed a coalition to gain account- and transaction-level decisionmaking capability at tech companies, financial infrastructure firms, and banks through a coordinated pressure campaign… Industry participants describe the coalition participants as threatening their employers, openly and by implication.

In effect, the SPLC effectively gained veto power of access to financial services over an amazingly wide range of institutions. Political opponents were systematically targeted. This may well explain the tremendous loss of services that VDARE.com suffered in those years.

The Biden totalitarian coup was communist in content, because it was egalitarian and anti-identitarian, but fascist in form, because like Mussolini it co-opted corporate insititutions.

Bits about Money points out that the SPLC’s ludicrous reputation for holiness amongst the sheeple was key to this:

Industry participants… when the cameras are not rolling, when there is nothing to gain, repeatedly described the SPLC to me as being on the side of the angels.

Destroying this totally fallacious reputation is of course definitely in the interest of Americans. And there has already been some evidence this process has started.

But will the process be completed? The redoubtable Sam E. Antar, without whom the Letitia James mortgage fraud case would never have been assembled, suspects Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of having sabotaged that litigation.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche

Is Blanche, a former Democrat, reluctant to charge home against Democratic icons?

For my own part, having closely observed VDARE’s litigation experiences (and for that matter President Trump’s) has eliminated any confidence in the integrity of the American judicial system. Especially when any whiff of politics is involved.

However I do have confidence in Black behavior in financial matters.

Consequently, I have been eagerly awaiting the posting of the SPLC’s Audited Financial Statement and IRS Form 990 for their FY ended 10-30-2025.

Hurry up, $PLC!

p.s. For the record, my major, exhaustive but still-relevant, VDARE.com analyses of the SPLC phenomenon were

· The Good News: SPLC loses $50 Million. Bad news: $PLC can afford it 04/08/2009

· Will The Southern Poverty Law (And Investing) Center Return Its Madoff Money? 05/20/2010

· Is The Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC) The Next Financial Bubble? 06/01/2011

Significantly, the SPLC has now disabled its website’s links to the financial reports that I cited here. What is the new regime trying to hide?

Sign up for Patrick Cleburne’s free substack here.

As soon as I got the sad news of Jim Goad’s passing (read Greg Johnson’s powerful obituary), I posted in homage the 2020 video interview I did with him—part of the VDARE “Social Distancing” series that the YouTube Tech Totalitarians subsequently nuked without warning as part of their campaign to rig the election for Joe Biden.

But the last time I saw Jim Goad in person, alas, was way back in January, 2017. He saluted me in the interminable security line that we all had to go through to attend Donald J. Trump’s Inauguration Ceremony.

I was there because Lydia had told me we should go. And she was right: it provided me with a key, and subsequently all-too-vindicated, insight into the unreported communist fury building on the Left: “It Will Come To Blood”—Reflections On The Left’s Anti-Trump Inauguration Tantrum, Jan 22, 2017.

But why had Jim Goad and his lady come all the way up from Georgia? He quite obviously, to put it mildly, had no hope of preferment.

I suspect that, at a deep level, Goad was genuinely moved by Trump’s implicit appeal to the heroes of his 1997 book: The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats.

Goad, unfortunately, only wrote one piece for VDARE.com, a famous attack on J.D. Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy. I’ve posted it below, emphasizing the passages in which Goad points to Trump’s appeal.

I must say that, although I now live in Appalachia and see the very real white social dysfunction Vance described, I didn’t think on reading/listening to Vance’s book that he was quite as dismissive as Goad thought. But of course, Goad—notoriously touchy— had reason to be hypersensitive.

Nevertheless, Goad was writing for us in 2018. Back then, he may well have thought, quite reasonably, that Vance aimed to emerge as a sort of neoconservative equivalent of Maine Democrat faux Great Blue Collar Hope Graham Platner.

But Goad outlined where he thought Vance was deficient.

But subsequently, in 2022, Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate with Trump’s endorsement. In 2024, Trump chose him as running mate.

And Vance has emerged as an articulate immigration patriot. He’s been particularly effective in defending the pro-Redneck agenda as suggested by Jim Goad: i.e. tightening up the labor market e.g. here.

I am also informed, by the recent Maggie Haberman/ Jonathan Swan book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, that Vance not only opposed Trump’s attack on Iran—but also, in my view more importantly, urged the invocation of the Insurrection Act in Minnesota.

J.D. Vance has a lot of critics on the right. They may be right. But I’m not sure that Jim Goad would agree with them.

Vance’s HILLBILLY ELEGY: A Dissent From Personal Experience,

by Jim Goad, VDARE.com, August 31 2018

As a clueless press stabbed its way through the darkness during the 2016 presidential campaign trying to suss out why all the yahoos were suddenly so ornery, many pointed to J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy as a moving and poignant explication of the malignant psychology that had gripped America’s heartland.[Review: In ‘Hillbilly Elegy,’ a Tough Love Analysis of the Poor Who Back Trump, By Jennifer Senior, NYT, August 10, 2016] I come from a similar background to Vance, but for all of his book’s alleged “poignance” and “compassion,” he strikes me more as a traitor and snitch toward hillbillies than an advocate.

I’ve been aware of Hillbilly Elegy since its release, just as I’d been aware of Nancy Isenberg’s White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America and The Liberal Redneck Manifesto: Draggin’ Dixie Out of the Dark, which was written by three moronic comedians. All three books were released in 2016, which was 19 years after Simon & Schuster released my book The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats.

Vance’s chief heresy was to portray Appalachia’s feral hillbillies—those blood-crazed subhuman river rats from Deliverance who’ve served as cultural and cinematic arch-villains for generations now—as human. It should tell you something about how far-gone American cultural discourse is that merely portraying common middle American human beings as human is considered radical.

Unfortunately, that’s about as radical as it gets. Although Vance often speaks with fondness of the gun-toting, foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, drug-addled crackers in his grandparents’ home base of Breathitt County, KY, he ends up placing most of their problems squarely at their own bunion-covered feet. Their problems can’t be genetic, he argues, because both he and his sister were able to crawl up from the meth-stained squalor and make something of themselves. Their problems can’t be blamed on the government for reasons he never quite explains beyond suggesting that people who blame the government for any of their problems are dodging the fact that everything is basically their own fault. So although he concedes that the oft-maligned rubes from flyover country are human, he concludes that for the most part, they are bad humans.

By Vance’s own admission his book is a personal memoir and not a scholarly study. It’s a linear tale describing how economic forces drove his family out of Kentucky and into a southern Ohio factory town. Battered both emotionally and mentally by his violent, drug-addicted mother, Vance finds his chief advocate in his “Mamaw”—a fiercely protective and aggressively violent grandmother who preaches hard work, clean living, and knocking the teeth out of anyone who gets in your way.

After a youth mostly spent being shunted from place to place as his mother descended from alcohol to pills to heroin while parading a series of unsuitable male suitors in front of Vance and his sister, he finally found solace by moving in with Mamaw and focusing on his education. Four years in the Marines gave him the structure that was absent in the hollers of Breathitt County, KY and the grey little factory burg of Middletown, OH. He ultimately was accepted into Yale’s law school and married an Indian woman (dot, not feather) named Usha.

The end of the book finds him a lawyer, successful author, and father of a mixed-race baby who lives in a comfortable bourgeois enclave far removed from the chaos and dysfunction of his youth.

Although he gives credit to his Mamaw, he largely seems to take most of the credit himself—he wriggled out of the benighted hill folk’s “learned helplessness” because he had the smarts and the gumption to do it, and, by gum, he’s not a statistical anomaly, he’s an example-setter for all the despicable Oxycontin junkies and welfare leeches who languish in self-inflicted pain far from the nation’s media centers.

I could relate to many things in Vance’s book—mainly, the fuming agony of being raised by a working-class parent who was not only violent, they cared more for intoxicants than for their own spawn. For Vance, both the violence and the addiction were embodied in his mother, as his father was a no-show almost from the start. Although both my parents were violent, my father was the hopeless alcoholic, and I feel the addiction was more systemically damaging to me than the violence was.

Then again, my father was the oldest of four boys in an Appalachian town in Vermont during the Great Depression. His father, who abandoned the family after popping out four kids with my Grammy Goad, was allegedly the town drunk and was fond of blasting off his shotgun inside the house to terrify the kids. I never met my paternal grandfather and couldn’t even tell you his first name, but I was made aware that even before reaching puberty, my dad had to work to help support his mom and three brothers.

And while I was growing up, my father worked two full-time jobs—one as an oil-refinery foreman and one as a freelance plumber—an insane burden which likely contributed to his death at age 59. Dad also drank a full bottle of either Scotch or whisky every day and never spared the rod nor spoiled any of his four kids.

Nature v. nurture is such a sticky subject. Although I’d like to believe in free will and I deeply dread the very idea that we’re all automatons, I partially blame my father and I partially blame his life circumstances. I like to believe that even if you took the cream of New England’s Protestant nobility and raised them in a mountain shack with a father who blasted shotguns to terrify them, forced them to toil endlessly at menial labor before they even kissed a girl, made them fight in the Battle of the Bulge for reasons that were unclear to them, and then set them on a path that had them cleaning toilets and working oil rigs for 80 hours a week every week of their adult life, in most cases they’d be sufficiently shell-shocked to develop some addictions and to occasionally lash out with violence.

Trying to isolate blame on a single cause is a fool’s errand, yet people can’t seem to resist the temptation. In my dad’s case—as in his dad’s case and probably generations of dads before him—I suspect that a combination of personal failings and situational pressures can be blamed.

Yet when Vance takes a bleak look at the rotten-toothed, opiate-addled, food-stamp-slinging people who apparently didn’t have the smarts or character to lift themselves out of their environment like he did, he can’t seem to bring himself to blame anyone but the hillbillies. Rising addiction and suicide rates among this population, along with its unprecedented drop in longevity rates, is solely framed as a moral failing—it can’t possibly be pinned on the fact that politicians sold all the middle- and working-class jobs overseas and imported millions of hostile nonwhite proles to snap up the remaining low-paying jobs.

All the despair he observes is blamed on some vague spiritual sickness rather than on material realities. His diagnosis is no less scolding or condescending than Barack Obama’s finger-wagging about rural losers who bitterly cling to guns and Bibles.

Although he self-identifies as a conservative, Vance sends little moralistic smoke signals throughout the book that indicate he’s entirely under the thrall of liberal thought-policing. He repeatedly refers to racism, sexism, and homophobia as if they were leprosy. He speaks of Barack Obama with a reverence that is so squirrelly, it borders on Chris Matthews’s infamous line about a thrill going up his leg. He suggests that rural Americans who distrust a media who openly hate and defame rural Americans are simply paranoid and uneducated.

And this, I suspect, is why so many have found his book to be palatable—he unquestioningly parrots all the reigning pieties spewed out by the coastal elites whose policies have eviscerated rural America.

I recently caught a glimpse of Vance on CNN complaining that Donald Trump doesn’t offer any real solutions to what ails America’s poor white underclass.

But to my knowledge, Trump is the only major presidential contender in memory to even address outsourcing as a major factor in rural America’s pathologies.

Trump is also the only one who even bothers to mention the opioid crisis. Trump’s brand of economic nationalism seems like a far more pragmatic solution to rural poverty than Vance’s exasperatingly vague admonition of “Don’t be a bad person.”

And for all that Vance is presumed to speak for the anguished rural hordes of southern Ohio and Kentucky, the hillbillies seem to prefer Trump’s solutions.

In 2016, his grandparents’ breeding ground of Breathitt County, KY gave 62.5% of their votes to Trump. Middletown, OH, where Vance spent most of his youth, straddles two counties—one of those counties went for 61% for Trump and the other went 65% for Trump.

Vance is obviously writing what a lot of people want to hear, but it doesn’t seem to be what the hillbillies themselves want to hear. Part of this may be blamed on the fact that a lot of them are hopeless fuckups who refuse to take any personal responsibility, but part of it can also be blamed on the fact that they aren’t as dumb as they seem and are at least wise enough to perceive that the federal government views them as an obstacle rather than a constituency.

Yes, our choices matter. But they aren’t the entire picture, nor are they the entire solution. But I’m sure the coastal elites are happy that J.D. Vance blamed the hillbillies rather than the coastal elites.

In 2020, I interviewed Jim as part of our new Social Distancing video series, started at the urging of the indefatigable Paul Kersey (who is also the moving spirit of our current Tuesday night Life In The Alien Nation X Space series e.g. here).

Subsequently the Social Distancing videos were all nuked, without any warning, by the Tech Totalitarians at YouTube in their drive to elect Biden.

But our heroic videographer retrieved this copy.

(VDARE videos, still being made despite Letitia James, are now hosted at our Rumble Channel).

More on Jim Goad later.

I recently discussed SCOTUS’ treasonous Anchor Baby decision (but n.b it’s narrow—it hangs by a 5-4 thread, as VP J.D. Vance has said) with James Edwards on his POLITICAL CESSPOOL radio show here.

James Edwards has been a loyal friend of VDARE.com and a fellow inhabitant of the Dissident Right catacomb for many years.

As with my other recent podcast appearances on the issue here, here, here, here, we covered a lot of surprisingly variegated territory. But my basic point: it’s a huge victory that the Anchor Baby issue has finally gotten into political debate. Now it can be dealt with, by statute or by Constitutional Amendment. Let’s fight it out!

(Right, Congressional GOP? Hello?)

One issue that James Edwards and I focussed on: the Anchor Baby issue is ultimately about who enters the Political Nation—i.e. who gets to vote. Implicitly, the SCOTUS female consensus (counting Chief Justice Roberts) means that the U.S.-born children of the Biden Rush should ultimately be given the right to vote. Needless to say, this is just another attack on the Historic American Nation.

As it happened, Counter Currents Editor Greg Johnson simultaneously addressed this issue in his July 13 essay Disenfranchisement.

Greg was discussing the disenfranchisement of e.g. felons and other categories who already technically have the right to vote.

In contrast, James Edwards and I were discussing how to prevent illegal aliens from ultimately diluting (through their U.S.-born children) Ameericans’ right to vote.

But whatever. There are at least two examples of disenfranchisement in the Anglosphere: in the U.S., the elimination of black voting by white Southerners after Reconstruction; in South Africa, the elimination of Cape Colored voting, enshrined in 1909 U.K. South Africa Act, after Afrikaners got control in 1948.

Not pretty. But they wanted to survive as nations.

Then.

Tom Woods is a commendably entrepreneurial righteous Libertarian and he and I go back a long way—I believe I first met him when I spoke at Harvard (!) in the wake of my notorious 1992 “Time To Rethink Immigration?” National Review cover story. I remember him as slim, with long dark hair—I’ve changed a bit too!—and being highly amused when I told a pretty black co-ed who suggested that my immigration skepticism was really about race that OF COURSE IT’S ABOUT RACE!—OF COURSE IT’S ABOUT RACE!!—BECAUSE RACE IS DESTINY IN AMERICAN POLITICS!

He asked her something like: “You’ve not heard that before, have you?”

At least, that’s what I recall. And I’m writing too late at night to check with him now. I know he has to get a small child to go to sleep and I’ve been there. Maybe tomorrow.

Tom is also one of the irritatingly few of my 40-year colleagues in the Conservative/ Libertarian movement who have actually given VDARE.com a platform to defend ourselves against New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ unconstitutional mugging.

We appreciate that.

Tom’s and my discussion on the predictable, disastrous, but easily reversible, 5-4 SCOTUS decision on Birthright Citizenship—and much else!— is here.

In his July 3 address at Mount Rushmore, President Trump upset a lot of people by launching into an attack on “communism.” He said:

Yet as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack, a generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of communism.

There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. These are not mere political disagreements like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty.

It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11.

(And there was a lot more where that came from!)

Needless to say, I was delighted. The re-emergence of the term “communism” in American political discourse is one of those rare cultural victories, like the emergence of the War On Christmas concept, won spontaneously in the teeth of intense elite opposition.

I’d like to think that I played a small role in this re-emergence. I discussed the term in a speech I gave to the 2021 Amren conference surveying the early Biden Regime and making the critical point: communism really means totalitarian Leftism, which the Biden Regime was clearly displaying, for example in its persecution of the J6 Martyrs. [Video versions of speech here].

It also includes totalitarian lawfare, which is why I can no longer write this on VDARE.com.

(Extract from

VDARE.com’s Brimelow: “This Is A Communist Coup. But White America Is On The Move”

first published January 2, 2022)

…we have to recognize that we are in the early stages of a communist coup. It just crept upon us.

Now, there’s some wimps around here who don’t like us using the term “communist” to describe our Biden Regime Rulers. Isn’t that right, Jared? [A loving reference to AMREN’s notoriously authoritarian—all libertarians are authoritarian—Style Sheet.]

In fact, I’m reliably informed that AMREN has banned the use of the term “Cultural Marxists,” which I experimented with for a while because I thought it just more precise.

I was actually converted on this matter by the great John Derbyshire. He regularly used the term “communist” to describe the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. And when I was looking this up today, I discovered that the de Blasio was actually involved in pro-Sandinista activities in the 1980s, when, of course, that put him on the wrong side of the Cold War.

And the term “communist” is gradually creeping into mainstream discourse. Someone who’s done great work in this area is the podcaster Jesse Kelly, who’s been using it for a long time.

The problem is that we’ve all been subliminally subverted by the McCarthy wars. We think that “communist” has to mean “card-carrying Communist”—that is, a member of the Party (although my understanding is that the party did not actually issue cards).

But in fact, the term “communist” pre-exists formally organized “Communist” parties. Marx used it in his 1848 Communist Manifesto—he said a specter was “haunting Europe—the specter of communism.” At that time, remember, he hadn’t written Das Kapital.

I recently read a famous, really eerie Catholic triumphalist dystopian futurist novel, Lord Of The World. It’s still in print, after over 100 years, and it’s been praised by a number of recent Popes including, oddly, Pope Francis. The author, Monsignor Hugh Benson, was a son of an Archbishop of Canterbury, so it was a huge scandal when he converted. In 1907, Benson was talking about this war between the persecuted Catholics and what he unhesitatingly called “communists” just as a matter of fact. They weren’t visibly Marxists from an economic standpoint—in fact, economic structure doesn’t figure in the novel at all. But they were fanatical totalitarians and anti-Christians.

And that’s the point, I think. You occasionally hear people arguing that well, you know, you can’t call these people “communists” because they don’t know about the Labor Theory Of Value. But the Labor Theory Of Value wasn’t around when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. The point is that they’re Left Totalitarians. They go back to the Jacobins.

And there’s a constant theme among them: anti-religious, not just totalitarian but Christophobic, and also distinct elements of sexual perversion. Andy Ngo has done wonderful work documenting Antifa in the Pacific Northwest, and it’s astonishing how many of these people actually turn out to be trannies and other forms of deviants.

For example, some of you remember that one of our members got into a fight with an Antifa guy in 2017. Well, I’ve watched this case carefully because I want to see what happened to the perp. The answer was nothing. He turns out to be a tranny. Well, they’re everywhere.

If any of you read Stan Evans’ great book about Joe McCarthy, Blacklisted by History, you end it with a feeling of despair—because McCarthy had been defeated and the Communists were still operating. It’s actually a miracle that America won the Cold War.

And there was never a Reckoning for that. McCarthy, of course was vindicated by the Venona intercepts. The FBI actually knew who these people were and had been wiretapping them for years. That’s news that emerged in the 1990s. But the transcription of those Venona intercepts was stopped during the Carter Administration—almost the last thing that Carter did. Why?

The truth is the Democrat Party has always been soft on Communism—because so many of them were implicated. The people that we see in Antifa, they are literally their children.

There’s a whole concept of “Red Diaper Baby.” There’s at least a score of books written about it. They are gloating about it. The fact that they’re the children of Communists—and this case I do mean card-carrying Communists—is not a problem in American politics today. You can test this by looking at recent biographies. Look at Obama—one of his close friends, and people sometimes say his actual father, was Frank Davis, a black Communist. Obama’s book was reportedly ghosted by Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground communist terrorist group in the 1980s. Ayers was, of course, rewarded by being made a tenured professor at the University of Illinois—Chicago.

Look at Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Kaine was also involved with the Sandinistas in the 1980s. That’s not something you just did out of moral fervor. It you meant you were on the wrong side of the Cold War. But it’s never been seriously raised by the Republicans. Tim Kaine‘s son is a member of Antifa; he was actually arrested for throwing explosives, firecrackers in an Antifa riot at the Minnesota Capitol in 2017. Needless to say he was let off with just probation.

But you know, these people in the January 6 Mostly Peaceful Protest are not going to be let off with just probation. We have a completely asymmetrical system of Unequal Justice in this country now.

And then there’s the case of Chesa Boudin, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who went to jail for being involved in the murder of two policemen in a robbery. He was then adopted by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who were also members of the Weather Underground. And he’s now the District Attorney in San Francisco, where he’s systematically not prosecuting criminals.

Michelle Malkin, who is also here today, for which she deserves congratulations—she’s got real courage—wrote a recent savage column, Coward Cuomo’s Last Act Of Treachery, pointing out that the last thing the governor of New York Andrew Cuomo did before he was driven out of office by Me-Tooism was to pardon David Gilbert. In other words, he pardoned somebody who had been convicted of murder and was involved in extensive terrorism in the 1970s and early 1980s—including, by the way, bombing the U.S. Capitol, something you never hear of when the Democrats go on about how terrible the Mostly Peaceful Protest was.

Why would he do that? I go back to what I said before—the Democrat Party has always been soft on Communism.

So these Communists are still there. They’re still active. They’re making public policy right now.

My recent appearance on Kevin DeAnna’s Identity Politics is here. We started off with SCOTUS’ predictable Birthright atrocity and how it’s put U.S. patriots in a Sun Tsu-type Death Ground situation—while showing a clear path to victory. But we talk about a lot more, including my theory that, just as there’s Money Illusion that disguises the initial impact of inflation, there’s a Judicial Illusion that causes people to believe that judges are impartial—until they realize they’re not. Which is happening now.

I knew Kevin when he was James Kirkpatrick and wrote great stuff for VDARE.com! He ran the VDARE Book Club until we had to suspend it because of the legal costs inflicted upon us by New York Attorney General Letitia James’ unconstitutional mugging. Kirkpatrick’s archive here.

He has blue eyes too, like Eva Vlaardingerbroek, sort of.