All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
46:12
Peter Brimelow: "Immigration--Is This the Breaking Point?" (2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is Peter Brimelow.
Mr. Brimelow was born in England where he attended the University of Sussex and then he went to the United States and got an MBA at Stanford.
He then emigrated to Canada where he became a business journalist and then he moved to the United States in 1979.
Mr. Brimelow, of course, is best known to all of you.
As the founder of vdare.com, one of the primary websites that stands up for the founding stock of this country.
But before this, he had quite a distinguished career as a financial and conservative journalist.
He actually had staff positions with the Financial Post, McLean's Magazine, Barron's, Fortune, Forbes, and National Review.
And that's really quite a remarkable record.
Of course, once you start writing the truth about certain matters, even the most brilliant record will cast you into the outer darkness, and I'm sure that not a single one of those publications would even consider a contribution from Mr. Brimelow today.
Since he founded vdare.com in 1999, he has built that website up into really an irreplaceable and essential voice for our people, and he has, I think, made an enormous contribution featuring such stars as John Derbyshire and Steve Saylor,
Paul Kersey, James Kirkpatrick, and many more.
This year, there was a special event for Mr. Brimelow, an unusual achievement.
He became a father for the fifth time this year.
And that in itself is a great contribution towards a better America.
Today, Mr. Brimelow will speak on the subject, Immigration, Is This the Breaking Point?
Please welcome Peter Brimelow.
Thank you, Jared.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Jared's been kind enough to invite me to speak here before, but I've already went out of it.
But I'm here now because John Kennedy said that he became a war hero because he said it was involuntary they sank my ship.
That's basically what happened to me.
I think my publishing Alien Nation, my book on immigration, I was with Forbes at the time, and it caused a huge stink,
and it was denounced.
It was reviewed twice in the New York Times and all this kind of thing, but it upset the Forbes family terribly, and so they never mentioned it.
We had a ludicrous situation of one of the most prominent writers for a magazine, and his own book not being mentioned.
In his own magazine.
That was kind of a bad sign.
And things have continued since then.
Essentially, over the last few years, and for about the last 10 or 15 years, I've been a columnist for CBS Market Watch, writing about very arcane financial issues.
It became clear that I was being offered a choice between Mainstream media and vdare.com.
And it was a kind of irritating choice because, as Jared says, at my advanced age, I have a young family to feed.
But, you know, I guess at the age of 67, you get to the point where you say to yourself, if not now, when?
When am I actually going to be allowed to write about these kinds of things?
I've not come out of the closet.
I've gone into the closet or at least the dungeon along with Jared and Richard and other people here.
It's important I think to note that because one of my general themes is that doom is not inevitable in spite of the title of John Derbyshire's book, We Are Doomed.
This phenomenon is not completely new in the mainstream media.
By the way, John has copies of his second anthology published by Vida, and he'll be happy to have just finally managed to crawl its way through the publishing process, and he'll be happy to sell them to you or give them to you.
I forget which it is now, John.
When I began in the mainstream media 40 years ago, it was a very bad thing to be an anti-communist.
I know I've discovered that nobody at the age of 40 has any idea of what the Cold War was like.
Although they do know about the Holocaust, oddly enough.
There were really communist cells in these major papers that worked to suppress non-communist points of view and promote themselves.
There's a wonderful novel about this, by the way, by the novelist Irwin Shaw, called The Troubled Air, which I really recommend to you.
Similarly, there's a biography of Ralph Ingersoll, who actually became a capitalist and founded a whole chain of newspapers, but was the member of a communist cell within timing.
They were there and they were working hard.
So I survived or got started in journalism basically by going into financial journalism, which is such an apparent and boring subject only to the people who are interested in it that they leave you alone.
It's like a rabbit in the briar patch, for those of you who know the story.
The fox can't come into the briar patch after him.
Now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was sort of an interglacial, a brief period when Jared's book was published and my book was published and The Bell Curve was published and so on.
But then quite suddenly, this new red terror came surging back.
Orders of magnitude worse than McCarthyism.
But run by the same people, all the same sorts of people.
I no longer believe, I used to believe, when I was younger, in sort of elaborate social psychological theories as to how this happened.
How this has happened.
And Joe Sobern, who I'm sure many of you remember, used to have this concept of the hive, that all liberals think the same thing at the same time because there's a collective mindset about them.
But I now think it's all a damn conspiracy.
And I think that the discovery of that journalist, this sort of group, where they were actually conspiring during Obama's election and saying they were going to beat up on conservatives and accuse them of racism and so on, more or less proves it.
We don't announce, for example, As Jared would tell you, it's much harder for us to get onto radio than it used to be.
But when we do get onto radio, I never announce in advance anymore because I know that people will call the radio stations and tell them that they're going to have a neo-Nazi on.
And they will back that down.
These kids who do the booking don't know anything.
They're just too frightened to make the risks, to take a risk.
And there's a reason for this intensified red terror.
And that, I think, is demographic.
They know.
That they're very close to a tipping point.
They're very close to getting a non-white majority in the U.S. Already a majority of children in the U.S. are non-white.
And when that happened, by the way, the editor of Market Watch told me that he had 15 people come into his office or email in time not to let me write about that.
Not that I'd ever written about political issues for Market Watch, but they knew about me from the attacks by the SPLC and so on.
And their reaction is they want to encourage it.
They want to see suppression of alternative points of view.
They know they're very close to victory.
They know it could easily be stopped.
It could be reversed.
It could be finessed in various ways.
People could wake up.
Americans could wake up as to what's going on.
So it's essential to them that they keep white consciousness suppressed and keep Americans generally divided.
It's no longer a conspiracy.
It's actually a lynch mob.
And they actually came all the way down to this obscure financial rat hole that I was actually working in a couple of years ago.
Now, frankly, it's a very bad look-up for younger people.
I mean, Jared and I and John Darby and so are too old to care.
But I don't know how you would operate now in the mainstream media.
You just have to be completely underground as a younger person.
And I think that is what's happening, by the way.
I mean, I know several...
The younger generation of conservative ink writers who are actually very sympathetic, but they never say so.
They'll come up to you and say, I read Vida, but of course I can't admit it.
So there's influence there.
It's just that they're very sensibly underground.
We chose this title about the breaking point, Jared and I. Well, Jared likes to get things prepared in advance, so that's really the basic reason.
He's got his speech written out right now, haven't he, Jared?
Yes, he does.
But we chose it because...
You know, it wasn't clear what was going to happen with Obama's executive amnesty.
I believed that the thing was going to be overthrown because the Republican leadership told me that.
And they wouldn't lie, would they, about a thing like that.
It's important to realize, I think, what a tremendous, tremendous achievement, old-sung achievement it has been over the last 14 years to stop.
And the illogically associated but nevertheless always concomitant immigration surge from going through.
Three times this thing has come up into the shape of legislation.
And three times it's been stopped by just absolute massive inchoate resistance from the American grassroots.
And that's why Obama ultimately...
And so then we got executive amnesty.
And that's why Obama, he didn't want to do it.
He was very nervous about it.
He's given, as Bainer pointed out, lots of vindication.
He's repeatedly explained why this is legal and he can't do it.
But he's had to do it anyway because he can't get amnesty through Congress.
And it's limited.
You can see he's nervous about it when you see the way it's designed.
It's only for three years.
And it doesn't cover H1B.
They originally wanted to amnesty and to, by executive action, bring in all these guest workers.
But they didn't do it because they wanted to keep the legal focus as narrow as possible.
So the GOP had three options, a number of options at that point.
I mean, the most obvious thing, and we were saying this back in the summer of last year, is they should have impeached.
They should have moved to impeaching.
That's the appropriate answer.
And it was the appropriate answer last summer.
When the borders collapsed and the South and a great wave of so-called refugee kids came across from Central America, and it was quite clear the administration had no intention whatever of stopping this.
He wasn't enforcing the law.
He should have been impeached.
The GOP, the leadership, put that off because they said they had the power of the purse and they were going to stop it.
And Congress does have the power of the purse and it has repeatedly stopped things it doesn't like by cutting off funding to it, including the Vietnam War.
That's how they finally finished the South Vietnamese off.
And they could do it either by a wholesale shutdown of the government, or at least shutting down DHS or something.
Or, of course, they also have the alternative, and Ted Cruz, to his credit, just pointed this out.
They could simply stop, refuse to appoint, to confirm any nominations.
Above all, the nomination of the new attorney general, Loretta Lynch.
They've got the vote to do that.
They could do it easily.
That was one obvious way of stopping it.
But in fact, they've done absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
They've achieved nothing.
The only thing that has been achieved is that a very brave judge in Texas has put a hold on this amnesty.
But who knows how long that's going to last?
I was talking...
Last night, to someone I have great respect, who is a judge.
It's a long story, but I used to know him on the Hill.
And he's a conservative judge.
And he said, you know, the rule of thumb you have now with litigation is what the red states want is unconstitutional, and what the blue states want is constitutional.
So he has no hope that this litigation or this judicial decision will ultimately hold the higher up the system it goes.
We wrote a piece, James Kirkpatrick wrote a piece for us, saying this was the hour of decision at the beginning of the year for the Republican Congress.
Other people said it was the moment of truth.
It turned out to be an hour of capitulation and a moment of lies.
Now, why has the Republican leadership done this?
The obvious explanation is that they're in the pockets of the donors.
And that's particularly true for the campaign consultants.
The campaign consultants are this new form of parasite.
For those of you, you know, who don't remember the Cold War, you won't remember a time when we didn't think about campaign consultants.
They're a relatively new form of infection that's got into the body politic really within the last 20, 25 years.
And their intention is to raise as much money as possible and spend it on themselves.
They're not interested in winning elections.
But, you know...
I don't think that's a complete explanation, because you look at the situation with the Iran Treaty in Congress now.
The donors may not want patriotic immigration reform, but they do want war on Iran.
We don't get involved in foreign policy, although I personally can't see the purpose of this war from the point of American interest.
But the donors do want it, and they're not getting it.
They're in a situation now where this treaty that Obama's come up with, they've maneuvered the Republicans.
It used to be that you had to have two-thirds vote to confirm a treaty.
Now it appears you need a two-thirds vote to reject it.
The Republican leaders have been totally outmaneuvered.
So my favorite explanation for all this is just stupidity.
I think they're really stupid.
They just can't think through things at all.
And this is a particularly telling moment for me, this moment of truth, because this breaking point.
Because it is actually 20 years to the day almost since Alien Nation was published.
And it's 23 years almost to the month since I published the National Review cover story, which ultimately grew into Alien Nation, my immigration book.
You will have noticed the celebrations.
2012, the anniversary of the cover story, Ed Rubinstein did a calculation for me and he said, you know, if they had actually acted within a year or so of that cover story, say if the issue had come into the'92 elections, you know,
and had an immigration moratorium, there would be now 26 million fewer people living in the U.S. And the dates at which whites in the U.S. Would go into a minority.
Would have been pushed back already from, it's currently about 2032, apparently, to something like 2077 or 2080.
In fact, for practical purposes, forever.
The Immigration Act of'65 and the collapse of enforcement against illegal immigration had done enormous damage by that point.
And that damage would have continued to metastasize.
But there are ways, you know, there are assumptions involved.
That's so far off 2077.
There's all kinds of things that could have happened, above all foreign fertility rates.
I mean, most people don't realize, for example, that black fertility rates have really fallen almost below replacements in the US.
It's not the case.
That these fertility rates remain high forever, and it could equally be the case with Hispanics that high fertility rates fall.
So they may never get to a white minority, which, of course, means an American minority, because until 1965, whites were what we thought about when we said Americans.
And furthermore, the electorate would have remained majority American for a long while longer, because you have to be over 21 to vote, 18 to vote, and you have to be legal, obviously, in most cases legal, to vote.
So it would have done a great deal of good.
I didn't expect, of course, the politicians to do what I told them to do immediately.
But I did expect that the immigration issue would be on the move.
By the end of the decade, by 2010.
I wrote an article in about 2000 saying this.
And the reason for that is that, you know, it takes about 30 years for a major policy change of this kind to go through the political system.
That's what it took in the end of the 19th century.
The Immigration Restriction League was founded in 1894.
The final cut-off was in 1924.
In the current case, the Federation of American Immigration Reform was founded in 1979, so I thought it was reasonable to expect that the cutoff would be at least debated by 2010.
And the amazing thing was that it was being directed by 2010.
We ran a series of articles by William Houston.
If he's here, I wish he would identify himself.
I've never actually met him.
We deal with him over online about this.
And he was saying, at that stage, literally dozens of states were passing legislation modeled on SB 1070, the Arizona legislation.
And immigration was an issue in all kinds of local elections.
They elected all kinds of Republican congressmen.
But what happened was, after 2010, when Boehner became leader of the House, he didn't bring up any of these issues.
It's like Chester.
What he should have done is brought the issues up and forced the Democratic Senate to block them and got the issues into politics and had them debated.
They're all intensely popular.
People do want to have immigration reform.
He didn't do anything like that.
And at the state level, the Chamber of Commerce went into action and unwound essentially all of these local initiatives that had happened.
At this point, Houston gave up writing about electoral politics and stomped off in disgust, and I've not heard from him for a long time.
I can't get him to write for me anymore.
So it was happening.
It's just been aborted in a very unusual and questionable way.
Now, I want to say, to emphasize here, that...
I haven't given up on the idea of patriotic immigration reform, of immigration being cut off.
All it takes to get this issue into parties is one speech.
In Britain, and a number of English people in the audience will testify to this, the impact of Enoch Powell's speech in'68 was absolutely enormous.
And it did stave off mass immigration for a generation.
I mean, he was denounced, of course, but at the same time, the politicians were too frank to really act on it in a big way until Blair was elected.
That's when the floodgates really opened in Britain.
Similarly, you know, the communist infiltration issue, which was a real issue, really got going after MacArthur's speech in 1915 in Wheeling, West Virginia, was just...
It's just suddenly something can happen.
A spark which starts the car flogation going.
That could still happen.
In both cases, in Powell's case and in MacArthur's case, you can see the preconditions already forming.
There have been a number of people who have been torn out of immigration for a long time in Britain.
In MacArthur's case, you know, Al-Jahistad was actually in jail.
People forget this.
Al-Jahistad was actually in jail before MacArthur spoke.
He was in jail for perjury related to his testimony about his activities as a Soviet spy.
So, all it needs is a spark, and all it needs is one ambitious politician.
And, for example, I was very impressed by the fact that Scott Walker has said he's changed his mind on this.
Now, it isn't clear how far he's changed his mind, if he's changed it backwards, but he did say it.
It's the homage that vice plays to virtue.
He can see this is a good issue to get round his Jeb Bush on.
And so I still think it's possible that somebody may decide to drop the bomb on this issue, even though the consultants don't want them to.
In that case sense, the interpretation of is this the breaking point could be optimistic.
I don't want to rule this out.
But I also think that we have to face the fact that...
It may be a breaking point in a negative sense.
In other words, this issue may not be going to get into politics any time soon, and we may have to move to plan B. I have to say I anticipated this in Alienation.
I had a passage in which I said, deep into the 21st century, if patriotic immigration reform is not passed, if there's not a cut-up, deep into the 21st century, throughout the lifetime of my little son, who had just been born, He had blue eyes.
There's one reference to his blue eyes in the book.
And this is what alienation is most famous for.
It's the most quoted passage for reasons which I'll leave you to contemplate.
Deep in the 21st century, American patriots will be fighting to salvage as much as possible from the wreck of their great republic.
But, of course, the struggle must be contrasted with the task of completing the great society that Americans were encouraged to think they're embarking upon in 1965 when the Immigration Act opened the floodgates.
That was the point at which America could have become Switzerland.
It was 90% white.
But, in fact, it opted or, at any rate, it was compelled to become Brazil.
You know, if there actually is...
If Americans do go into a minority in their own country, and it's scheduled for very soon, the American known to history will cease to exist.
It's going to cease to exist.
And it will probably break up because the component parts will have nothing in common.
And it may well be that Richard Spence will get his ethnostates because of this.
The nightmare scenario, of course, is South Africa, that the historic American nation, the nation that it evolved by 1965, and it's not exclusively a racial term, it's an ethnocultural term, will be so paralyzed by...
White guilt, as Richard said, that it will never defend itself.
It's like one of these grubs that gets stung by a wasp, which then proceeds to lay its eggs on the grub, and the eggs hatch and the larvae eat the grub alive.
One of the unpleasant facts about biology that I learned from my four-year-old child, who was very interested in biology.
That's what the nightmare scenario is.
So how do we go about salvaging from the wreck?
Of course, the fact is that I don't really know.
We are an enchanted territory.
As somebody once said, there's never been a case of a country abolishing itself in this way.
And yet, leaving within it, you know, the most powerful, most accomplished, best organized group is losing control of its own polity, its own nation state.
What we call in America, in Vida, the national question.
Can the historic American nation retain control of whether Americans remain a nation state representing the historic American nation?
As somebody once said, as our case is new, we must think anew.
In some ways smaller and in some ways bigger.
But I want to again emphasize that minority status is not the end for America.
It's the beginning.
For example, it's quite clear that Hispanics and blacks really don't get on with each other.
If you read Jared's book, there's how many dozens of cases of fistfights and gang wars in high schools.
There were no whites present at all, but they still don't get on together.
One example of the way in which we are adapting to this new reality is...
The biggest change at Vidar is now almost all the writers use pseudonyms.
I don't let sickest students write under their own names because the price is too high.
We're already behaving as if we're an occupied country.
Let me review the wish list that I set up in Alien Nation.
The first is an immigration moratorium.
There's no net immigration.
You can still have immigration because about some couple hundred thousand people leave the country every year, but essentially no net immigration.
Ironically, 200,000 to 300,000 was the number that Teddy Kennedy predicted would come in when he passed the 1965 Act.
And that includes, by the way, abolishing the refugee program, which is basically an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically favored groups and is used by the central government to colonize parts of America that are not yet sufficiently diverse in an atrocious way.
We need, obviously, border security, and that means not just at the southern border, but also at airports and so on.
Entry security is what we need, because the majority of illegal immigrants are out of visa over stairs.
And we need internal enforcement.
It's not just the border.
We need internal enforcement, too.
And that would allow what Romney famously called once...
But it became famous.
It shows you how sensitive this issue is.
Attrition, self-deportation, what we normally call attrition through enforcement.
Chris Kobach estimated that about half the stock of illegals would leave in five years if the laws were actually enforced.
And I also think we should throw in there a reorientation of immigration towards whites.
I mean, in effect, the 65 Act simply choked off immigration from the traditional sources towards Europe.
Why is it okay for Hispanics to want more Hispanics and not okay for whites to want more whites?
I think that's a question which is worth asking.
The resolution, you know, the way in which the situation unwinds, it may be more like the end of Reconstruction, a period which I'm trying to get Jared to write an article on.
Most of you know that on the Jefferson Monument, this ringing phrase is carved.
Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of Fate than that this people, these American blacks, are to be free.
What isn't commonly realized is that the phrase actually was semicolon and went on to say, nor is it any less certain that once free, they cannot live together with the whites in the same government.
That was censored in the New Deal era when that monument was put up.
You don't see in the history of Reconstruction, as far as I can see, the end of Reconstruction.
It's not that the North said,"Oh, maybe the South was right after all." And it is very difficult, these two races, to live together in free institutions.
They didn't actually admit that, but, you know, they stopped trying to enforce integration and so on.
Excuse me.
And gradually the situation resolved itself until it finished with a...
The extreme solution of the imposition of Jim Crow in the 1890s.
It came quite late, Jim Crow.
We may see something like that happen here.
Small changes can have big results.
The Immigration Act itself in 1965, you know, was not presented as a major step forward.
It was said to be a purely symbolic measure.
But it had these profound results.
I may say that, you know, there's lots of signs that the left is bored of blacks, too.
My wife recently graduated from Loyola, Chicago, which is on the edge of a ghetto.
And, you know, when I used to visit her there, there's no sign that the Loyola left was interested in the black problem at all.
What they were interested in was homosexuals, gays, and to the lesser extent Hispanics.
You know, we may find the same sort of solution happened.
It just gradually is dismantled by small measures.
And I have a list.
We've discussed a number of these measures in BDA.
For example, our writer Federale, who is actually a whistleblower.
He points out that if what Obama is doing is illegal, therefore it would actually be that the bureaucrats within the DHS would have the power not to do it.
They could simply refuse to do it.
And they ought to be protected.
That right ought to be protected by the Republican Congress, simply passing whistleblower acts and acts saying that they can't be dismissed for not following the Obama regime's instructions.
I like the idea of abolishing the Hispanic category in the Census Bureau.
I mean, all by itself, that's going to enormously mess with affirmative action.
And I think it would prevent them from assembling this curious anti-nation that they're assembling within the U.S. at the moment, the leaders.
I think we should continue to work on affirmative action, abolishing affirmative action, particularly because there are conflicts within the beneficiaries from affirmative action.
There's not enough pie to go around.
I'm extremely interested in abolishing birthright citizenship, which is an anomaly that stems from the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
And actually the immigration reform groups inside the Beltway, where I don't think generally all that much are trying to do that.
They're trying to coordinate a campaign to get birthright citizenship abolished.
We've calculated it all by itself.
This would halve the drift to the Republicans, or what I call the generic American party, the party that draws on the white vote, losing control of Congress, going into an irredeemable minority.
Of course, it wouldn't protect the American working class from the labor market impact of illegal immigration, because these people would still be here, and they just wouldn't be citizens, and the children wouldn't be citizens.
But who cares about the American working class?
Certainly not the left.
I think dual citizenship should be ended.
You know, when you become a citizen in the US, you actually swear to abjure all foreign politics.
But it's a dead letter because of a Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court decision was on behalf of an American who wanted to have Israeli dual citizenship, which means that the Israelis won't like the abolition of dual citizenship very much.
But at the same time, it's also greatly enhanced the ability of Muslim terrorists to come in and out of the U.S. So maybe they'll let us do it.
Now, I think we ought to have official English.
I think there ought to be English-only legislation, as there's French-only legislation in Quebec.
All these things are enormously popular.
I think Puerto Rico should be expelled.
It's just a minor change, but there are Puerto Rico nationalists who say they're in favour of this.
What I actually think is the Americans should invade Cuba, and maybe then they could have Miami back.
This isn't impossible, by the way.
Again, it wouldn't happen for those reasons.
But not all communist regimes end peacefully.
If you think about the chaos in Romania or Yugoslavia, it's quite possible that the American army may have to intervene to restore order.
I mean, more generally, while on the subject of happy thoughts, I mean, I think there's a case for Americans simply occupying Central America and setting up regimes there which would undertake to stop.
Illegal immigration from the south passing through.
And, of course, like Gaddafi did in Libya and the Egyptians did.
The Americans and Israelis had deals with Libya and with Egyptians not to allow illegal immigrants through.
And that collapsed at the end of the Arab Spring.
Of course, Europe should simply reoccupy the North African coast as it was occupied 100 years ago and stop these people coming through.
I think we should talk about secession.
state and local levels to start off with.
Thank you.
To allow the several communities...
I mean, the whole point of federalism was that the several communities would have political representation.
These states now are too big anyway.
My candidate to start off with, and I mentioned it, is Texas.
Texas actually has the right to split itself into five states any time it wants.
I like to ask Texans about this, and they sometimes react uneasily.
My wife's a Texan.
Somewhat uneasily to it.
But my position is I import a slogan from the Vietnam War, the leftist slogan from the Vietnam War, which I'm old enough to remember.
Two, three, many Texans.
Texas. Two, three, many Texases.
Do you remember that, Gerard?
More Texases, the better.
While we're on the subject of slogans, I think we have to get some slogans to the popular culture.
Although the popular culture is controlled by the other side, we've been quite successful doing that in some areas.
Political correctness has become a real concept everybody knows about.
War on Christmas, which I'm very far interested in, and I actually have a Wikipedia entry saying that I was partly responsible for starting it, which caused...
Sal on to run a thing saying that, you know, the evil roots of Bill Riley's war on Christmas campaign.
It's the only way I've ever gotten credit.
Riley certainly never gave me any credit for it.
You know, social justice warriors.
Interesting concept that just suddenly become widely accepted.
There's this interesting thing, the mantra, you know, that anti-racism means anti-white.
Very interesting thing.
It's very widely known.
Why that became accepted, I don't know.
I recommend the slogan, whites have rights.
How can anybody object to that?
I guess I'm getting short time here.
I will say I have an article about this Indiana disaster with Mike Pence and the religious freedom legislation.
The problem there is there's a mantra on the other side, discrimination, which has become deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
But the answer to that is freedom of association.
That we should really hammer on the need for freedom of association.
We should hammer on the fact that these people are cultural Marxists.
They need to be named.
We need a name.
We can't say the communist, but the cultural Marxists.
I think we should hammer on the phenomenon of Christophobia.
I was appalled to find the other day when I googled on Christophobia that a few days one of the very few people has actually mentioned it, although it's very clear they're driving force in American culture right now.
I know that some of you don't want to fight on the gay marriage issue, homosexual marriage issue, but the fact is it can't be contained.
They won't stop at that.
They go on to other things.
It's not the gays necessarily.
It's the cultural Marxists who run the gay organizations.
It's like the Martin Luther King holiday.
Obviously this has to be abolished now.
We've tried it.
It doesn't work.
It was a mistake.
It's just turned into anti-white indoctrination.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we need to, and Martin Tate was right about it, we need to form alliances.
The problem in this particular area is that the Christian groups are very sherry of forming alliances to everybody.
But look what's happened to them.
They've been totally rolled.
And I think also that Martin was right to consider the question of internal secession, you know, people forming their own organizations.
It's amazing to me that Russian civil society really did survive the Soviet regime.
And it showed up in a number of different ways.
One was to survive the church, but one of the first things they did after communism fell was to change the name of Leningrad back to St. Petersburg.
For 70 years, it had been two generations at Leningrad.
People had forgotten it was St. Petersburg.
Now they're forgetting it used to be Leningrad.
So these things can happen.
I think we see that people actually are forming their own organizations, because that's what the whole move towards Bitopia is.
People will not live together.
The races naturally self-segregate.
And I think this is the importance of the...
Of our websites and conferences like this.
It's much more important in this situation than it would have been before because we have to build networks.
We have to get to know each other.
Greg Johnson at CounterCurrents, I know CounterCurrents is everybody's cup of tea, but he wrote a very interesting piece recently, discussing an attack on him by the Washington Post.
And he said that reading his traffic, they link to him.
It's unusual for the mainstream media, but very little of the traffic that resulted, the spike that resulted from these articles came from the Washington Post.
People in the Washington Post are not interested in the rest of the world.
It came from other distant right organizations who saw the article and went through to see what he was saying about it.
So we're sort of achieving a critical mass here, under the radar, and we have to continue with it.
Now I'll turn to my one big idea.
Thirty-odd years ago in Canada, an ambassador from the Libertarian Party came up to see us.
In those days, he used to hang around with libertarians.
And he talked about the Libertarian Party, and he said, you know, Americans don't see ideas in principle.
They don't think about things in theory.
The only way you can get them to focus on an idea is to have it embodied in a political party.
And they did that.
And it's been remarkably successful.
They haven't won elections or anything, but I saw the other day a headline saying, GOP contenders fighting for libertarian vote in New Hampshire.
I don't know how many of you have been to New Hampshire, but the average New Hampshire that you see in a coffee shop is not sitting around reading Ayn Rand.
But there is a libertarian party there, and it's defined enough voters for the professional politicians to be interested in.
Wouldn't it be lovely if the headline was GOP contenders fighting over national conservative vote?
And this is why I'm very happy to announce, and I want the Southern Poverty Law Center spy here to take note of this, that Jared Taylor is going to run for election in Virginia's 10th congressional district.
Wait a minute.
What he's going to do is he's going to run in the general, not the primary, because...
He can get into the general, and he can get a protest vote against the awful, useless rhino that's in there at the moment.
And furthermore, he's going to keep doing it.
People think that running in elections, you like Harold Staten to become a joke figure.
But I want to point out to you that Norman Thomas ran for president almost eight times, and at the end of his life, every plank of his initial platform had been adopted.
So all those in favor of Jarrod running?
The motion is carried, Jarrod.
As a frequent traveler and indeed resident of many former white colonies and dominions of the British Empire, I was just curious in reference to your mentioning of the English-only movement and also that if there would be perhaps a greater appeal for an Anglosphere movement within Western nationalism,
since we do share a common language, common laws are...
Integral part of our legal framework, relative to the rest of the world, market-oriented economies, individualism, and a greater sense of empiricism in our philosophical thoughts.
I was curious on your opinion on that.
I wish.
I mean, I wrote a book on Canadian politics in the 80s, which was modeled on, or it was a reprise of, really, Goldwyn Smith's book, Carriage of the Canadian Question.
Goldwyn Smith was a Victorian intellectual, and he specifically appealed what he called the moral federation of the English-speaking world.
It's really quite remarkable to me, given the cultural and political similarities that this has never raised.
Instead, the elites of all countries seem to want to integrate their respective victims into the local areas.
I mean, the Bush family wants us all to be Mexicans.
The English elite has been trying to force the British into the European Union for 30 years, a tremendous opposition.
And the Australians want to be Asians.
There's a very good book on this, by the way, called The Anglosphere by Jim Bennett, who makes the argument that it's not necessary for a political union for this to happen.
It's what he calls a network commonwealth drawing on his work as a software developer and that it could and should be appropriate.
So I agree is the answer.
Mr. Brimelow, I wanted to thank you for your alienation.
It opened my eyes.
I was a bit shocked when I read it, and it made more and more sense.
So that's been my, of all the battlefronts we have, that has been my chosen battle is immigration.
And I also want to say that I agree with you that there has been communist infiltration.
I am a member of the John Birch Society, which pointed that out back in the late 50s.
But I also have been privy to the intentions of academia, and I just wanted to point out that the role of the big tax-free foundations, like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundation,
Carnegie Foundation, and George Soros Institute, and how they are funding universities to Give grant money to like-minded so-called researchers and then the government uses that research as a justification for their suicidal policies and it subverts the whole political process.
And I just wanted to put out there that there must be a way that we can inform big donors to universities.
Of what their goals are and their traitorous intentions are, and they could withdraw funding to universities.
I think that's completely correct.
Even more irritating actually than the Ford Foundation in many respects is that a lot of these institutions, operations are funded with taxpayer money, which is even more infuriating.
It's also the case, you know, every once in a while we run They have an enormous endowment.
They don't actually need-- they're basically a hedge fund with a small public interest law firm attached.
They don't need more money.
And this is particularly interesting.
This is one of the articles that we run that the left is very interesting because there's all kind of competing other no-good-nake operations that want money from the Holocaust-haunted rich, you know.
And so exposing this, I think, is quite useful.
And I have to boot Patrick Tooburn into action to get him to do it again.
He's not done it for a couple of years.
Sam, I don't want any snarkiness.
I wanted to ask you as a brother-in-law Saxon, if you've noticed that the issue at stake with Obama's claim that he can use the executive power to pardon, that he has such power of that power to pardon,
that he can basically substitute his immigration policy.
For the enacted legislative policy of the country.
And this is precisely the issue that led to the Glorious Revolution in Mother England in 1689, when the last Catholic King, James II, claimed that under his pardoning power, he could exempt the Catholic minority from the religious establishment as voted by the British Parliament.
Obviously, all of us would be on the king's side in terms of toleration of minority religions, but the issue at stake was whether the king was under the law or whether the king was above the law.
And in England, Parliament not only didn't go along, but the people rose up and drove him from the throne, whereas Boner and the others are unwilling even to cut off the money.
So Obama has essentially repealed the Glorious Revolution.
We now have divine right of presidents.
▲
Export Selection