Mass Migration, Balkanization, And The Death Of America with Joseph Ford Cotto

As more and more migrants immigrate to the United States and immigrants—particularly those lacking a Judeo-Christian background—sire their own children, the emergence of parallel societies has increasingly become a significant concern in the United States as the country's history and identity come under attack from revisionists within.

In cities like Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan, unassimilated immigrant communities have reshaped local culture and politics, raising questions about America's identity and unity.

Are we headed toward a divided America, split along cultural and ethnic lines?

In this episode of Strategic Wisdom, Andrew Jose speaks with Joseph Ford Cotto, author of What Happened to America?: How—and Why—the American Dream Became a Nightmare.

Together, they discuss the rise of parallel societies in the U.S., the challenges of assimilation, and what this trend means for national security. They also explore whether America can find common ground or if cultural divides will continue to grow.

Listen in on your favorite podcast platform: bit.ly/strategicwisdom.

The views expressed by the podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the official positions of Andrew Jose, Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose, and Andrew Jose Media.

Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew Jose Media.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose. Strategic Wisdom
is a foreign affairs and politics broadcasts brought to you
by me Andrew Jose, a Washington, DC based security policy
analyst and a supporter, bringing you timely analysis and commentary
on issues in international relations, war, and security policy. To

(00:22):
see examples of parallel societies in the United States, once
simply needs to head to Dearborn, Michigan and its sister
town Hamtrank, also in Michigan, where unassimilated migrant groups, upon
reaching critical electoral mass, have dramatically transformed their communities in
ways that are uncharacteristic of what is supposed to be

(00:45):
an American community. The transformation I'm referring to notably includes
what are effectively restrictions of the teaching of music and
art in public schools, as was the case with ham Trank.
According to a recent doctor documentary by g B News,
compared to past waves of immigration to the United States,

(01:08):
the new immigrants who enter America with large numbers hailing
from South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East are
more connected to their home countries, as a result of
which they are more resistant to what used to be
historical push factors that one strove immigrant group to assimilate
and become American not just by document, but by spirit.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
These new immigrant.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Groups have large amounts of long distance diaspora nationalism and
bring with them and perpetuate in the New World the
world hatreds toward Jews, those deemed to be of a
lower caste, and other ethnic groups. Simply put, the United
States and other countries in the West are no longer
melting pots where immigrants are melted into one identity. Rather,

(01:58):
they have become salad bowls composed of distinct, emissible elements
that fall apart when the right pressures are applied. Is
a divided country written with non Jenao Christian war hatreds
the nation America and the West once or should citizens
of the West look for a better, albeit painful approach

(02:21):
to assimilating migrant groups. What is the national security implications
of large numbers of immigrants with stunted assimilation flooding the
country and naturalizing Joining me today is Joseph Ford Catto,
a scholar of American history, particularly immigration. Kado is the

(02:42):
author of the book What Happened to America?

Speaker 2 (02:45):
How and Why?

Speaker 1 (02:46):
The American Dream became a nightmare. Without further ado less
proceed to my interview with Joseph Ford Kado. Joseph for

(03:31):
Cato is a historian and political analyst based in Florida.
Catto is a former nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and was
also the editor in chief of the San Francisco Review
of Books. Catto has written several books on US history,
notably Runaway Masters, A True History of Slavery, Freedom, Triumph

(03:54):
and Tragedy Beyond sixteen nineteen and seventeen seventy six and
I For Anne I, A True Story of Life, Liberty, Murder,
and the Pursuit of Revenge at the Birth of America.
In is book, What Happened to America? How and Why
the American Dream Became a Nightmare? Kato addresses how despite

(04:15):
wishful thinking among conservatives and liberals alike, American unity and
identity has eroded over the years thanks to reckless immigration
policies that overlooked issues in assimilation and cultural compatibility of
incoming immigrants for the sake of economic expediency. Joseph also

(04:37):
has his own talk show news site where he brings
analyzes on issues in the news that effect our everyday
lives and the long term welfare of this nation. Joseph Catto,
welcome to the show.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Very glad to be here. Thank you very much for
having me.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
On How serious, Joseph, in your assessment is the threat
of parallel societ these in the United States. Is it
like Europe, particularly Sweden in France or is it heading there?
How worse, in other words, is the balconization of the
United States thanks to the reckless immigration policies over these years.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
As I often say, the United States nowadays is basically
the New World's European Union, wherein you do have parallel
societies and they show no signs of merging into one.
But to keep these societies together there must be a
number one a comic market. And then of course there's
a massive bureaucracy to hold the societies together. It could

(05:37):
be a bureaucracy at the state level, but of course
the biggest one, the most important one, is at the
federal level. So America is basically the New World's EU,
with all the caraderie and organic unity that imply. It
was not always this way. As I mentioned in the book,
I don't want to get end of myself, but I
will say that if people really want to understand what's

(05:57):
happened to America and how things are getting worse, they
really should go back to the beginnings before the US.
I mean, the beginning. Is what was dealt with this beginning?
Different points of this beginning, one might say, is what
was dealt with in Eye for an Eye and Runaway Masters.
And I'd like to complete a book about the Colonial
era trilogy. I'd like to do a Clonial era trilogy,

(06:19):
I actually say about what's now the US. So there's
one more book to fit in there eventually. But for certain,
what happened to America definitely builds on the history that
I have written about in the past, this early American history.
And I think that a lot of people, generally speaking,
would look at the problems up today and say, oh, well,

(06:43):
you know, it's this thing that happened over the last
few years. It was such as such president who started
the crisis, so on so forth. But the reality is
that what we're dealing with now has been a long
time coming. This America where there is no combination, this
America where people have this mindless iconoclass, and that leads

(07:05):
them to be at each other's protes constantly, and that
is something which is you could talk about it, and
even speaking about it in a general set, it's very
difficult because it's so multipaceted. But to actually get people
to understand it, it's very trying. And that's, you know,
obviously big reason why I wrote What Happened to America

(07:25):
so people can understand what the American dream is and
what became of it. And interestingly enough, even though the
book is about the American dream, I don't get into
a definition of the American dream text. I don't say, well,
this is what the American dream is, this is what
happened throughout such and such date, so on and so forth.
People should understand the general concept of an American dream,
which is that people will do better for themselves and

(07:47):
the next generation will do better than these people did.
But what constitutes I suppose a suitable dream for America
has altered rapidly, and that has to do with demographic change.
I'll just very quickly that when you had the founding
stuff that basically comprised the whole country, the American dream
was rugged individualists, and that was before the Civil War.

(08:10):
The Civil War shattered America's spirit reconstruction basically cemented profound
animis between north and South. And you had, as a
result of this sea change, an American dream that became
about making as much money as you can, as quickly
as possible. Typically, and that's that. And this came to

(08:32):
be around the time that the great wave of immigration
started in the eighteen eighties. So these immigrants came to
America from these places that typically did not send immigrants
to the US. And their idea of America in terms
of its dream was not, like I said, rugged individualism
and doing your own thing. If you want to start
a business, that's great. If you want to build a
cabinet of logs by the lake, that's great too. Rather,

(08:55):
these immigrants thought, well, you know, we're going to make
as much money as possible, working as cheaply as possible,
as often as possible. They wound up living in these slums,
the lifes which had not been seen in American history.
And that the state of affairs that came down the
eighteen hundreds definitely characterizes America today. And that this shall
I say, second American dream absolutely thrives in the atmosphere

(09:20):
where there is Balkanization and an atmosphere where there are
shall I say, group based differences that are magnified by
the media. It thrives when there's identity politics. The second
American dream really is rather shortsighted, and it's about people
getting as much as they can. Some of them try

(09:40):
to get something for nothing, and the results of it
definitely cause I'll be very kind a society where there
is not much harm.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
I agree with you on that, Joseph. I think that
especially how an immigrant group views America really affects how
they interact with America once they settle and once they
start having children. And I think we start noticing this
among the first generation of immigrants who came after the

(10:13):
Immigration and Nationality apt of nineteen sixty five. The first
generation of the second generation of those who came from
that era entering politics, we see a lot of them
tend to have this approach of being hostile to the
United States in the sense that they're extremely critical and
then when one goes to question them, you have an

(10:34):
American passport, why are you so hostile to America. These
are people who take part in these protests, these propalacity
and riots at Union Station and also universities. You ask them,
you have a US passport, why are you still hostile
to America? And that's when you see the sort of
Freudian slip come out where they say that, oh wow,
my parents came for economic prosperity. Would you say that

(10:56):
the focus on the economic aspect of immigration and has
created this transactional culture among many immigrants where no longer
they see themselves duty bound to America, but they see
themselves in a more transactional relationship where they give the
services labor in exchange America gives them a place to stay.

(11:18):
This spiritual connection. If I may is dead, there's no
love for America. I think that it could tie into
the spiritual death of America, which some people often talk
about on their right. What are your thoughts on that, Joseph.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
And there's absolutely no question that the immigration which has happened,
which did take place in the eighteen eighties until the
nineteen twenties, which is when there was the Johnson Act,
not Lyndon B. Johnson, but the Johnson Act of nineteen
twenty four that was designed to basically make it very
difficult to come to the US. The country was no

(11:55):
longer in this land where the floodgates were opened and
humanity could rush in. But that was undone. Of course,
it's sixty five and sixty five. That's when you have
a family reunification among people who are not even citizens
but legal permanent residents. And these people come for economic reasons,
and that their families come through reunification for economic reasons.

(12:17):
And what you yet at the end of the day
is millions upon millions of people who look at America
as sort of an ATM machine. I think that's probably
the best way of putting it. And these people when
they don't get as much at the ATM as they
would like, they have no inherent loyalty. Why would they
It's a machine, you know, it's a total that they
see America as the ATM is there to give them

(12:39):
stuff and they then get very ink. And America has
always been a place that, of course people come to
for prosperity. But the whole idea of rugged individualism was
basically adding to a civilization, moving it forward, being part
of a community and doing your own things. So it
was a lot of different stuff. That's rugged individuals wasn't

(12:59):
just some guide going around doing whatever he wanted, forcing
himself upon its neighbors. But it was rugged in the
sense that people expected there will be good times and
bad and they had to adapt to them, and they
had to do their own thing within the context of
what would be a very harsh environment. If you look
at America as an ATM machine, when the environment gets harsh,
when you are expected to act in a way come

(13:21):
groom with the people who are here before you, you say, well,
why does this happen? Why is an ATM machine making
the bad? And that's what a lot of these post
nineteen sixty five immigrants and their children is what they do.
It's not all of them, obviously, but a lot of them.
And the same thing is true of immigrants who came
much earlier, between the eighteen eighties and the nineteen twenties. Now,

(13:41):
of course I am not speaking, as I mentioned before,
about every single person, but there is absolutely is a
general tendency here and it has produced today's America, where
there's a lot of division, minimal unity, a lot of
mindless like I said, iconoplasm, where people come out with
these sort of edgy statements, prerocative ideas designed to not

(14:04):
just rally people who agree with you, but aggravate the
other side. This is what happened in the society where
people have no reason to be united, so they view
those who think differently from them with contempt. And it
comes about more or less from an idea of America
as a place where you will get stuff, and then
when you inevitably don't get either what you wanted or

(14:24):
all of what you wanted, you turn against it. There's
more to it, of course, why people are very down
on the US these days. It's not just immigrants. There's
a big push in academia one of my state. It's
an anti Western tendency. So even the native born Americans
his family goes back generations on end, a lot of
them could be anti American, but it tends to be
for a different reason. Well it could be the same reason,

(14:47):
but there's a different element to the sort of homegrown
anti American as of the immigrants and their children believing
that they did not get all they deserve. But of course,
this native born anti American, which is much deeper than
disliking the ATM machine, This native born anti Americanism is
basically people saying the country was wrong for itsception, and

(15:10):
it's part of this terrible Western tradition and it has
to be done away with. Blah blah blah. The tradition
is evil. And if you emerge that with people feeling
down because America wasn't all they thought it would be economically,
you get this sort of meeting of the disordered minds
which produces terrible things. Whether you're talking about these protests

(15:34):
that are encouraged by academia, the protest gets Israel, which
is seen as a foundable work of Western civilization. There
are also people who decide that they dislike themselves inherently,
that they're not supposed to be who they are, and
they think that they were born to be of the
opposite sex, and so they tried to change themselves in
this way, beginning even before their eighteenth birthday. Then there's

(15:58):
more stuff where people believe eventually that they are a
member of some group that has been persecuted, even if
the group was not crystallized until fairly recently. So it's
this matter that goes on and on and on, and
it takes on new forms, and obviously it causes new problem.

(16:20):
But the main stay is that people are dissatisfied. So
just to recap whether they're looking at these immigrants themselves
or their kids who came after sixty five, they did
not get economically all out of America that they like,
they're angry about it. Or if you look at the
home grown Americans who have an ideological basically orientation to

(16:41):
dislike not just America but Western society of the whole,
which explains why they absolutely hate Israel, what you find
is this disunity, this anger, this Balkanization. And it is
not just division in and of itself. There's a spiteful
element to it because people look at those disagree with
them as enemies in some way that goes beyond a

(17:04):
philosophical or issues based disagreement. It takes on rural underpinning
and overtones. Actually, so this is what we're dealing with now.
It's a damn ugly side.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
And I also think that part of the reason has
been that no one in America, at least in power,
has been willing to set down an authoritative version of
American history by saying that this is the main narrative.
And I understand that, of course there's the issue of

(17:37):
intellectual freedom and so on, But then when one's history
is open to revision, to such an extent that those
revisionism becomes retelling of American history by many people who
have minimal history in America generationally. I think that's when
you start having this culture that is coolest about what

(17:58):
America is, because I think that that if you want
to define what American interests are, I think is very
important to be confident in what is America, which, unfortunately, nowadays,
with all this indoctrination and self hatred going on, it's
very hard to define. There's an interesting author who made
the same argument that you make, but in the context

(18:20):
of Europe. I don't know if you've heard of him,
Douglas Murray. Have you heard of from Joseph Oh? Absolutely
I heard of it, yes, And he makes an interesting
statement when he says that when you have a culture,
a host culture that is unwilling to assert itself, eventually
that culture, the host culture that is unwilling to assert itself,

(18:41):
will be dominated by an incoming culture that is more
consolidated and assertive. There was an interesting documentary by gb
News about a town called Hamtrak next to Dearborn, Michigan,
where it's a Muslim majority town composed of immigrants from
Yemen and Somalia, and because a large number of the

(19:06):
town folk are immigrants who adhere to the Islamic faith,
music is essentially sidelined from the public schools. I think
it goes hand in hand with the systemic delegitimization of
criticism of acts that are an American like Islamic fundamentalism.
If we nowadays point anything critical about that, we're going

(19:30):
to be branded islamophobic. Saying with criticizing how certain immigrant
groups refuse to assimilate, for example Indian Americans and cast discrimination,
I'd say that a lot of it has to do
with this historical retelling of what is America, but also
a failure to assert an authoritative version of what American

(19:53):
culture is and what American history is.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
I mean, you bring up such great points. I will
say that when it comes to assimilation, since there is is,
I often say, in our degenerate day and age, no
common culture, no shared identity, not even mutually spoken language
from sea to shining sea. If an immigrant says, well,
what do you want me to assimilate you in terms

(20:22):
of a national culture, of course this recent immigrant has
a great point, because there is no hope, there is
nothing that binds people today in America other than bureaucracy
and the common market between the states, but in days
gone Bias I mentioned in the book, there definitely was
a national culture, although it had regional variants, that its

(20:45):
roots were in basically Britain, that was it. It was
basically a British pioneer society that newcomers adopted the customs of.
So that's a very very important thing to note. You know,
assimilation is good, but it oftentimes when immigrants comes to
the US now, they assimilate to the culture they would

(21:06):
find in immigrant heavy cities like LA or New York
or Chicago, and wanting to worse off for this assimilation.
So some of the people who see this or drives
an anti assimilation of sentiment, which you know, on his
face sounds good because certainly you wouldn't watch your child
to be what the great and good of New York,

(21:27):
Chicago or LA call for you just you know, just
you wouldn't sue your interests or your sense of honor
or the life well lived. But the anti assimilationist idea
often takes on highly destructive proportion because people say, well,
we'll just do it the way we did in the
old country. And we will have that here. But it

(21:48):
creates paracalal societies that are in comfortable with each other.
And of course this happens in an America where there
already were parallel societies before these recent immigrants got here.
So it's this, it's this never ending story. Basically, this
is what you get in a country that's a very
bad immigration policy, wherein people come because basically someone who's

(22:09):
here wants them to come. And this is based well,
it's based upon different things. There is the financial element,
as we've been discussing, but there was also the idea
that the old immigration system pat to doe because it
was politically undesirable for the folks who were in power
when the nineteen sixty five Act took place, and those

(22:30):
of course were Democrats. It was Republicans who led the
charge for the nineteen twenty four Johnson Act, and ironically,
another man named Johnson, Linda D. Johnson, in the sixties,
signed an act after the Democrats swept both Houses of
Congress and the presidency in nineteen sixty four, and the
Immigration and Nationality Act sixty five created, as we've been discussing,

(22:52):
so many of our present problems. Although the seeds for
them were so law law beforehand, and the Democrats were nervous.
They were very nervous about what took place during the
sixty four election, even though they won it resoundingly, because
what they saw was that the white vote consolidated across
basically all ethnicities in the South for Barry Goldwater, and

(23:14):
they feared that this would trickle northward. And it did
to a certain degree in sixty eight with Nixon and
a silent majority strategy, and in seventy two it was
a Republican route, obviously, when McGovern lost almost every state.
And so the Democrats understood, with the demographics they had
in the early sixties that over time, not much time,

(23:37):
but was a resounding victory for them, would become something
which would doom them electorally. And the reason that the
Democrats are doing so well nowadays in presidential races and
when it comes to control the Congress is because they
imported an electorate that was very much attuned to their interests.

(23:57):
When you have a bunch of people coming here, many
of whom were poor, when they're not vetted for say,
education or their economic vitality, and they just come because
they want something material from the country and one party
is telling them, hey, we let you in, and we're
going to give you more stuff, more goodies, giveaways, freebies,
and we're going to try to orient the economy so
you get a preferential job consideration. Obviously, these new immigants

(24:21):
are going to vote for this party. We're talking about
the Democratic Party, and the Democrats had this whole thing
set up for their interests brilliant from the day that
the sixty five Immigration Act became a piece of drafted legislation.
So this is a very long term matter. And interestingly enough,

(24:41):
it was John F. Kennedy who spearheaded this. Even a
lot of Democrats up until the sixty four legend didn't
want to go along with it. He was killed in
sixty three, of course, but he wanted to end the
Johnson Act with its restrictions by who could come. He
wanted to establish the system up family reunification. He wrote

(25:02):
a book about this, among other things, called The Nation
of Immigrants. He didn't really right, he ghost written, but
it did reflect his ideas accurately. And this goes back
to immigration way before sixty five. It goes back to
the push to basically end the open border system that
was in place before the Johnson Act of twenty four.

(25:25):
John F. Kennedy was a Democrat, but an Irish Catholic,
and he believed that it was Anglo Saxon's, particularly Republicans,
who were ending this great wave of immigration that was
filling up the cities with all these people who were
trying to have a better wife. Kennedy really didn't care

(25:45):
much about a national culture. To him, better wife was economic.
And he also was angry with basically the Anglos accent
Protestant establishment because he believed it was discriminatory and it
had belittle his co ethnics, and he very much wanted
to see its power decline as much as possible, and
he understood that this could be done through immigration. But

(26:06):
the Democratic Party at that time had a big Anglo
Saxon contingent from the South mostly and it refused to
go along with him changing the immigration laws. But after
he died it was and after of course the sixty
four election, it was thought that this act was now
the Immigration Nationality Act of sixty five, could be ushered

(26:28):
in as a tribute to JFK. And the tribute would
be promoted to the public as something really ornamental, something
that would just allow people to come here from some
places that you know what was then the present system
didn't allow for it, but it really wouldn't change the demographics.
About two thirds of Americans did not want emigration reform.

(26:51):
So the Democrats marketed to them in this very disingenuous way,
and they got their bill signed. And what happened, obviously,
was that the white vote continued consolidating in the Republican ranks,
and the Democrats did not suffer for this politically because
they were importing new people. So it's fascinating. So you

(27:13):
see this essentially our contemporary immigration situation being formed, but
it goes back to an older immigration state of affairs.
Was happening that caused the Johnson Act of twenty four
to be in stated, and that older situation was something
that John F. Kennedy and his family liked. They were

(27:34):
not pleased by what they received as a hostile ethnic group,
the Ahost Hacksons restricting immigration, and he did resolve to
change things. And I must say, even though he was
a very part of a Democrat, he was not doing
this because he thought, first and foremost, well, it's great
for the Democratic Party that definitely was the mindset of

(27:54):
people who passed this bill in his honor. But to
him it was a a matter essentially of ethnic revenge,
to be blunt, but also right and wrong, because his
conception of America was not the old American culture, which
as I said, was British derived, and he felt tremendously
alienated for that for obvious reasons. But his conception of

(28:16):
America was this place where people came and got economic
benefits they could not get elsewhere. So this is the
story of JFK and immigration and how that it impacts
our present state of affairs with disastrous immigration policy that
was passed as a tribute to him.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
A lot of people think that when they're bringing in immigrants,
it's just going to be someone who's going to help
be what job that Americas don't want to take. But
few people give much thought into the fact that this
person might eventually naturalize, become a voter, or might give
might sire children who are going to be voters, and

(28:57):
doing that, they're going to change how policies are made.
And we can also see that in conservative circles where
over time, as the cultural and demographic makeup of the
Republican party change, we see a lot of backtracking on
issues that were considered traditional American or traditional Judea Christian,

(29:18):
like abortion, all and so on. But circling back to
one interesting point you made about diaspora groups, one thing
we see today both on the Republican side and the
Democratic side, if one proposes immigration restrictions, it's going to
receive backlash from politically salient diaspora groups. For Republicans, any

(29:43):
talk of restricting immigration from Venezuela or Cuba could be
a death sentence for someone running in a state like
Florida or elsewhere where there's a huge Hispanic minority. For
Democrats running in a place where there's a lot of
Indie Americans, for example, or Asian Americans, even among Republicans

(30:04):
with Asian Americans, particularly this from China, restricting immigration for
people escaping Communism is also something that could be politically suicidal,
both at the primaries and also in the elections. What
role would you say diaspora groups have been having in
immigration policy that this cycle, i'd say has been continuing

(30:30):
where you have one group coming in and then you
have that group preventing policies that restrict more of their
co ethnics from coming in. The best example is this
diversity lottery visa. It was the Irish American diaspora that
actually championed that diversity visa lot crew, which eventually gave

(30:51):
way for a lot of people to come into the
US the non traditional way. So could you just give
us a reef discussion of the history of how diaspora
groups have hindered any attempt to fix this flawed immigration
system we have in the United States.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
This goes way back to before the before the nineteen
twenty four Act. This is a reason why the nineteen
twenty four Act was passed. Many people came here, Like
I said, any of the eighteen eighties for places that
traditionally not send immigrants to the US. But even of
the eighteen forties, there was sort of the premonition of

(31:32):
what happened in the eighteen eighties. And what happened in
the eighteen forties was a large rush of emmigrants from Ireland,
native Irish, ethnic Irish, from predominantly what would now be
the Irish Republic, but of course from all sorts now
northern ire and these people definitely wanted more of their
coethnics to come, and they were very, very adversarial towards

(31:56):
the wasp establishment of America, though back then it was
just called Anglo Saxon. And these Irish immigrants for political
lobbies and political organizations in major cities where there were
loads of them, growing, loads of them congregating, and this
set the basically strategy of the Democratic Party to use

(32:16):
his immigrants for its own gain. So when people came
from parts to the world that traditionally didn't send immigrants
to America, there were these already immigrant immigrant comprised or
derived political machines in large cities where these immigrants were settling,
and these machines absorbed them into the framework of essentially

(32:39):
agitating against the status quo, the cultural and ethnic status
quo of the country, for the benefit not only of
individual new immigrants, but the group, the group that they
belonged to, group not traditionally seen in America. And this
created a series of movements among members of these groups

(33:03):
to bring more of their people here by keeping the
floodgates open. And the nineteen twenty four Act was a
response to this. And I mean there were many diaspora groups.
The two big ones that come to mind would be
the Irish and then many Eastern European Jews, although the
story of Jewish immigration to America goes way way backed

(33:26):
even before in America became the United States. But different
groups of Jews came, and it was many Jewsh Eastern
European background who joined with the Irish in very much
opposing immigration restriction. You know, well before the sixty five
Act was a figment of any one's imagination. And because

(33:47):
there were so many people here, not just from the
not just from the Eastern European Jewish and Irish Catholic communities,
but because there are so many other groups here, people
within those groups who disliked Radish restriction because they believed
it some way, shape or form was bad for their
group and therefore bad for them individually. There was always

(34:07):
this simmering tension to make it so the nineteen twenty
four Act would have become a thing of the past,
and so our excuse me. The JFK had a lot
to build on when he decided to write his book
and Nation of Immigrants at push for immigration quote unquote liberalization.
A lot of that, a lot of it was due
to ethnic interest. Now some was due to economic interests.

(34:29):
There were many people industrialists. The overall majority of them
were actually a founding stock background. They were would by
them be called wasps. We think of wasps as this
founding group of America, but traditionally they were not called wasps.
They were called Anglo Saxons, so I used the historically
accurate word. WASP really became an expressional lead in the

(34:50):
nineteen sixties, but he didn't Any Anglo Saxons who had
controlled large businesses wanted more integrate because it suited their
bottom line. Now these people knew better that a lot
of emigrants who brought into the story of America being
the land of the ATM or I should say the
proto ATM, because ATMs didn't exist when they were going.

(35:14):
But the industrialists had people who worked for that, people
who made money from them. Understood that America was more
than just this economic idea. But they were focused on
their own financial interest and so they said, well, you know,
we'll just bring all these people here because we make
money off it, and that was where they were coming from.

(35:36):
There wasn't really much more of a long term I
should say perspective among them. Se Ye had many different groups.
It's not just one that were responsible for immigration being
what it is now. These many different groups who wanted change,
who did not like the nineteen twenty four Act what
it came into being. They did not like it when
it was at force, and they wanted it gone by

(35:58):
the nineteen sixty and so it was.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
In your writings you discussed two interesting concepts, one of
Old America and the other being New America. And you
say that the decline of Old America and the giving
away of Old America for New America is one of
the causes for the confused identity we have in the
United States. Could you explain to the audience what is

(36:27):
this Old America and what is this New America. Could
you describe the difference and relationship between the two.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
Old America is the America of the founding stock that
existed before the US became a country, and it really persisted,
you might say, until after the Civil War, but even
as early as lead up to the Civil War it
was coming apart to varying degrees. And this Old America
set the cultural foundation where people will think of as

(36:59):
tradition American at miss the sort of the the culture.
Very broadly speaking, of there are many differences within it,
the folklore, some very notable historical names, even a certain
way of speaking English which the Old Americans adopted for themselves,

(37:20):
which was different from what was had in Britain. I
was essentially a British society that they created here, but
it was made wore a egalitarian and had no frill
to suit the many demands of life on the frontier
or in sippies that were the buffer between the frontier
and the old world. These would be port cities along

(37:40):
the Atlantic seaboard. So it was This Old America is
what you would think of when you when Norman Rockwell's
America comes to mind. And of course he came over
how long after this Old America ended, But he drew
upon the vestiges of this Old America. What you see
in his artwork, that really is this Old America. Then

(38:04):
the New America came into being in the eighteen eighties
and it was filling the void. What happened between the
Civil War restruction and this New America is when, like
I said, rugged individualism became basically get rich quick. Some
would call it selfish individualism. Selfish could be good or

(38:25):
bad people being focused on their own interests. Obviously, this
new form of individualism, to the extent it was selfish,
was destructive. I would argue that very strongly. But I
will say that the New American best, the New American identity,
was not so much rooted in culture or tradition or

(38:46):
a tie to the land. It was rooted in the
quest for financial advancement as quickly as possible, with not
much regard for the costs of this, the short term
or long term costs. That's why you saw people poor
emigrants from places like you know, Yugoslavia or what would

(39:08):
become Yugoslavia. And these people would often labor more intensely
than they did in the old country, and they would
live in tenements that were in some cases more unsanitary
than what they had in the old country, and a
lot of them would die doing so, or severely short
in their lifespan. But they did this because they had

(39:28):
this idea of America making as much money however they could,
as fast as possible. And this is when actually stuff
that we would nowadays call human traffing, we used to
call white slavery. It was during this time, during the
rise of New America, the eighteen eighties that these truly
awful things came to be, wherein you would have immigrants

(39:50):
that were essentially pride for any autonomy over themselves, and
they would work for virtually nothing, in some cases nothing
at all because they'd didn't know their rights. And then
you had sexual enslavement as well. It was really just
this awful, awful series of events which came about from

(40:11):
new immigration. It was a new America and all these
things much more created a backlash among people were already here.
And there were some people who immigrated and wanted an
ent to the Russian immigration too, but predominantly was those
who were already here before new immigration came about, or
the families were already here and they saw all these
terrible changes, this wreckage, they said it has to stop,

(40:35):
and that's why there was the Johnson Act of twenty four.
So there is definitely a class for the Old America
and the New America. The old immigration, which was predominantly
from Britain but a few other places, mostly in Western Europe,
and then the new immigration, which brought people here from
Eastern Europe, from Western Asia, from Southern Europe, and it

(40:57):
created a very difficult, unsustainable state of affairs. It's worth
noting that in the old days leading up to the
twenty four Act, as well as today one hundred years later,
when there was a wild economic growth, it was something
that was principally it was immigrants who were causing the

(41:18):
economic growth. So people were already here, We're not seeing
the economy improve for them. But the economy grew to
the extent that immigrants were participating in it, and a
lot of these immigrants broke their backs, some of them
even sacrificed their lives to contribute to this growth. So
all growth is not good growth. I say that as
someone who is very appreciative of capitalism the thriving economy.

(41:39):
I am a doctor of business administration, so I'm not
here to bad mouth people engaging in entrepreneurship. But typically
when there is massive economic growth due to immigration, it's
because immigrants are working less than they're working for less.
Slash said, excuse me, the date of born do and

(42:00):
they do more hazardous jobs, in some cases, more degrading jobs,
and it takes a massive toll upon them, and it
creates an expectation with a business community that there will
be cheap labor to do these tasks that you know,
people have given the opportunity, they would rather not do.
And it also prevents innovation because typically if an employer

(42:21):
had to hire Americans to do these to do grud
work that a lot of immigrants do, the employers would find,
of course, that people didn't want to do it. The
people who would wind up doing it that were native
born Americans would be those who had an inducement to
do so, though, like people who would get a work
release program in jail, people who would be doing these

(42:41):
tough jobs in order to get I wouldn't say a
free education, but they would pay their tuition in part
due to the labor they provide. This would be, among
other what you would get from a native born American
workforce doing these jobs that immigrants generally do. When you
would have a situation like that, there would be the

(43:02):
incentive for the employer to automate. This is where innovation
comes in, to use technology so that these jobs are
replaced by machine or computers. And when there is a
massive surge cheap labor, that doesn't happen because the situation
can persist with people doing jobs for very low wages. Nowadays,

(43:26):
you know, and very few people if they are enslaved,
just with the case in days long gone by. But
people still wind up coming here, and especially to come
here illegally, and they work for such low for such
a low salary that they really don't have much prospect
of advance. They would prefer it to where they're from,

(43:46):
because today, generally speaking, the situation of the horrendous, you know,
tendent lifestyle from the early nineteen hundreds is no longer
a big even for illegal immigrants. But you know the
reality isn't they were going to make enough to really
advance themselves. But the amount they make here is working
they would make back home, so they're able to send
money back home, but they themselves rarely get a add

(44:09):
and if they have children, which can be called anchor
bake these children who are born here. The children are infuriated.
They say the American dream is a failure. They didn't
add the ATM, but they thought they would, and so
they try to change America through various radical ideologies, obviously
of a left wing nature. And this explains a lot
of what's going on now where you see this rage
towards Americana from people who are the children or family

(44:34):
members of the illegal immigrants.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
What I was reading your book, one thought I had is,
how would you respond to the idea of categorizing immigration
after the nineteen sixties as post America. Would you say
that there are some distinction between the New America you
talk about, which was in the early twentieth century, and
the immigration waves that came after nineteen sixty and especially

(45:00):
those that have been coming since the two thousands. Could
that epoch be arguably called post America.

Speaker 2 (45:09):
Oh, for sure, although it's worth noting that the very
traditional idea of America, the old America, when there was
the old immigration for the Civil War, that had already
you know, the foundational America was already long passed from
the scene by the time we have the you might
say new new immigration, the new immigration should be in

(45:29):
the eighteen eighties, that the even newer immigration would be
from the sixties onward. But it is you could say
this new new immigration indeed is post American, because it's
completely operated in the framework of an America that is
an economic zone, and it's an America that constantly is

(45:50):
that oz with itself. As a result of that, it
has all the commonality of people at a shopping mall
or an international airport turno. In either case, people are
there for economic reasons. They're paying for goods and or services.
So today's America is this post American thing in terms
of traditional American society, although as I said, the traditional

(46:12):
American society was already long in the past by the
time post American came about in the wake of the
sixty five in a ratio before. I think one thing
that a lot of conservatives have problems with is determining
what really is America, because a lot of conservatives say
this was a proposition nation, and that goes back to
it's not quite the idea of the America as the ATM,

(46:33):
but certainly is related to because we say it's a
proposition nation, that it is a nation founded upon an idea.
Exactly what that idea is. It's quite interesting to me
because I never found anyone who wrote what the idea
behind the proposition was people at history, I mean, and
a lot of conservatives want to say as America as
a propositional nation. Essentially they try to co op the

(46:56):
idea of America as the ATM by saying, since it
is a proposition nation, people do come here for economic reasons,
and there is unity in this idea of the proposition
of people doing better than they did before and their
children doing better than them. But that's not supported by
history at all. That's not but that's not what was

(47:17):
case the country's found and it certainly was not the
case during the age of old Immigration, which was until
the Civil War, as I said, and was not the
case of the Old America, which existed until the Civil
War reconstruction. It was this whole proposition nationalist thing is
really a modern creation to try to reconcile the odds

(47:37):
and ends of American history. And there are many of
the truth about Americas that historical framework does not add
up in a way that people on the right, or
the left, or even the center would like. It's very
much how can I say this. It's a cornucopia of things,
and they skew in different directions if you're looking at

(47:57):
it from the perspective of a modern day political school
of thoughts. I just try to look at the history
as it is. Obviously I have a subjective point of view,
as everyone does, but I don't look at history the
idea of saying it has to align with a certain
political perspective that's popular nowadays, but most people that look

(48:18):
at history, they do want it to align that because
it makes it simpler, it makes emotionally pleasing, It creates
good guys, bad guys, black and white, but literally and figuratively,
and it winds up giving people a false sense of
history and of course a false sense of security. And
that's a massive problem in trying to understand the bizarreness

(48:38):
and fundamentally destructive character of our day and age.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
Especially on the idea of proposition nation. One thing I've
often said, which many of my conservative friends haven't really liked,
was that the idea of a proposition nation is as
dangerous as the idea that the Soviet Union had, because
both of them, in a sense, is a utopian way
of framing a nation's destiny, which could be dangerous because

(49:06):
what makes a utopia is the fact that it doesn't
match with on the ground realities. And when politicians try
to push for these utopias, whether it's the idea of
the shining city on the hill, or whether on the
communist side, whether you have these grand ideas of being
the socialist paradise. One thing history has told us is
that the whole concept of proposition nation doesn't really stand

(49:32):
the tests of time, especially when the ideology and this
aspirational thinking starts to stress the system, as it already
has started to with the whole backclash against free market
capitalism within conservative circles as well, because people have been
tired with the whole proposition nation concept.

Speaker 2 (49:54):
Absolutely, when there is a proposition so called nationalism, I
really have action wasn't built around the nationalism is basically
a country trying to sustain itself by focusing on its history, heritage, culture,
con language, and securing its borders. But proposition so called
nationalism is the gateway to many many problems, and you

(50:18):
were illustrating some of them. But it creates this state
of affairs in which everything is an idea. In a way,
when everything's an idea, nothing really matters because people are
so focused on their thoughts, by their aspirations, that the
reality of life itself is ignored in favor of what's
going on in one's head. So this is not going

(50:41):
to create a happy, healthier, functional society. It's a very
whimsical way of going through wide and proposition nationalism should
be rejected. The truth of the matter is that when
people on the left say America was founded as a
country for white people, I mean there was the there
was the the original Immigration Act in seventeen ninety, and

(51:03):
that did let it citizenship to freak and white men
of good character. That's not to say that I advocate
for this policy today or anything like that, but it
is to say that America definitely was not founded on
a proposition. Of worse, noted that the surviving founders, not
a single one of them that I could find, oppose
this original immigration bill. So you know that's in America

(51:26):
is definitely not at its core proposition nationalists. There's a
reason why, like that mentioned, I could not find a
proposition that any of the original Emeritans came up with
us that this is the point of the country. So
when the people on the less say their race was
a very important part of America's founding, they are right,
But then they weed it into what I was mentioning
just before, this political narrative, and this narrative is designed,

(51:51):
you know, to agitate against whites obviously, and males increasingly
in a general sense, and now biological females will be
thrown into the mixes well with the trends revolution. But
the whole uh, the the the idea that America has
nothing to do with race, that's about proposition. That make
people on the right leg to talk about that that's

(52:12):
not true. And the problem is that they don't talk
about people on the left going to point out something
true in history, like the racial implications of the original
America and the ethnic implications too, but then they're going
to weave it into some broader narrative of pure destruction.
So you know, if people you have to deal with
history as it is, you can certainly have contemporary apologicis

(52:32):
I mean, everyone does, but the politics should be based
on an understanding of the world around you which is
as accurate as you can get it. And a big
part of that means accepting history for what it is,
rather than trying to build it into a narrative of
what you want it to be. So this is, I mean,
this is a big thing. A lot of people on
the right obviously don't want anything to do with it

(52:54):
because they're scared of being called a racist. But there's
a difference between advocating for racial discrimination, particularly through public policy,
and you know, just say this is the way things
used to be. It's part of the history, and we
have to accept that and move the law. When you
just try to indut you personally. But when somebody tries
to paper over the history and say no, no, no,

(53:14):
it was never this, and then someone else comes along,
he's being intellectual dishonest, but points out the fact and
then takes that fact. It puts an engineer poisonous narrative.
It's a real problem, and that's the problem we're dealing
with now.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
One analogy I've always put forward in discussions about culture
is that ideally America should be a melting pot, but
what we have now is a salad bowl with different
elements that don't mix culturally, that is, to the extent
that we'd like to the extent of a melting pot.
But then what makes a particular salad, what makes a

(53:48):
Caesar salad disease a salad, is the proportion of elements.
I'm not talking about this in a racial sense, but
in a cultural, heritage and ideational sense. And I think
the moment the whole portions start changing, it's going to
drastically change the whole framework of what America is. One
interesting point you made in your book, The Systems in

(54:10):
a country are often the reflection of the demographics within,
and when you change the demographics, it's just a matter
of time until the system and the political regime starts
to transform America's addiction with immigrant labor, particularly the business
owning elite's addiction to immigrant labor. One thing you've mentioned

(54:33):
in your book, especially in your discussion of the Civil War,
was that even during the time of slavery, it was
this elite minority that wanted to preserve slave labor at
the expense of local workers whom they don't need to
pay wages since they have slaves. And in the modern day,
we see a lot of business leaders advocating for immigration.

(54:56):
Sharing a personal anecdote, I was on a policy discussion
handled at George Washington University in one of my core seminars,
where we discussed how to improve American competitiveness in science
and technology, and one thing that was shocking to me
is that some of my liberal minded colleagues are putting
forth the idea of importing immigrants to account for the

(55:21):
scientific knowledge. But then what anybody who thinks cannot ignore
is that the more America gets addicted on immigration, we're
going to neglect to improve the productivity and the education
of the native born population, because whenever there's a challenge,
there's not many skills here. Instead of improving the stem

(55:41):
knowledge of native born Americans, the impulse, out of the
desire to compete with China is to just import more immigrants.
What would you say is the cultural factors that are
influencing America's addiction with importing migrants to solve any shortcomings

(56:03):
in his population.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
Same things with slavery. I'm talking about chattel slavery back
seven DT ten hundred. Getting as close to something for
nothing economically speaking as possible. That doesn't change. That's the
oak or rag and drive behind so many of the
problems that plague America. Now, there's nothing wrong with trying

(56:31):
to make your business effission as possible and to try
to perform all operations as cheaply as possible. That's imperative
to be as competitive as possible, but it can be
and often is, taken to a disruptive level, such as
importing our entire groups of people in large numbers to

(56:52):
have cheap labor. Whether this is illegally or illegally winds
it be bad for the American worker as a matter
of fact, as I've mentioned in the book, all Economic
Growth in two thousand and twenty fourteen, this is looking
at government data. It's not my opinion, and I give
credits to the Center for a Gracious Studies for bringing
this to prominence basically shining a light on the data.

(57:15):
But of course the media did want to focus on
like the cis at Thick, but it did so ten
years ago now, and this really opened my eyes looking
at the government data that basically all economic growth went
to immigrants between twenty and twenty fourteen. So you look
at that, and you obviously look at the American worker

(57:37):
today being much worse off than or she was generally
speaking ten years ago, and you see a situation in
which there's been a lot of short term thinking among
very wealthy people who want as cheap labor as possible,
and they don't care about its costs for society on
the whole, even though they live in it. And this
is something not just rooted in like some you know,
people would take it to of like a left wing

(57:59):
place of you know, this is why the capitalist class
must be overthrown, but in reality the government is complicit it,
so you know, it's it's in the cases Biden administration
that's allowing more immigrants in. It has done so over
the last few years than at any other point in
American history. There's not been such a year to year
increase in immigration. So it's not just this you know,

(58:22):
capitalist problem. It's a public sector problem too, And the
problem is that both the government and the private sector,
particularly large companies that want cheaf labor as possible. Both
big government and big business really thrive when they're large

(58:43):
populated of desperate people who are told that they can
have what they want only they do assert thing. And
that describes so much of why people are being brought
here at such large numbers, because they're thought to be
much easier control than they foreign people who are used
to higher living and they're more cynical a jaded in

(59:06):
that America generally, whether it's from a left wing or
right wing perspective or supposed to centrist one too, And
the result is that there's such a preference for these
quote quote new Americans, legal or illegal, that people want
them here because of the immense power that's gained from
the economic power for both the businesses and the government.

(59:29):
Business obviously make money where the government's tax revenue. But
then the businesses get this very compliant workforce, and the government,
especially when it's Democratic, has the incentive of legalizing all
these people, or at least dangling the carrot of legalization
above their heads. And the Democrats understand that there will

(59:50):
always be to out offer the Republicans when it comes
to these immigrants once again legal or illegal. So there
is the incentive to keep bringing these immigrants in because
they form pressure group even if they don't get citizenship.
They form a pressure group to basically advance the power
of the Democratic Party. The larger once lobby is obviously

(01:00:11):
the more powerful one is either a person or an institution,
and pressure group is just another way of saying lobbying
so many people for the lobby strictly on K Street,
but it's done in ways that don't require, you know, registration.
It's done simply by having a lot of people around

(01:00:31):
who demand something and it creates i'll call for change
that politicians here and they know they capitalize off of
particularly closed primaries that often have low turnouts, So the
most devoted of voters come out and the people who
come up or come out on election day a lot
of them, particularly by now decades generations after the sixty

(01:00:54):
five Act of Family Reunification with really ascent advised anchor babies.
So many of these people already or Democratic coalition, and
they do want these insane immigration policies because they believe
that these policies benefit them and there's no care for
essentially the situation beyond that of of these anchor bate.

(01:01:19):
So that's, you know, it is what it is. So
while the illegal aliens are not voting, at least not
in federal elections, legally, their children certainly vote because their
children are citizens, and their children more or less vote
on the parents or the family members behalf. So this
is that lobby. Like I said, this lobby that it

(01:01:39):
doesn't have to be registered. It's a lobby that is
fell from the grassroots upward. And that is a big,
big thing that's been pushing the Democratic Party left word
although certainly not the only thing, but the desire for
chief labor is all around public and private sector, and
people should understand that. The way of dealing with it.

(01:02:00):
I mean, there's the idea of a deportation for us
was Trump once, I don't depose it in Theorior practice.
But there are better ways from Florida. I'm actually a
Florida native, and the government here passed a sweet bait
e verify law which applies to all employers twenty five
or more employees, and it has really cut down on

(01:02:22):
illegal immigration. He cut down tremendously. He doesn't do anything
about destructive legal immigration policies. Only Uncle Sam can handle that.
But as in so far as the illegal labor goes,
it has resulted in as stunning decline to the point
of Florida despite having the Biden administration set hundreds of
thousands of people in on plays that would have crossed

(01:02:43):
the border illegally, but there is a humanitarian quote unquote
parole program that was set up for them, arguably illegally,
but it's still in force, whatever the case may be
about its legality, and people are brought in two airports
would cross the border illegally. Despite hundreds of thousands leads
people being sent to Florida over the last few years,
Florida's illegal alien population has declined tremendously, I mean to

(01:03:07):
a degree that's almost in calculate. So when there are
pressures on employer to hire legally such as he verified,
it does better and with far less you know, political blowback,
because there are like scenes of people being put into
an internment center there. It works when the way of

(01:03:27):
dealing with legal immigration is economic. When the government decides
that the situation has gone out of control, that there
are going to be limitations on companies hiring illegals, that
they're just not going to get away with it as
they always have. That absolutely takes care of much of
the illegal alien problem. And I speak this, you know,
being a Floridian having seen what happened, and now it's that,

(01:03:50):
you know, illegal immigration while still goes on here, while
still a big deal, it definitely is despite the federal
goverment's best at first to screw the state over, it
is under control, relatively speaking, and it shows no sign
of worsening. And that's just because of the situation being
dealt with, particularly the situation being dealt with in a

(01:04:11):
way that targets big business OLGA piring because that's why
the state need he verified law for firms that have
twenty five or more employees was targeted so that it
would go after the big companies that were really behind
this incentiviization of illegals flocking to Florida to work off

(01:04:33):
the books, getting money under the table. Now a deportation
for US, I will say, well, it certainly would have
scared a lot of illegals away. It would not have
done anywhere near what he verified. So you know, in
looking at the economics situation, there are solutions that don't
involve anything crazy. The verified solution, relative to other public

(01:04:55):
policy measures is very inexpense, but they're asking the political will.
In most Republicans states, there is not the political will
to do what was done here, and these states definitely
pay the price for that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
I think the principle of diminishing returns is a topic
that a lot of people applied to various area of politics,
and one thing interesting is not many people apply that
to immigration. And I think Douglas Murray, one of my
favorite authors on this matter, said an interesting quote where
he talked about whenever pro immigration pro unrestricted immigration people

(01:05:33):
discuss the issue, they always talk about the different varieties
of restaurants they have. There's always the diminishing return. Sure
if one or two immigrants moved, they might set up
a Turkish or a Pai restaurant. But then after a
point no matter how many immigrants come, it's not really
going to marginally improve any heritage that a country has.

(01:05:58):
And it's quite sad that, for political reason, a lot
of people are not willing to talk about the principle
of diminishing returns. If we want to fix both the
consequences and the root cause of what's ailing America today
with the immigration issue and also the issue with stunted assimilation,

(01:06:19):
what are some policies the country needs to do urgently
to save the soul of America. How do you propose
we answer the question what is America? And how inclusive
and exclusive should that identity be? In nuku is admitted
and who's excluded?

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
Well, it's distilled essence. America is, culturally speaking, what the
people who created it brought to fruition. I mean, that's
the simple answer to a very complex and worthwhile question.
I don't think there really could be a revival culture
that gets into the whole thing of basically a narrative
of culture or a narrative of patriot probably a better

(01:07:02):
way of putting it, and that is it's manufactured. A
lot of people the right do want to manufacture something.
I would argue that's what the National Conservatism movement is
centered on, even though some people disagreed, but you just
can't manufacture something. I am from Central Florida, and the

(01:07:22):
part of Central Florida I grew up in when I
was always overwhelming Anglo and it was overwhelmably populated by
people who descended from the folks who settled it in
the late eighteen hundred. My part of Florida was very,
very sparsely populated before that. There were some people here
during the Civil War, but like literally, it was only

(01:07:44):
the late eighteen hundreds that people came down here and
their horse draw covered wagons and really built up a civilization.
And these people, you know, having settled the area, created
an effect of such a recent within such a recent
time frame. I grew up around people who were not

(01:08:04):
very long away in terms of their lineage from this
settler stock. They are of the settler stock, but it's
not like the sort of distance that a Mayflower descend
and would have. And so I got to experience this
sort of if you will, late stage Foundational America, even

(01:08:24):
though Foundational America was gone long long a time before
I or anyone else listened to. This was born at
least foundational America in terms of it being big enough
to characterize the national culture. I did see a regional,
subcultural iteration of it, and I experienced it. It is
highly imperfect. I would not say it's the solution to

(01:08:47):
all things for all peoples, but it had a lot
going for it that I greatly appreciate, and it's something
that I'll never see again. It certainly was a simplicity,
a harmony to life, a general good will and a
sense of shared purpose, as well as community that has
had in the Central Florida of my youth that's not
had today. And ironically the area has only become more

(01:09:09):
Republican since then. So it's not that the left has
wrecked this place. It's just that demographics have changed to
the point that they're really here nowadays. Is no common
culture as there once was. So having looked at this
really traditional Americana, having seen a very or a relatively
rare lingering old over of it, and having seen it

(01:09:32):
during my formative years, I can say for sure that
you cannot just have a revival of this. It cannot
be replaced. It's organic, and when it goes away, it
goes away because it's deluded by so many others, and
even people who are inheritors of this founding stop tradition
begin to lose confidence in their own history basically and

(01:09:54):
sell of them you can turn against it, so you can't.
It's not to say a matter of making area or
nowadays called loss. That wouldn't solve the problem at all.
The problem is unsolvable. It's just a massive transition due
to demographic change, which of course is due to American
immigration policy, among other things. Also people to hear from

(01:10:15):
other parts of the country who have no connection to
what was here when they came. So that is that.
But I think then in terms of some sort of
American revival, the best what people should really hope for
is not the creation of a pseudo culture that emphasizes
good things that might be like pumped through an academia
and the event there was some right wing takeover of it. Rather,

(01:10:38):
what the people should look for is federalism, hyper federal
Donald Trump actually a very good record on federalist president
and Supreme courts nowadays tends to be rather supportive of federalism,
as are judges who were appointed in many cases by Trump.
So federalism would allow people to have their own America.
It would not be a united country culturally or emotionally,

(01:11:02):
but it would be a country we're in. If California
wanted to have like transgender operations for seven year olds,
it would have that. But then if you know, Tennessee
wanted to make it so trans surgeries or illegal for
anyone of any age, that would be had, so you
would have different Americas. Would that be a country where
there was a sense of share of purpose at all,

(01:11:24):
but it would allow people to live the way they
want and they would minimize conflict that can only be
had through hyper federalism. So that's what I think people
should push for rather than trying to quote unquote take
the country back. I mean, you could say take it
back in terms of, you know, a supporting candidates that
you like and hoping they get a majority in Congress
and that one of them wins the presidency. But it's

(01:11:45):
not a cultural take back because there's nothing there to
build on at this point. It's to fracture, too balkanized.
There are too many parallel societies. But if there is
hyper federalism, then these parallel societies, this Balkanized America in
a rather harmonious fashion. I really think that's the best
we can hope for, and it should be the objective

(01:12:07):
of people want to see a better America to support
a very very federal list approach to uncle.

Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
Sayah, ladies and gentlemen, you just listened to Joseph fort Cado,
author of the book What Happened to America? How and
Why the American Dream Became a Nightmare? Joseph ford Cado,
thank you for your time.

Speaker 2 (01:12:32):
It's a pleasure we have been on here. Andrew. I
hope to speak again in the future. Of course, I'd
be glad to have you on my show. But I
think everyone who's spent the time to listen to what
I have to say, thank you, Joseph.

Speaker 3 (01:12:44):
Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew
Jose Media. The views expressed by guests on this show
do not necessarily represent the official positions and opinions of
Andrew Jose, Andrew Jose Media, and Strategic Wisdom.

Speaker 4 (01:13:02):
Thank you for listening to Strategic Wisdom. Be sure to
follow and subscribe to us on whatever podcast platform you
are using to listen to this show in order to
not miss out any future interviews and conversations that Andrew
jose will bring to you on this podcast. We're streaming
on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Yandex Geostovin, Amazon Music, and
many other podcasts streaming services. Also, be sure to subscribe

(01:13:26):
to Strategic Wisdom on substack at strategicwisdom dot substack dot
com and to follow Strategic Wisdom on Twitter and Instagram
at stratwisdom. Do support our work by buying from our
merch store. For more details, visit Strategicwisdom dot substack dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:14:01):
Anything whisper i