PETER BRIMELOW: “Will U.S. become South Africa—with a paralyzed, parasitized white minority?”

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.