Where are the feminists on Black Significant Other femicide?
Meaghan Bowler came all the way from Australia to marry Jesse Jones. He stabbed her multiple times
Kenn Gividen’s computer broke down recently (before VDARE.com’s mugging by NYAG Letitia James, we would simply have bought him a new one), so his April 2026 roundup of America’s ongoing black-on-white homicide Holocaust™ wasn’t published until May 21. Which means his May 2026 survey will appear next week—he’s relentless.
PeterBrimelow.com is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
But then, so is America’s black-on-white Holocaust™.
Before VDARE.com was mugged by Letitia James, we used to report Kenn’s roundup of black-on-white homicides under the running head “A Month In The Death Of White America”—example here. It was one of our most popular features. Maybe that’s why James mugged us. But thanks to her lawfare, VDARE.com can no longer pay Kenn. So I urge you subscribe to his substack AbateHate.com—it covers a lot more than black crime— here!
Since the mugging of VDARE.com, I have begun to analyze Kenn’s results separately from his own roundup e.g. my March analysis here. My analysis usually differs somewhat from Kenn’s, partly because of subsequent developments e.g. I’ve found a couple more immigrants this month; and partly because of methodology. Thus I include all of the black-on-white homicides that Kenn discovers in any given month, whereas in May he broke out the older killings that he had found separately (and there are generally a lot of them, only slowly surfacing). So he reports an April total of 43; my total is 53.
My philosophy: it all come out in the wash. Kenn reports Grok says there are 40-50 black-on-white homicides each month, comporting with FBI figures, which means he always misses 10-20. But the intense Regime Media suppression of Politically Incorrect racial hate facts sometimes lessens after the initial furor, e.g. in trials that no-one is monitoring.
Except for us.
The other difference between Kenn and myself: I look for overall themes in the American black-on-white Holocaust™, whereas he lets the appalling truth just speak for itself.
Not for the first time, the theme that leaps out from the April data:
The absolutely extraordinary number of white women regularly killed by Black Significant Others (here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here).
Thus my featured image, above,
is of Meaghan Bowler, who came all the way from Australia to marry Jesse Nichols Jones, also pictured, who then proceeded to stab her multiple times (this is a recurrent aspect of Black Significant Other killings) despite having two children with her.
In other words, even apparently stable Black Significant Other relationships can end in savage homicide.
In contrast, it is vanishingly rare to see the opposite: black women killed by White Significant Others. Kenn found no examples at all in April.
A related theme: Black Significant Other Collateral Damage, e.g, a white brother trying to protect his sister from a black ex-boyfriend (examples here, here).
To put Black Significant Other killings in perspective: in the 1970s, feminist scholars began whooping up the concept of “femicide,” the killing of women. They never agreed whether this meant all killings of women, or just killings of women for being women. But where is the discussion of Black Significant Other femicide of White domestic partners?
And if “femicide” does mean the apparently-motiveless black killing of white women, April examples are here, here, here.
Where are the feminist scholars on this?
Other consistent themes:
Crossfire. Innocent whites die in crossfire between black shooters every month, here, here, here, here.
Black stupidity as in how could he have possibly expected to get away with this? Here
Vehicular homicide. Kenn includes these, although it bothers liberal me because they could be genuine accidents. But some of these are indeed plainly criminally reckless here, here,
Immigrant/ immigrant stock homicides. The Regime Media represses the immigration status of criminals even more sternly than their race. But the recent surge of immigrants is so great that it can be detected because some don’t even have Americanized names— here, here, here, here.
Kenn counted just five white-on-black homicides in April. Obviously this is tellingly disproportionate, given that the white population is (still) so much larger than the black.
One white-on-black homicide was a road rage incident in which the perp has a typically Puerto Rican/ Ashkenazi Jewish name. Another appears to be a confrontation between white and black teenagers.
But we don’t know the details—because local media coverage has ignominiously collapsed, often relying entirely on law enforcement press releases.
This is particularly unfortunate because local media would often report race when the national media was working hard to repress it. But no more.
I had already sort of intuited that.I responded:Charles, to his credit, replied:This exchange inspired the following comment, heartwarming to me personally (thanks Matt!):Gone but not forgotten! Of all the factions I encountered during Alien Nation’s brief but intense moment in the MSM spotlight, Libertarians were by far the most bone-headed. This was a mild sorrow to me because I had been deeply influenced by my encounter with libertarianism after coming to the U.S. from England to study at Stanford in 1970. (Libertarianism simply did not exist at the University of Sussex back then). I spent a lot of time working through the relationship between libertarianism with immigration patriotism—in fact, with any kind of patriotism—as Greg Johnson recently discussed in his review of Quinn Slobodian’s 2025 Hayek’s Bastards, a book which paradoxically is the closest thing to an intellectual biography I’m ever likely to get. (Greg’s parallel podcast interview with me is here).Of course, by then I’d realized that many Libertarians, seeking for a once-size-fits-all explanation of the world, were psychologically similar to the dogmatic Student Marxists who had so brightened up my undergraduate days (and who now rule Britain). Although, of course, the Libertarians’ one-size-fits-all panacea was immeasurably superior.But there was one exception to this: the “Paleolibertarians,” a factional split led by the brilliant (and famously factional) economist Murray Rothbard. Paleolibertarians were enthusiastically willing to consider what the new issue of post-1965 mass, non-traditional, immigration meant to libertarianism, partly because it so irritated what Rothbard gleefully termed The Kochtopus e.g. the Cato Institute. And they did so until Rothbard’s untimely death in 1995, at what now seems to me to be the early age of 68. Thereafter their chief internet forum LewRockwell.com, edited by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell, regressed to left-Libertarianism, probably following its donors, and the Paleolibertarian faction was eclipsed.But not completely. Rothbard’s most prominent student, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who has been described as “The Last Paleolibertarian, ” founded the Property and Freedom Society in 2006 and sustained the tradition. (I am sorry to learn that Hoppe’s long relationship with the Mises Institute has recently, abruptly, been Cancelled).I spoke to his PFS conference in 2008. The issue hasn’t gone away. (Sigh again)“Immigration Is The Viagra Of The State”—A Libertarian Case Against ImmigrationFirst published on VDARE.com, 06/04/2008
Ladies and Gentlemen:I want to start off by thanking Hans [-Hermann Hoppe] and Guelchin [Imre, his wife and owner of the equally beautiful Karia Princess Hotel] for hosting this conference and in particular for inviting me to speak here today.We’re at a peculiar moment in the history of liberty. It’s been almost seventeen years since the Soviet Union collapsed. (I’m acutely aware of this because my son was born that day, making him, as I like to think, the very first post-Communist baby!) At that time, even a life-long American academic socialist like Robert Heilbroner was compelled to confess, in a celebrated essay in the New Yorker magazine, [The Triumph Of Capitalism, January 23, 1989] that the century-old battle between capitalism and socialism is over and capitalism has won.Yet in the US it’s very probable that the party of free markets—perhaps
I should say the alleged party of free markets—is going to be annihilated in this year’s election and that the party of statism may be in power for a generation.There are obviously a number of reasons for this reversal. But one of them, I think, is that (at least in the US) libertarianism rested on its laurels and simply did not address the next generation of problems that came to the fore amid the wreckage of socialism. One of those is problems is immigration and, ultimately, the role of the national community, the nation-state. As I understand it, the role of the Property and Freedom Society is to address those problems and to rearticulate the libertarian vision.Hans-Hermann Hoppe did address the problem of immigration, in his own writings and by arranging for a special issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the summer 1998 issue [Volume 13, Number 2] guest edited by Ralph Raico, which was devoted to the subject. It’s a seminal volume of essays, revealing for example that the dean of American libertarian philosophers, John Hospers, who actually received one electoral college vote when he ran for President as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1972, rejected Open Borders and the notion that if you support free trade, you have to support free immigration. [A Libertarian Argument Against Opening Borders(PDF). ]I don’t think the debate among libertarians has moved much further forward, greatly to the discredit of the Libertarian Establishment. Hans should really be giving this talk today. But I guess he believes in the Division Of Labor!So my topic today is “A Libertarian Case Against Immigration”.
I am myself an immigrant (or an emigrant, depending how you look at it) from Britain to the U.S. with some years in Canada. So I’m not saying that immigration is absolutely a bad thing. But I am saying that it can be a bad thing, and that in the US today—and also Europe—it is a bad thing. In the U.S., we’re constantly told by immigration enthusiasts, a distinct subspecies among American intellectuals, that immigrants do dirty jobs Americans won’t do. And, I tell them, here I am!I’m going to make this case with special reference to the example of the U.S., partly because that’s where I’ve lived for nearly forty years and partly because I’m a financial journalist, not a philosopher, and I find the presence of actual facts, as opposed to pure theory, kind of comforting. I will say, however, that the problems of America are the problems of the West.How many of you are Americans? Any Canadians? Europeans? Brits? (I distinguish between Britain and Europe!). [PB: Mostly Europeans, a few Americans and Brits, one Australian on walkabout, no Canadians.
I am going to start off by reviewing the facts of the US example. Then I’m going to analyze those facts from what appears to me to be a libertarian perspective, looking at practical problems and then theoretical problems. I’ll conclude by suggesting what this suggests about immigration—and about libertarianism itself.Americans are taught to believe that they are “a nation of immigrants.” Of course, all nations are nations of immigrants. There is no known case where people grew out of the ground. What’s different about America is the speed with which it was put together. Unfortunately, it can be unput together just as quickly. And that, in essence, is what’s happening.So these are the facts:For almost 50 years in the middle of the twentieth century, from the early 1920s to about 1970, there was pause during which there was almost no immigration into the US at all.There have been many such pauses in American immigration history, stretching right back into the colonial period, and they have been essential to the process of assimilation. During that period, no-one, not even the great Austrian economists like Mises or Hayek (and certainly not the influential Objectivist novelist Ayn Rand, remarkable though she was), really thought much about immigration.
The 1965 Immigration Act, plus a simultaneous decision to stop enforcing the law against illegal immigration, unleashed a new influx. (The decision to stop enforcing the law is very obvious in the date, most glaringly in the 98 percent collapse in workplace prosecutions during the Bush Administration, unmistakably a precursor to the planned integration of North American workforces as in the European Union). About 1 million legal immigrants and some 3-500,000 net illegal immigrants now enter the US every a year.For technical reasons—basically the emphasis on so-called family reunification, which is not family reunification at all but chain migration—immigration has been skewed away from Europe and toward the Third World.As a result, although Americans are stabilizing their population at around 300 million, the government is in effect second-guessing the people on population size, which because of immigration could be 400 million by 2050. One third will be post-1970 immigrants and their descendants.
Because these are overwhelmingly non-white, the U.S., 90% white as recently as 1960, will be majority non-white sometime after 2050.This is a transformation without precedent in the history of the world. To adapt Brecht, the government is dissolving the people and electing a new oneAmazingly, the consensus among labor economists, confirmed by the 1997 National Research Council report The New Americans, is that there is no significant net aggregate economic benefit to native-born Americans.
There is an increase in Gross Domestic Product, but virtually all of that is captured by the immigrants themselves in the form of wages. If transfer payments factored in, there is a small but significant nation-wide loss.In other words, Americans are not merely being transformed for nothing, but they are actually paying to be transformed.Of course, individual Americans benefit, notably employers of cheap labor, and they lobby hard for the privilege (not something libertarians of which would normally approve). But other Americans, notably workers, lose. And they lose a lot—basically government policy is redistributing about 2 percent of GDP from labor to capital.
So here’s something that is having enormous consequences, inflicting enormous expense, operating quite contrary to what was anticipated.Obviously, it’s a government policy!And that’s the bottom line to this review of the US situation, which I really want to stress. The point is that the status quo is statist.We don’t have open immigration in the US or any Western country. We have an extremely complex and intrusive government policy. Government determines, by commission and omission, how many immigrants come in, what race they are, and what skill levels they have. (In the U.S. the post-1965 influx has been significantly less skilled than before, basically of the emphasis on “family reunification”, which is not family reunification at all but chain migration). Doing nothing about immigration as it exists right now is not a libertarian option. It’s a statist option.
Conversely, arguing that the US should restrict immigration, should in fact have a simple moratorium, with no net immigration, could paradoxically represent a diminution of the government’s role, in its powers and its opportunity to exercise them. We’ve all heard of the night watchman state. What libertarians also should want, it seems to me, is a gatekeeper state.So that’s the situation in our case study, the US. Now I’m going to analyze it from a libertarian perspective. It seems to me that it presents two types of problems—practical and theoretical.PracticalThe Americans have had mass immigration before—notably the so-called Great Wave of immigration from about 1880 through the 1920s, when it was cut off by legislation. And they’ve had a welfare state before, roughly since the New Deal in the 1930s. But they’ve never had both together. And they just don’t work.
At one stage, when I worked at Forbes, I used to interview Milton Friedman every year, until we got a new editor and he stopped it on the curious grounds that Friedman was too old. In one of these interviews, Friedman said something that has been much quoted. He criticized the Wall Street Journal, which has a major and negative role in this and other American debates and said “They’ve just got an idée fixe“ about immigration: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.“But it’s not obvious to many libertarians, who continue to think about immigration as if it was still 100 years ago and the government was taking just 5 percent of GDP, instead of 30-40%. Yet the welfare state has visibly altered the incentive structure for immigrants. One of the ways it shows up is that, in the last Great Wave, somewhere up to 40% of all immigrants ended up going home. If they failed in the workforce, there was no safety net. Now there is. And net immigration is 90% of gross immigration.Now the Libertarian response to this is often to say, well, let’s just abolish welfare. Obviously, despite the reforms of the 1990s, the US has failed to do that. But it’s also important to note that we’re not just talking about “welfare“, strictly defined. We’re talking about transfer payments of all kinds. One of the most important is public education, which currently represents a subsidy from the taxpayer to the student of some $8000 a year. And because of a Supreme Court ruling called Plyler vs. Doe, American school districts have to educate the children of illegal immigrants. So what rational immigrant is going to go home when his child is getting an education worth, or at least costing, two or three times the per capita GDP of his country of origin?Of course some Libertarians say, let’s abolish public schools too. And I agree—I’ve actually
James Fulford’s medleys were a major part of our 25-year collaboration at VDARE. Here he reviews the developing War Against Easter–it’s a Thing, despite what the Regime Media says–our meditations on political and spiritual resurrection, and VDARE’s crucifixion by NYAG Letitia James. Subscribe to James’ Substack! And Happy Easter to our loyal readers.
The War on Christmas was first Noticed back in the 1990s, but the War on Easter has developed much more recently. Specifically, I first reported the surreptitious substitution of something called the “Spring Bunny” for the Easter Bunny as recently as 2010. Now the darn thing is hopping around everywhere—part of the mounting attack on the Historic American Nation and its symbols.
This year, if you Google “spring bunny” in Google News, or “spring egg hunt” you’ll see that all over America, teachers and community center types are being told not to say ”Easter” when they have a children’s Easter Egg Hunt.
The Fulford File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I launched VDARE.com on Christmas Eve 1999. So it is perhaps appropriate that, on Good Friday 2024, the anniversary of Christ’s death, I must announce VDARE.com’s crucifixion by New York State’s communist Attorney General Letitia James.
On March 27, 2024, in another of her lightning-fast NYAG James-compliant rulings, New York State Supreme Court Judge Sabrina Kraus held us in Contempt of Court because we have not yet complied (because we were fighting it) with her January 23, 2023 order that we meet NYAG James’ massive and crippling subpoena demands.[Read the whole thing]
VDARE.com remains suspended, and Peter Brimelow is still battling with Letitia James’s minions in court over VDARE.com—and I still don’t have a full-time job. That’s why I have to make an Easter Appeal for paid subscriptions to my readers. I really need the money. I had the same job for VDARE for over 20 years, and I could use the skills I used on VDARE, and am still using for this Substack to write for mainstream publications or at least mainstream conservative publications, but the SPLC’s attacks on VDARE render me unemployable in most such outlets, because if they did hire me, they’d be accused of “platforming” someone hateful.
In a 2011 post asking for money to support VDARE.com, and my former salary, I compared my pre-VDARE financial condition to Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol:
I believe this is from Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol.
The Fulford File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
If some more of you can convert to paid subscriptions (above) I can upgrade to Bob Cratchit levels of financial security, and you get a chance to be a patron of the arts.
Whether you managed a paid subscription or not, I want to wish you all a Happy Easter once again
“Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right.”
Peter Brimelow writes: Tucker Carlson’s reach is amazing. This interview was posted at 2:30 p.m. January19 and at 7 p.m. two people came up to me at a meeting I was attending in downtown Berkeley Springs WV to congratulate me.
I’m posting here the lightly-edited transcript with supporting links provided by my long-time VDARE.com lieutenant James Fulford (subscribe to his substack).
TC: Peter Brimelow, thank you so much for doing this. I thought of you last week when I read this. I don’t know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.
This is a tweet less than a week ago from a basically anonymous account and I’m quoting: “If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority. Then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when there are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive.”
Elon Musk retweets it and says “100 percent .” And then Elon Musk writes this: “If current trends continue whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct!”
All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it.
But I read that and I thought, here’s the world’s richest man, who owns this platform and a lot of other things, saying this. And Peter Brimelow, whom I know, who’s a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for than that.
So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.
PB: It feels kind of tingly!
TC: Tingly?!
PB: On the one hand, I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction and the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on VDARE.com, which was my website, about Birthright Citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.
On the other hand, we’ve been ruined, and we’re now facing personal ruin of course, because of this attack on us by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
As nobody knows who I am Tucker, I should say that, in spite of my accent, I’ve been here for 55 years and I’m a long-time financial journalist. I worked for Forbes and Fortuneand Barron’s and so on.
And I wrote for National Review a lot. I wrote a cover story on immigration in 1992, “ Time To Rethink Immigration,” that’s sometimes credited with kicking off the modern debate.
And there was a brief civil war within the Conservative Movement, which we lost. Buckley stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.
And for the next while, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Pagewas absolutely dominant, they were going on about the need for Amnesty and so on, and there was no way to combat it.
So I set up a website, which I named VDare.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child—not white child as they always say— born in the New World. And over a period of about 25 years, we built it up into quite a force until about two years ago it was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. She just basically subpoenaed us to death. And she has in fact now sued us both personally and through the foundation.
TC: It’s a horrifying story. I’ve kept abreast of it through your wife who texts me and is a wonderful person. And I know that you’re a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need, and I’m grateful to have.
So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing.
But I’d like, if you don’t mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story, with your experience at National Review. You said you wrote this piece saying Time To Rethink Immigration, which I remember well.
At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative. So that was a significant piece at the time. And then you said the then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back. Can you tell the story?
PB: Sure. I was never on staff at National Review, I was what they called a Senior Editor, and I wrote for it a lot. In 1992, I wrote this very long cover story, it’s about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the Editor by then, he was just circling around in the background, but the then-editor, John O’Sullivan, went with this story.
And for about five years, we basically directly challenged the official Conservatism Inc. line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, illegal immigration is very good. That’s what the Wall Street Journal said, and is still saying as far as I can tell.
Then in 1997, Bill just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O’Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told them to shut up about immigration, which of course they all eagerly did. He put the Washington Bureau in charge, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru.
And so for two or three years you couldn’t get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public. But then the internet came along and rescued us. And I started VDARE.com.
TC: But why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O’Sullivan run it (another Brit—
PB: Yes, indeed.
TC: —who now is in Budapest) stepped back in to shut down that conversation specifically?
PB: Of course, I’ve had nearly 30 years to think about that. Over time, my answer’s evolved.. At the time I thought he was just jealous. This is actually a thing that you see–I was a financial journalist for a long time—in the corporate world. The original entrepreneurs will come back and fire the managers that they put in to replace themselves.
Also, I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors, That was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then-Republican majority in the House.
TC: So the Republican leadership, Newt Gingrich, etc., who came in in 1994 to much fanfare, achieved not a lot, they’re the ones who pressured Bill Buckley?
PB: I think that was true, but I also think that the Neoconservatives in New York hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neocons, people like [Commentary Magazine Editor] Norman Podhoretz. And I think they pressured him—I mean, I know they pressured—to get rid of John.
TC: Now, why would they care?
PB: Oh, because the Neoconservatives were a predominantly Jewish faction. They had this sort of Ellis Island view of America. And they were extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they felt as Jews that it might leave them out in the cold.
TC: Despite the fact there’s never been any real anti-Semitic movement in the United States—there’s no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they’re white is a threat to Jews?
PB: Right
And I actually think there was a certain jealousy there. If you look at ideas on the Right in recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism. But here was a non-neoconservative faction—we would have then described ourselves as paleoconservatives—coming up with a whole new issue .
Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when Hart-Celler kicked in, until the early 1990s. There was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Review’s archives and I found that they hadn’t discussed immigration between the passage of the 1965 Act until the early 1990s. People simply didn’t realize what was going on.
TC: Why?
PB: I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the U.S. And so it just wasn’t an issue to them.
It’s like academic life. Where there’s a new academic theory. It’s not that it conquers the other theories by having better arguments. It’s just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off, and they’re replaced by younger academics.
And that’s why he was hornswoggled by the IRCA Amnesty in 1986. He genuinely thought that the permanent government would exchange Amnesty for serious enforcement. Whereas in fact they just took the Amnesty and didn’t enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.
TC: But I’m a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force.
PB: Let me just back up a second. Looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor-driven. And we weren’t aware of that in the 1990s. I didn’t think about donors and their role in politics really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued about issues. We just simply didn’t realize how dominant and how important the donors are.
Particularly given that Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. He depended on National Review financially. It financed his lifestyle to a considerably extent. And I think that—
TC: Wait, he depended on the magazine?
PB: Yeah, yeah—
TC: I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended upon him.
PB: I don’t know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine.
In any case, he just didn’t want to disrupt the donor flow. The more I think about it, the more I think that probably was the reason.
TC: Basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code. I mean intellectual fraud. You’re making the case that you believe these things because they are true, when in fact you’re taking money to say them.
PB: My experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When you went to those dinners he used to put on at [the Buckley NY pied a terre] 73 East 73rd Street, it was very hard to get him to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. And you can see that in the way he lived his life, latterly, in writing these silly novels and so on. He basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics.
I have a letter from him, actually, saying how wonderful my immigration story was. I forget exactly what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect. That sort of stuff.
He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just told them to stop covering it. The official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable. They just didn’t do any journalism on it.
In the case of immigration—immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the early 1990s…
TC: I remember!
PB: As we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on Megyn Kelly. And he was attacking you for some reason or other, I forget what. And then he suddenly says, well, ““Tucker has been a wonderful advocate in the past, particularly on the immigration issue.”
In those days, if you advocated immigration control, you were immediately suspected of being an anti-Semite—even though there’s no direct connection at all.
And he credited John O’Sullivan, the Editor of National Review, for helping change his mind. He didn’t mention me!
TC: Why didn’t he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life?
PB: Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character. And I had deviated on the immigration issue.
I had the habit of calling the National Review, the Goldberg Review, because at that stage, briefly, it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight, and of course was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue.
PB: So I replied and said that. And he didn’t get back to me. He just gradually suspected me more and more of Thought Crime.
And Norman was an extremely passionate man—
TC: [Laughing] Oh, so famously!
PB: He didn’t socialize with opponents.
I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry that….
TC: There was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways, kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion and I admire that.
After 25 years as the premiere race-realist immigration-control website in America (if not the world), VDARE.com has gone dark. AmRen-contributor Peter Bradley has written an eloquent account of the site’s legacy. It is also a fitting tribute to Peter and Lydia Brimelow, who have dedicated their lives to preserving a nation that we might, some day, be able to call our own. The election of Donald Trump and his encouraging cabinet appointments should mean that the United States will be taking a turn back towards sanity.
Not so, Britain. This week’s video looks at what seems to be a unique form of social oppression: persecution of “non-crime hate.” Police investigate children who call each other “retard” and men who refuse to shake hands with transsexuals. In a country that is losing the fight against real crime, this is a perfect example of what the great Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. In response to popular demand, we have posted our conference videos quickly this year.
So far, we have Gregory Hood, Richard Marksbury, Martin Sellner, and Anthony Cumia. Great speeches, all. We hope to have the complete lineup on the site by the end of next week. The videos are the next best thing to being there! And for those who missed this year’s conference, we already have dates for next year: November 14–16. Mark your calendar.
VDARE Director Peter Brimelow explains sadly that, after 25 years as a leading voice of immigration reform, the organization is closing its doors: “VDARE has been murdered by New York Attorney General Letitia James” and her harassment and investigation which has already cost VDARE over a million dollars.
Peter Brimelow writes: For various reasons, I have been delayed in adapting the talk I gave to the American Renaissance Conference, November 13, 2021. But that’s OK, because AMREN has not yet posted the videos and my accent sounds better in print. Plus the Biden Regime’s communist coup isn’t going away—and neither is white aka American resistance. We earlier posted F. Roger Devlin’s presentation “How Envy Causes Racial Conflict.”
JARED TAYLOR: Peter Brimelow is a friend of many years, very much a stalwart of our movement. I believe he has been the impresario and major domo of VDARE.com for 22 years now. And insofar as VDARE.com is fortified by impregnable walls in West Virginia, I suspect it’ll be good for another 100 years. We’re counting on that.
Now, staunch as Peter Brimelow is, I must tell you that there are deep political differences between him and myself. And I will illustrate this by quoting to you from our Wikipedia entries.
My Wikipedia entry states, right in the first sentence: “Jared Taylor is a White Supremacist”.
In Peter Brimelow’s case, you have to get to the second sentence. And there it says he is the founder of a website that is merely associated with White Supremacy.
Sounds like weak stuff here!
In any case, it’s a great pleasure to have him here with us today
PETER BRIMELOW: Thank you, Jared. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I’m delighted to be here. And I really have to congratulate Jared and his crew on their heroic struggle against the State of Tennessee, in which they ultimately prevailed. This question of deplatforming, indirect deplatforming via government alliances with the Left and their refusal to protect us, is a huge issue that we’re all having to face.
I’d also like to thank Roger Devlin for running overtime, which gave me more time to think about what I want to say!
I actually have good news. The New York Times just carried a “reportorial”—which is this new type of journalism, it looks like it’s factual, but it’s actually opinion—called Menace Enters The Republican Mainstream [by Lisa Lerer and Astead W. Herndon, November 16, 2021]. And it says that “threats of violence are becoming commonplace among a significant segment of the Republican Party.”
And that’s why we have those nice young men outside armed to the teeth [Tennessee Park Police and State Police, who were in fact extremely polite].
They’re not trying to keep us in. They’re trying to keep them out.
But the good news is that the New York Times in this case is not talking about us. It’s talking about Josh Mandel, who is a former state treasurer of Ohio and a Senate candidate. Mandel apparently said—and he’s the grandson of a Holocaust survivor—”When the Gestapo show up at your front door, you know what to do.”
That’s the threat of violence.
And the New York Times hacks talk about, of all people, Charlie Kirk of TPUSA:
When the Idaho man asked about “killing” political opponents at an event hosted by the conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Mr. Kirk said he must “denounce” the question but went on to discuss at what point political violence could be justified.
He “went on to discuss at what point political violence could be justified.” And that’s all it takes.
Unfortunately, of course, our Ruling Class actually believes this stuff. They’re saying this because they are really planning to put dissenters in Gulags.
Now, as it happens, neither the American Renaissance nor VDARE.com were involved in the Mostly Peaceful Protests on January 6.
But VDARE.com did have a video crew there. And we posted a video about how Jan. 6 would have been reported if Trump had been a Democrat, which I strongly recommend to you. It’s on Bitchute and on Gab TV. (Hint: it would have been called “democracy in action.”)
Of course, Jared and I knew from bitter experience that not being there would be no protection against the Regime’s Moral Panic, any more than not being involved in the Unite The Right Rally in 2017 was a protection. (VDARE.com was immediately deplatformed by PayPal.)
So anyway, we settled on this title: What The ‘22 Midterm Elections Could Mean For Us.
And the answer is: they could mean a lot.
When I spoke here in 2015, the first time I’ve ever spoken for American Renaissance, I said about the immigration issue, which appeared then to be moribund, that all it would take to get into political debate was one speech—one spark to start the conflagration. And that was before Trump declared for President.
So all it really took was one soundbite—about Mexico “not sending their best.” Trump went to the top of the opinion polls, and he never looked back. That’s how powerful the immigration issue is.
Now, at the American Renaissance conference the next year, in 2016 before Trump was elected, I predicted that he could very well be elected. And obviously I was right about that. And I said it would only take one election. What I meant by that was once the Republican Consultant Class realizes they can win on this issue, they will start running on it.
Equally obviously, I was wrong about that—because Trump was wrong about it. He just didn’t run on immigration in 2020—even though he had actually achieved a brief moratorium, ostensibly because of the COVID epidemic. And even though he (or somebody—Stephen Miller?) had erected what the immigration lawyers kvetch was an “invisible wall” against illegal and some legal immigration, through regulatory changes. Immigration was extremely low in 2020. And the Immigrant Workforce Population actually started to fall significantly right through the year.
(But, of course, no legislation passed—nothing statutory. So it could all be reversed. And it has been reversed.)
The columnist Michael Barone, who’s one of the very few cases of an immigration enthusiast who’s seen the light, was about the only Main Stream Media commentator to note the paradox that Trump’s immigration and trade policies produced income gains for low-wage workers, something Barone said administrations of both parties have failed to achieve for a generation—but that, amazingly, Trump wasn’t running on it [Both candidates’ risky strategies, by Michael Barone, Northern Virginia Daily, October 24, 2020].
In fact, it seems like Trump simply lost interest in reducing legal immigration about midway through his administration. That’s why he had that famous row with Ann Coulter in 2017. It was leaked because they were both shouting at each other so hard that the secretaries could hear it outside the Oval Office. She complained that he wasn’t prioritizing immigration, that he was prioritizing tax cuts.
The fact is that Trump is fundamentally just a moderate Republican.
In 2017, he did endorse Senator Cotton’s RAISE Act, which would have cut legal immigration by half. But subsequently he toldNew York Times reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear, in an interview he gave for their book Border Wars, that he just didn’t realize that bill would actually cut legal immigration. He thought it was about illegal immigration,
Of course, this is unbelievable. But this is Trump—this is how he is.
And that, paradoxically, has probably helped Trump with his base.
He just doesn’t deserve it.
I regularly force my colleague, James Fulford to transcribe Trump’s speeches at his recent rallies to see what he’s said about immigration—because you can no longer find this out from the Main Stream Media.
And Trump does regularly talk about illegal immigration, because he knows Biden’s border betrayal is a hot issue—even if the Main Stream Media wants to bury it. But he never talks about legal immigration, and the need to curtail it.
What this means, by the way, is that somebody, i.e., Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, could easily get around Trump’s Right flank now, just by mentioning the dread term “immigration moratorium.”
That would cause a firestorm—just as Trump’s soundbite about Mexico did in 2015.
So, when Jared Taylor and I were talking, it didn’t look like the GOP/GAP was going to bounce back anytime soon.
But it has—in recent elections.
In fact, recent polling suggests that the odds are three to one or four to one that the GOP will control both the House and the Senate after the midterm elections.
We sometimes forget what a tremendous release of ozone it is to win an election. It can change everything.
Of course, this works both ways. I have a very good friend for 30 years now, I’ve worked with him at National Review, Forbes and VDARE.com, who found himself attending the Women’s March on Washington after the Trump’s inauguration because his wife had forced him to go along with everybody else in their synagogue.
And it was actually very useful! He wrote something for me on it. He said there was absolutely no security whatever, it was obvious to everybody that there was absolutely no threat.
This was in complete contrast to the Trump Inauguration, which was paralyzed by security. That’s why they didn’t fill the bleachers in front of the White House. You couldn’t get in.
What it tells us again, of course, is that the threat is not from the Right—it’s from the Left. And everybody knows that.
So I have here a wish list of things that could be done when the Republicans get control the legislative branch.
Of course, it would have been better if they’d done it when they also had control of the Executive Branch. But we’ll take it.
And for those of you who say these proposals are politically impossible, I have two words for you:
The first and most important thing: the GOP/ GAP should immediately move to impeach both Biden and Harris, for treason, for dereliction of duty.
This could be on the technical issue—the Biden Regime is not enforcing immigration law—or they could just flat out say that it’s treason. There are Supreme Court decisions that treason doesn’t literally have to mean levying war.
The beauty of impeaching and convicting both of them is that the new Speaker of the House, presumably Kevin McCarthy, would then become president. (I’m not going to think about President Trump becoming Speaker!)
Of course, people will say: we’ll never get 60 senators to vote for that. Well, my position is: let’s try it and see! Let’s see how these Democrats in marginal states want to defend what Biden has done on the border!
First of all, the impeachment process will paralyze the government—as it did with Trump.
But, second, impeachment is a very important moral and political statement.
Most American still just don’t realize how bad the immigration situation is—how crazy the Democrats are.
You know, there were recently votes on this Build Back Better thing, which includes an Amnesty. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee tried to at least put some bounds on it [FY 2022 Reconciliation: A Pathway to Amnesty]. They say, well, maybe we shouldn’t Amnesty people who are convicted child molesters. Democrats wouldn’t go for that. They said, what about people who had nine or more convictions for drunk driving? The Democrats wouldn’t go for that either.
The process of impeachment will show how nuts they are.
The second and almost as important point: end Birthright Citizenship.
At one stroke, this would obviate the political purpose behind the Biden Rush / Full Merkel surge.
It can be done by statute; it can be done by a Constitutional Amendment. But it can be done.
I don’t think President McCarthy would veto it. President Biden, if he’s still President, or President Harris, might. But that doesn’t matter. Make them vote on it.
Birthright citizenship is extremely unpopular, once Americans realize what’s going on. And the great advantage of Birthright Citizenship reform is that it is in fact an internal fence. It ends the political incentive to enable illegal immigration.
Of course, it means that we’ll have a large community of people in the country who are born here but are not citizens and therefore can’t vote.
And that’s just great. We don’t want them voting.
In fact, I would still go further. I think Birthright Citizenship Reform should be retroactive. Anybody who came in since a certain point, maybe 1980 or so, since the last Amnesty, who’s the child of an illegal immigrant, should be stripped of citizenship,
So you know, Diversity Is Strength! I think we should learn from the Indians. Where’s Neil Kumar? Learn from the Indians!
You know, one thing about an Immigration Moratorium that people get wrong is it doesn’t mean no immigration—it means no net immigration. We think that 2-300,000 people leave the U.S. every year. So two or 300,000 could come in and out, that’d be no net immigration. And that would take care of, you know, hardship cases, and Americans marrying of foreign spouses and that kind of thing.
Now, the ironic thing is that, although Trump didn’t succeed in passing any laws on immigration, there was actually a very good bill—the more I look at, the more I realized how excellent it was—the Goodlatte bill, which failed in the House in 2018. Jim Jordan, the head of the Freedom Caucus, has just written a book that discusses it in a chapter. He blames the GOP Speaker, Paul Ryan, who just systematically sabotaged any kind of patriotic immigration reform, because he’s a Chamber of Commerce cuck.
But that bill would have, over time, reduced immigration to well below half a million a year. So it’s almost getting into moratorium territory. And it had a lot of other interesting features as well.
Third: And I think that to the extent that people are allowed in the country, public policy should be frankly focus on their race. Senator Ted Kennedy promised us that the 1965 Act was not going to alter the racial balance. So let’s take him at his word.
Fourth: I personally fed up with all this whining about Puerto Rico and D.C. and how they should be states. So my solution is: expel Puerto Rico! And merge D.C. with Maryland!
And let the Western Panhandle of Maryland join West Virginia! Let’s get this question off the table—because if the Democrats get enough power, they will create new states to get around the U.S. Senate.
You know, there’s precedent for expelling Puerto Rico. The Czechs got fed up with the Slovaks after the fall of the Soviet Union and threw the Slovaks out. And the Slovaks are now actually doing well. And the same was true in Malaysia. The Malayans got fed up with the Chinese in Singapore so they threw them out. And they’re doing well too. So good luck to Puerto Rico as an independent state!
Fifth: We should repeal the 1980 refugee legislation and get out of whatever asylum agreements earlier U.S. governments were stupid enough to get into.
Sixth: We should start getting serious about deportation.
In other words, a new Operation Wetback. Remember, about 3 million people left in the first years of the Eisenhower Administration, but only a couple of hundred thousand were actually deported. The rest just got the message.
Well, they can wait, We’ve got plenty of time to get around to them.
The great thing about the immigration issue, which of course is our focus at VDARE.com, is that it is a problem and a solution. if you can stop the drift of the white population, which is to say the American population, into minority status you are going to ensure the survival and success of liberty in this country.
Last year Ron Unz wrote a long article denouncing VDARE.com’s focus on the immigration issue, saying immigrants were all nice people, and we should really focus on Leftists and militant blacks. I didn’t get around to responding to this personally, for various reasons. But the definitive response was written by David Cole—who may be asleep because he came in from California. [In fact, Cole was ill and missed the AR conference.] He said that yes, of course, Leftists and militant blacks are a problem. But we’re stuck with each other—American blacks, American whites. We still don’t have to import more Third World behavior.
Now, one of the advantages of being so damned old is that everything comes around again. When I was a young financial journalist in the early 1970s, I attended a lot of meetings where investment professionals tried to figure out what inflation meant. It wasn’t clear, it literally wasn’t clear to them, that, for example, owning a house is an inflation hedge, because the replacement cost for a house is very high because of inflation, so your house holds its value. Whereas being out of debt is not a good thing in a period of inflation, because you could pay off any debt with dollars that were actually worth less.
That was interesting news to me because my parents, children of the Depression, went to a lot of effort to pay off their mortgage, which of course was exactly the wrong thing to do in an era of inflation.
I remember speakers pointing out that the then-current inflation was actually higher than the Great Inflations of the past, for example in the 1920s or at various points in the 19th century. We just hadn’t realized what was going on.
The Federal Reserve now calls the 1965-1982 period “The Great Inflation.” But current inflation is substantially above the level that caused President Nixon to impose Wage and Price controls in 1971.
Well, now, similarly, 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 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?
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 Most 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.
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 Most 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.
It’s going to be a hard landing. A hard landing.
Well, I’m going to finish on a relatively optimistic note, and that optimistic note is what we call the Sailer Strategy. It’s alive and well.
The Sailer Strategy is something that Steve just started writing about on VDARE.com in late 2000, when Karl Rove was telling everybody that the Republicans need to reach out to minorities. Sailer pointed out that this was stupid and that Rove was innumerate. Even a small increase in the white aka American vote for Republicans would far overwhelm any conceivable increase that they could get by reaching out to minorities.
And Sailer said this consistently for the next 16 years, until Trump actually did it.
In my opinion, this is actually one of the great forecasts in political journalism. And Steve had a moment of fame—it wasn’t 15 seconds of fame, it was more like two seconds of fame. He was discussed in New York Magazine, and he was referred to in the New York Times.
And that’s it. Nobody’s ever interviewed him since. It’s like they don’t want to know what Steve thinks is going to happen next.
Well, the fact is this last election again vindicated the Sailer Strategy. Jared and I both use a writer called Patrick McDermott, that’s not his real name, he’s actually a Democrat, but he’s very insightful on the question of the white vote. And he’s consistently said that there’s no limit to how far the white vote could go for Republicans, if they actually focused on it.
It’s referring to the fact the vote for Glenn Youngkin, who as far as I can see is an absolute cypher, far exceeded what Trump got among whites in general and rural whites in particular. The NYT’s Herndon and Goldmacher quoted Ethan Winter [Tweet him], who works for the Leftist group Data For Progress: “In rural America, the bottom for the Democrat Party is zero. I’m serious about this.”
By the way, it’s also true in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We don’t have exit polls in these states, but the excellent article in the City Journal, which basically analyzed the results in terms of districts and came to the conclusion, well, I’ll read the headline: Twilight of the Blue-Collar Democrat: In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, last week’s election marked the end of a crucial party constituency [by Charles F. McElwee, November 11, 2021].
I don’t think that’s because these people, the Republicans, did much to deserve it. But there is this remarkable case of the truck driver who defeated the New Jersey Senate Majority Leader. He didn’t only spend $150, as was widely reported, but he did only spend a couple of thousand. And that’s really some kind of an earthquake.
Look at West Virginia. As Jared said, I guess it was a year ago in February that my wife Lydia got fed up with being canceled out of all these hotels where we’ve been trying to hold conferences and bought the Berkeley Springs Castle, which is in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, about two hours from the U.S. Capitol next time we want to storm it [NOTE TO FBI:This is a joke J-O-K-E!]. And we’re refurbishing it. We’re going to have small conferences there and dinners and things and I hope that all of you come. Not all at once! But over time.
Now, West Virginia is a little over 90% white. For comparison: the U.S. itself was a little under 90% white in 1960, before the Immigration Act kicked in.
Every single county in West Virginia went for Trump. Every single one. It’s actually quite heart-rending.
If you drive through the middle of the state, it’s really poor, trailer parks up in the trees, they like having a lot of land around them. And they’re flying Trump flags. They’re still flying Trump flags. And recently they’ve started to fly “Let’s go Brandon flags.” Well, actually, not “Let’s Go Branden” flags, but words to that effect.
Now look at Logan County in southern West Virginia. Let’s just listen to this from Wikipedia:
Logan County broke 72% of its ballots for Bill Clinton, 72% for Bill Clinton in 1996, 61% and even 52% for John Kerry in 2004. But by 2008 McCain flipped it to Republicans and in 2016 and 2020 it voted over 80% for Trump.
PB Note: For inscrutable Wikipedia reasons, this entry has been altered since I spoke, but the sense is still the same.
That’s a huge change. So I think McDermott is right, there’s a good way to go for the GOP/GAP with the white vote.
Similarly, there’s Grant County, which is just a couple hours from Morgan County, where we live now.
CAPITOL “INSURRECTION” HOAX: How Lying Press Would Spin The Jan 6 Protest If Trump Were A Democrat.
Powerful video with Peter Brimelow of VDARE. This alleged “insurrection”—this alleged “coup d’état”—carried no weapons. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZcoGPb5Qjj01/?utm_campaign=CAPITOL+%22INSURRECTION%22+HOAX&utm_content=VIDEO&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendx
HEAR WILLIAM JOHNSON, PAUL FROMM, KENN GIVIDEN. WITH SPECIAL GUEST BROADCASTER (“THE POLITICAL CESSPOOL”) JAMES EDWARDS ON “THE ETHNOSTATE”: House Rules, Can A Libelled White Nationalist Get Justice in the Courts
