James Fulford writes: VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has (finally) updated the Kindle edition of his much-denounced 1995 best seller Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster with this Foreword, and improved formatting. We hope to provide a print version soon–the original publisher allowed it to slip out of print, as you will read below. The Foreword provides a new perspective, but the underlying facts remain the same, and remain relevant.

During this August recess, it’s going to be important for people to communicate with their Congressmen, who will be spending the month visiting their constituents. As Mickey Kaus wrote in the Daily Caller, in August, “Silence=Amnesty.”

If you don’t want Amnesty, tell your Congressman! That way you too can avoid the “curses of those who come after.”

By a curious coincidence, I began writing the Foreword to this Kindle edition of Alien Nation exactly seventeen years to the day since I wrote the Afterword to the original paperback edition—just before Christmas 1995.

(For the Kindle edition, we have moved the Afterword so that it follows directly after these remarks, and is in turn followed by what now seems like an amazing series of laudatory quotations from reviews by people who would now probably like to deny it.

(I never liked the title, by the way. I wanted to call the book Electing A New People after the now-famous Brecht poem. And I still think that would have been better. But imposing titles on authors seems to give commercial publishers their moment of creative thrill.)

The Alien Nation Afterword remains my most productive spasm in forty years in professional journalism: about 7,000 words in thirty straight hours.

I remember that, most of that day and into the night, I was looking out through my office window into an intense Connecticut Berkshire snowstorm, with a row of birds perched unmoving on a power line, fluffed up against the intense cold. I felt sorry for them and wondered how they could survive—not realizing, of course, that they would prove a pretty good symbol of the ordeal of immigration patriots in the coming years.

The blazing red dawn revealed a subzero winter wonderland—and a family of deer legally immigrated into our yard to claim asylum under a yew hedge.

The Afterword was so easy to write because I’d been composing answers to Alien Nation’s critics in my head throughout that intense year of book promotion. The Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that he wrote an entire book in his head while a prisoner in the Gulag. I now believe that this can be done.

Plus the writing was easy because, incredible though it may now seem, at the end of 1995 the cause of patriotic immigration reform seemed so obviously on the verge of victory. (We now call it “patriotic immigration reform” to distinguish immigration reduction and rationalization from the . . . other kind of reform, Amnesty plus a massive cheap-labor pig-out, whose advocates have hijacked the perfectly innocent term “immigration reform” in their typically disingenuous way).

Intellectually, the immigration enthusiasts were utterly routed, unable to respond to the sudden refutation of clichés upon which they had relied for years—except with personal abuse, which I viewed with contempt.

Nearly two decades later, this is still the case—but, alas, I have learned in the interim that mud really does stick.

Politically, everything had fallen into place. As I described in the Afterword, the Jordan Commission reported mid-year, recommending serious cutbacks in legal immigration—and President Bill Clinton endorsed its recommendations. The Republicans controlled both the U.S. House and the Senate, so the passage of the Smith-Simpson bill, which embodied the Jordan recommendations, seemed inevitable. Even Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, more recently Sheldon Adelson’s catspaw in the 2012 presidential primaries, had sponsored a bipartisan task force on illegal immigration that, among other things, recommended ending birthright citizenship.

In addition, the 1996 Presidential Election was less than a year away. President Clinton was widely assumed to be mortally wounded after his party had lost control of Congress in 1994. And among the GOP contenders was Patrick J. Buchanan, in my opinion the outstanding political thinker of the era, who actually understood the immigration issue and had the courage and the ability to use it.

Well . . . it didn’t work out that way. To cut a distressing story short:

  • In early 1996, Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary—but, assailed with a concatenated barrage of abuse unprecedented since the 1964 Goldwater campaign, was subsequently isolated and snuffed out.

As the columnist Lars-Erik Nelson, one of the small but honorable group of liberals who have recognized the reality of current immigration policy’s immiseration of the working class, said to me after we both appeared on the CSPAN morning show: “All the money in the world would have come down on [Buchanan]” had he won the subsequent Arizona primary (which he initially appeared to have done). Nelson’s premature death in 2000, like that of Barbara Jordan in 1996, was one of a long series of unpredictable misfortunes that have befallen the cause of patriotic immigration reform.

I must say, however, that I regard Buchanan’s insistence on prioritizing the undeniable but less significant downside of free trade, the subject of his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, as not the least of these misfortunes.

  • In mid-1996, an unholy alliance of Leftists, ethnic lobbyists, libertarian loonies, Chamber of Commerce cheap labor whores and neoconservative ideologues succeeded in derailing the Smith-Simpson bill.

As it turned out, this was the last moment when patriotic immigration reform was on the offensive. Every single battle in the long years since then has been defensive.

The cause of patriotic immigration reform has always faced formidable odds. But I will state here my view that even its pitifully small stock of assets has been significantly mishandled by its putative leaders.

The GOP’s presidential nominee Bob Dole threw away the immigration issue in the 1996 Presidential election, even selecting the notoriously bone-headed immigration enthusiast Jack Kemp for vice-president. They lost.

  • In mid-1997, effective early 1998, William F. Buckley abruptly and secretly fired John O’Sullivan as Editor of National Review.

This ended the brief period, beginning with my 1992 cover story, when National Review dared to challenge the uncritical pro-immigration consensus among neoconservatives/ libertarians/ business lobbies/ congressional Republicans and their donors (where distinguishable) etc. . . . what we now call “Conservatism Inc.”  As Wall Street Journal Editor Robert L. Bartley later gloated (July 3, 2000), the magazine promptly “stopped stridently claiming opposition to immigration as a conservative cause.”

Of course, this was irritating to me personally. I was instantly “constructively dismissed,” as labor lawyers call it, in the effeminate Buckley style—via a snailmail letter from O’Sullivan’s protégé and parricidal successor Rich Lowry extruding me from the magic circle of Senior Editors, although I remained as camouflage on NR’s masthead for several further years. And I knew by then that immigration was a Third Rail issue not just for the Left but in the nominally conservative and/or business-oriented parts of the Main Stream Media where I earned a humble living. (As indeed it has proved to be).

But I do think Buckley’s betrayal had wider significance. As Neal Freeman later observed in an American Spectator article (NR Goes To War, June 2006) on the end of his 38-year membership of the NR Board because of the magazine’s slavish support of the catastrophic Iraq invasion:

I thought then and I think today that if NR had opposed the invasion it could have made a decisive difference within the conservative movement and, radiating its influence outward, across the larger political community.

Similarly, I believe that, had National Review maintained over the subsequent fifteen years the immigration line that O’Sullivan and I pioneered, the Republican Party—and America—might not now be facing demographic disaster.

Buckley is incessantly credited with the “making” of the post-World War II American conservative movement. But he must also be held complicit in its breaking—and, perhaps, the breaking of the American nation.

The whole experience was a microcosm of the immigration “debate”: critical arguments are never met, they are simply repressed—along with, if possible, the heretics who make them. After 1998, there was once again literally nowhere in the MSM where facts and analyses critical of Establishment immigration enthusiasm could appear.

Fortunately, the internet came along, and we launched our immigration patriot website, VDARE.com, on Christmas Eve 1999.

  • 2001-2013: The Amnesty Wars

The fifteen years since the nobbling of National Review have been a brutal demonstration of the brilliant insight of RealClearPolitics.com’s Sean Trende: The Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups dominated by an ideological faction; the Republican Party is a coalition of ideological factions dominated by an interest group.

Repeatedly, beginning directly after George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2000, the GOP elite has tried to impose, not just a repeat of the 1986 Amnesty for illegal aliens but also a repeat of the 1965 Immigration Act’s massive increase in legal immigration, upon its base of ordinary patriotic Americans.

Only the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and unprecedented grass-roots revolt in 2006 and 2007, have stalled these lavishly-funded drives. And, at this writing, the fate of the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill is still unclear.

I must admit that I did not anticipate this extraordinary GOP elite stubbornness—nor its suicidal stupidity. In the last cover story I did for National Review (The Emerging Democratic Majority| Electing A New People, June 16, 1997), co-author Edwin S. Rubenstein and I laid out the devastating incremental impact of prevailing non-traditional immigration on the GOP (or what we more recently have called GAP—the Generic American Party, the political expression of America’s historic white majority). Subsequently, on VDARE.com, we have exhaustively documented this effect and what can be done about it. (Basically, end immigration and mobilize the white vote—the latter an option we call “the Sailer Strategy,” after Steve Sailer, who first developed it on VDARE.com in 2001).

Again, our arguments were never challenged—they were simply ignored. Only in the spring of 2013 have I begun to see even minimal Main Stream Media discussion of the decisive importance of the white vote—which, of course, until the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act, would have been described as the “American” vote.

In retrospect, the plain fact is that, even more than in most political conflicts, immigration enthusiasts are simply not arguing in good faith. They have hidden agendas that they will not—in fact cannot—acknowledge.

The most obvious example: the business lobby. In Alien Nation, I had reported the consensus analysis of the economics of immigration, which was subsequently confirmed in 1997 by the National Research Council’s The New Americans, the economic appendix to the Jordan Commission: the aggregate benefit to native-born Americans from the post-1965 immigration influx is vanishingly small, maybe one-tenth of one percent of GDP. And that’s wiped out by the additional taxes Americans pay to subsidize immigrants’ use of schools and other government services.

But, although immigration doesn’t benefit Americans in aggregate, it does benefit some Americans—at the expense of others. It does this by increasing competition for jobs and thereby depressing wages. The accepted estimate is that immigration redistributes some 2 to 3 percent of GDP from labor to the owners of capital. In 2013, that’s about $300 billion-$450 billion, a very large number.

This explains the extraordinary parade of plutocrats—for example, Sheldon Adelson, Facebook’s Mark ZuckerbergMichael BloombergPaul Singer, the Koch brothers—currently pushing the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill and the enormous amount of money they are spending on it. ($1.5 billion since late 2007 by one account, and that doesn’t include their 2013 splurge.)

Basically, these plutocrats are demanding that the U.S. government divert more of Americans’ income to them. When Americans hear that immigration will “spur economic growth,” they should read: Permit more plutocrat plundering of America’s middle and working class.

There’s a huge amount of money at stake. By depressing wages, current immigration policy shifts some 2-3 percent of Gross Domestic Product from labor to capital. That’s a windfall profit to the plutocrats of $300-$450 billion a year.

And remember, the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill could triple legal immigration. So we could be looking at a diversion of income to the plutocrats amounting to more than a trillion dollars.

A year or so of that, and you can renounce your American citizenship and move to some tax haven (as, for example, Zuckerberg’s co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, has done—he now lives in Singapore).

This is a looting of the U.S. economy that can only be compared to the Russian oligarchs’ theft of assets as the Soviet Union collapsed. But at least those assets were impersonally owned by the State. The income that America’s oligarchs are redistributing to themselves were previously supporting the lifestyle of the broad mass of Americans.

In effect, American politics have entered a new Gilded Age, with politicians all too eager to do the bidding of high-tech Robber Barons. The New York Times token conservative columnist Ross Douthat has accurately described this as The Republican Party’s “Donorism” Problem [March 6, 2013]. Whether this is because the politicians themselves hope to benefit financially, through campaign contributions, sweetheart speech deals, apotheosis into lobbying etc. etc., or whether they are merely the prisoners of the parasitical campaign consultants who have emerged as an infestation right across the political spectrum, the net effect is the same: an extraordinary focus on short-term rent-seeking on behalf of donors and an indifference to long-term or even short-term consequences.

This is deeply shocking to those of us who remember the selfless and principled anti-Communism that motivated so much of the American Conservative movement during the Cold War.

Additionally, it became clear that a large part of the American political class absolutely, positively does not want to HEAR about the white vote. This aversion may be irrational, but it is deeply felt—or, perhaps, expensively bought.

For example, in 2001 VDARE.com articles were banned from being posted to the Republican booster site FreeRepublic.com merely for pointing out the undeniable fact of George W. Bush’s relative underperformance among whites. Proprietor Jim Robinson claimed this was “divisive” and “promoting racism.” As of 2013, I personally am apparently still banned, even when writing on unrelated topics in other publications.

I suspect that some part of this inefficient intellectual market reflects the overflow of campaign contributions into journalism. I am told this is a problem for the Left as well as the Right.

But in other cases, the aversion may be genuine: the instinctive fear of a possible “Nazi-Aryan party” to which Brandeis University’s Earl Raab frankly attributed Jewish support for mass immigration, disregarding the interests of the nation at large. (See Alien Nation pages 119-120). And, more generally, it may demonstrate the extraordinary continued power of the emotional reflex I identified in the first paragraph of Alien Nation, to the consternation of some critics, as Hitler’s Revenge:

There is a sense in which current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. The U.S. political elite emerged from the war passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia. Eventually, it enacted the epochal Immigration Act (technically, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments) of 1965. And this, quite accidentally, triggered a renewed mass immigration, so huge and so systematically different from anything that had gone before as to transform—and ultimately, perhaps, even to destroy—the one unquestioned victor of World War II: the American nation, as it had evolved by the middle of the twentieth century.

Bizarrely, this Hitler’s Revenge reflex appears to be getting more intense as World War II recedes into history.

I often get emails asking me if I have considered updating Alien Nation. The answer: of course! I would have loved to have done so—or, even better, expanded it to cover the whole Anglosphere.

But when, at the height of the 2006 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge battle, Ann Coulter wrote a characteristically generous column (Read My Lips: No New Amnesty, May 24, 2006) causing the paperback to spike on Amazon and sell out, the publishers refused to reprint it. And when I pressed my celebrated literary agent, Andrew Wylie, [Email him] to represent a sequel, he responded by severing our relationship, on the ground that my views had become too extreme.

Of course, my views had not changed at all. And, ironically, it was Wylie himself who had originally urged me to write Alien Nation, brushing aside my (very well-founded) hesitations. But the curious post-Cold War 1990s interglacial, after the discrediting of Marxism proper but before the onset of Cultural Marxism, that permitted the publication not just of Alien Nation but of several other Politically Incorrect books such as Paved With Good IntentionsThe Bell Curve and The g Factor, was decisively over.

Of course, I am far from the only, and certainly not the most prominent, professional journalist to feel the chill of this renewed Ice Age. Indeed, over the last two decades essentially every MSM writer who has gotten interested in the immigration issue has suffered professionally—a phenomenon we at VDARE.com call “The Curse Of Stein” after Federation for American Immigration Reform President Dan Stein, who (perhaps surprisingly) pointed this risk out to me when I first began interviewing him about immigration in the early 1990s. Besides myself and John O’Sullivan, the Roll of Honor includes Scott McConnell, Michael Graham, Lou DobbsJohn DerbyshireDavid Frum and of course Pat Buchanan himself, besides others of local significance.

In early 2012, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, trying to justify his decision to eliminate Buchanan as a commentator after ten years, actually told reporters: “I don’t think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth [in his book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”

One of these “ideas” was actually a fact, which I had also noted in my 1992 National Review cover story and in Alien Nation (p.62-64): current immigration policy will ultimately drive American whites—known until 1965 as “Americans”—into a minority. This is a demographic transformation without precedent in the history of the world. The notion that it is not “appropriate for the national dialogue” can only be viewed as evidence of the new Dark Age that Cultural Marxism has brought to the West.

Exactly as I foretold—it wasn’t rocket science although it might just as well have been for all the notice that was taken—in 2011 the majority of births in the U.S. were indeed non-white. The Census Bureau now projects that whites will be in a minority in the country (although not, campaign consultants should note, in the electorate) around 2043.

This will occur—barring a miracle or a revolution, neither of which I rule out—regardless of the fate of the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. That would merely fast-forward the process, albeit drastically.

Among these recent births, however, my personal life having gone through changes even more dramatic, and also alas in key respects more tragic, than my professional life: my daughters Felicity Deonne (2010) and Karia Sybil Nancy (2012). In 2043, they will still be young women.

It is not possible to argue that the America in which they, and my two older children Alexander and Hannah Claire will live, is other than radically different than the America to which I immigrated in 1970—nor other than that this is an America that neither I nor the Americans themselves at that time expected.

The historic American nation, as it had evolved by 1965, will still exist—but it may well be forced to seek new expression.

None of this was necessary.

Reflecting on my experience since Alien Nation was published, I would still say that playing even a small role in the destiny of a great nation is a privilege, regardless of profitability. And (more evidence that diversity is strength) I remember the words of a great man in my country of origin:

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “if only”, they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen”. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

[Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.]

Whatever the outcome, I do believe that all my children will at least exempt me, while their country suffers what certainly seems to be on the current course an inevitable doom, from what Enoch Powell described as “the curses of those who come after.”

May God help them—and America.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    A) Even if Smith-Simpson would have passed, Clinton wouldn’t have enforced the enforcement parts.

    B) Maybe anti-Communism wasn’t so much a matter of principle after all. There was a lot of money to be made in our fear of communism as practiced by the Soviet Union.

    C) Pat Buchanan was no different when MSNBC hired him than when they fired him. I think they ever only hired him because he criticized other Republicans.

    This article is good, but one gaping hole in it is that it fails to answer the fundamental question that many would have but we wouldn’t because it’s self-evident to us:

    Why immigration patriotism?

    And the answer is race.

    • Charles Lufkin

      Brimelow has contributed much to our cause.He would be more credible if he stopped his petty vendetta against National Review.I just saw on the NRO website their statement opposing amnesty and ANY conference committee which might lead to amnesty.A really tough position opposing amnesty.Brimelow continues to dredge up his firing from the 90’s.I would think a logical position would be to move on and congratulate NR for being our ally in the struggle TODAY.

  • In mid-1996, an unholy alliance of Leftists, ethnic lobbyists, libertarian loonies, Chamber of Commerce cheap labor whores and neoconservative ideologues succeeded in derailing the Smith-Simpson bill.

    I remember that bill. The “libertarian loonies” in question would have opposed it anyway, but I think the EL CHEAPO labor lobby and the Chamber Pot of Commerce and their shills in Congress and in the staffs of members of Congress deliberately loaded that bill down with scary “big brother”-ish stuff, such as national ID cards for everyone (not just for legal aliens), and other similar things, just to provoke more libertarian opposition than there would have been.

  • David Ashton

    Look out Kindle, the UN is after you.

  • IKantunderstand

    We are up against an implacable enemy. I find it extremely curious that all the heretofor White countries, who had in place immigration laws that pointedly admitted Whites to maintain the current population, and pointedly excluded others, did a 180. Oddly, this turnabout occurred in roughly the exact same time span. Curiouser and curiouser.(I love me some Carroll). Why? What promoted this “same think” phenomenon? Gosh, was it just a coincidence? You don’t think that maybe, well, some group might have had an undue influence on these strangely similar about faces on immigration? It makes more sense to believe in Santa Claus, than to believe in coincidence. P.S. Uh, Pogo, sorry to disappoint you, but I have met the enemy, and trust me, he ain’t us.

    • jane johnson

      ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves…

      • IKantunderstand

        JJ- You once asked for my permission to use “Red Sea Pedestrians”. Granted. And, please, be careful out there and always, always, shun the frumious bandersnatch. (I hope I spelled this correctly, I’m going off of a much maligned, and overused memory).

  • White Mom in WDC

    I will say it again, it is time for white American born citizens to flip the script. Was some stein out in the Pacific NW chiming about how words such as ‘citizen’ and ‘brown bag’ should not be used? So in essence US citizenship doesn’t mean anything? So if I am no longer a citizen or my citizenship is not recognized, well then why the hell should I pay taxes? Or work period? We must push the envelope here and start resisting in ways that count. We are being taxed without being represented, do why are paying? C’mon white Americans, stop paying your bills. The only way to rank the ship of plutocrats is to stop the money trail.

    • bigone4u

      I’ve said the same thing in different words. Lew Rockwell’s libertarian website is not race realist or anti-immigration, but it is anti-government. They run quite a few articles on how to resist the government with an eye to bringing it down. Whites who have been race replaced in the labor force must learn how to get all the benefits they are legally entitled to receive in order to bankrupt the government that much faster.

    • Bo_Sears

      Interesting that you would use the term “flip the script.” That is exactly right to confront all of the verbal and writing abuse.

  • kjh64

    There is one thing that could stop America becoming a majority-minority nation in mid-century and that is its’ fall. If American crashes and burns and goes broke, and we are quickly on the road to it, a lot of these non-Whites, especially Mexicans would flee in droves, as they are just here to use us. If there are no jobs and no welfare money, they’ll go back home, especially if their home countries are doing the same or better. This or a mass awakening of Whites who stand up and do something is our only home and I put much more stock on the former scenario of America crashing.

  • JohnEngelman

    But, although immigration doesn’t benefit Americans in aggregate, it does benefit some Americans—at the expense of others. It does this by increasing competition for jobs and thereby depressing wages. The accepted estimate is that immigration redistributes some 2 to 3 percent of GDP from labor to the owners of capital.

    – Peter Brimelow, VDARE, August 4, 2013

    This is an argument that cannot be answered, so it is suppressed.

    • Evette Coutier

      This misses the point. If blacks and illegals turn America into Detroit, the capitalists gain 2 to 3 percent of nothing. It will work short term, but when their economy reverts to a third world banana republic, they will lose more than they gained. General Motors is the perfect example. There was a time when GM was something like the 5th largest economy in the world, ahead of most entire nations. Now to survive, they had to have government bailouts of declare bankruptcy. Short term they benefited by such thinking, but ultimately they failed because of it.

      • JohnEngelman

        Tell that to the people who own and run America. They will fire one third of the work force to make the next quarterly report look better.

      • NM156

        Of course they won’t-they don’t live anywhere near Detroit now, and they won’t in 2043. They want the money by any and all means possible.

      • Oil Can Harry

        Evette, you just raised an important point: these corporate clods want to flood the country with cheap third world labor so they can make moolah IN THE SHORT RUN.

        What they don’t realize (or care) is that they’re wrecking this nation. Their descendants will be living in a country that resembles Detroit.

    • Bo_Sears

      JohnEngelman, what “argument” are you talking about that cannot be answered, so it is suppressed. Can you say the argument plainly?

      • JohnEngelman

        Read my earlier post. Immigration exerts a depressing effect on wages and an inflationary effect on prices. Therefore it raises profits.

  • JohnEngelman

    To an extent I can forgive the leaders of the Democratic Party for the travesty of opening the borders. They genuinely care about poor immigrants, and refuse to acknowledge that their influx lowers the wages of poor people who already live here.

    The leaders of the Republican Party only care about the rich Americans who benefit from cheap labor.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      All 54 Democratic senators voted for the “Amnesty plus a massive cheap-labor pig-out,” that is, the Schumer-Rubio Bill. Only 30 percent of GOP senators voted for “the rich Americans who benefit from cheap labor.”

      With 100 percent of Democratic senators siding with the super-rich on open borders/cheap foreign labor, it’s hard to make case that the Democrats care anything at all about the poor of their own country.

      • JohnEngelman

        Nearly everything else that liberals desire is jeopardized by a high rate of immigration. It is not my fault that most liberals refuse to recognize that.

        It is a contradiction comparable to the conservative desire for more military spending, tax cuts, and balanced budgets.

        • dmxinc

          Not true, John.

          Conservatives are for a strong military. That is a cultural as well as material condition. More spending is not necessarily the answer, nor is it always advocated by conservatives.

          You make the assumption that tax cuts reduce revenues. Not necessarily true. In fact, most likely it is untrue, as lower taxes increase GDP, thereby increasing the tax base. Economists have stated the trade is for every dollar of increased taxes, GDP is reduced by three dollars.

          Balanced budgets could be achieved by reducing the welfare state, entitlements and getting rid of entirely useless and destructive departments like the EEOC and the USDA (reference the article on AMREN a couple days ago with the USDA directors’ pictures). Conservative have never gotten their way on these issue.

          • Joseph

            Be careful, you may be mistaken for a libertarian of some sort and excoriated accordingly.

          • I think I should chime in here before this gets out of hand.

            You’re plainly not for open borders. Therefore, you’re not a libertarian, especially in today’s parlance.

            I’m convinced that if you have two people, one of whom is moderately libertarian on everything but wants immigration restriction and tightly controlled borders, and the other is big government all the way on everything but wants open borders, many of today’s libertarians, especially Libertarian Inc Beltway outfits, will pick the second person.

            Let’s fill in these hypotheticals with names. Pat Buchanan vs Chris Christie. A majority of today’s self-styled libertarians will pick Christie, even though Pat Buchanan would make the country overall more literally libertarian. Lew Rockwell, who once enthusiastically backed PJB’s Presidential campaigns, wouldn’t do so today.

        • WR_the_realist

          The only Republican who wants to bring the troops home and not get into wars is Ron Paul. He was called dangerous and a nut — by politicians in both parties. I see no Democrats other than Dennis Kucinich who reject the notion that America should be world cop and thus be forever involved in foreign wars. (Both Paul and Kucinich are now out of office. When it comes to federal government, peace mongers need not apply.) Hillary Clinton, the most likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, is as nasty a war monger as they get.

          So when it comes to military spending, both parties are on the same page — America uber alles.

    • dmxinc

      You are way off the mark on the Democrat vs. Republican thing.

      If you think the elected Democrats care about anyone but themselves and each other, they have succeeded in getting you to drink the Kool Aid.

      • JohnEngelman

        As a Democrat I could say the same thing of elected Republicans, but I do not believe it. I believe that most politicians of either party are decent people who want to serve the United States, but who have different ideas of how to do it.

        • dmxinc

          Sorry John, I’ve been observing and working the political scene for 30 years. The average Democrat candidate is exactly what I said. I gave them more than one shot and, on all levels, have earned my disdain.

          Ever wonder why there has never been a Democrat equivalent of Pat Buchanan? These guys haven’t been for the American people in decades.

          • JohnEngelman

            My guess is that you have been working for the Republicans. This would tend to give you a juandiced view of the Democrats, unless you were unusually generous in your thinking.

            If you have been working for the GOP you have had less contact with Democrats and are likely to have less insight into what motivates them.

          • dmxinc

            Wrong again. I was my contact with Democrats and observing them that developed my view of them.

            Have you spent time with Democrats and there avid supporters?

            The logic presented here on Amren is beyond them.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am confused. Were you working for the Republicans or for the Democrats?

            When i was young I thought that those who agreed with me would be decent people who I could admire for many reasons. Since then I have learned to my disillusionment that this is not always true.

            Recently I had an agreeable e-mail conversation with Tim Wise. He seems to have ended it, but I hope not. He seems like a decent sort I would enjoy cultivating as a friend. So do Henry Wolff and Jared Taylor.

            I love to discuss politics. Unfortunately, some people cannot do that without becoming angry. With friends and relatives I have learned what to talk about and what not to talk about. One cannot reason with an angry person.

          • dmxinc

            Sorry for the misspelled words. I’ve corrected them. Those mistakes probably led to your confusion.

            I dealt with Democrats when I was working as a Republican. It was not pleasant. Of course, not all were bad, but a large enough percentage were – especially the candidates themselves – to sour my view of them.

            I still remember the Democrat convention in 1988. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, so I watched the entire presentation. They coined the phrase that year “The politics of personal destruction.” Then, during their convention, I heard not one concrete idea on how to improve the country. All they did was chant “Where was George.” Ann Richards topped it off with “Poor George, he can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” It was pathetic. Not substance whatsoever. I can assure you, they have become many times worse in the past 25 years. The best interests of the American people are the furthest things from their minds.

          • JohnEngelman

            Like a lot of Democrats I initially supported the War in Vietnam and came eventually to oppose it.

            When I supported the war I hated the hippies. I thought they were dirty, dirty mouthed, promiscuous, and so on.

            When I opposed the war I thought of the hippies as gentle, peaceful, and loving. They had not changed. I had.

          • dmxinc

            In typical Democrat fashion, they can be right, but for the the wrong reasons.

            Of course, we shouldn’t have been in Vietnam. Why were our young men dieing? For America? I don’t think so. But how did the hippies et al treat the draftees? Like dirt. They called them “baby killers” and “criminals” when all they were doing was answering the call made to them by their country and putting their lives on the line.

            If the hippies would have been true to the cause, they wouldn’t have gone after the pawns, but the kings and queens who sent them.

            It is similar to the Occupy movement. They rail against “Wall Street,” but walk right past a financier’s house (Soros) to go protest at Murdoch’s. At least Murdoch provides a service that is used by millions of Americans. He is no Wall Street financier, but the Occupy phonies are really just about politics. The hippies should have been enraged that young American soldiers were being butchered for no reason, but they didn’t care about that.

          • JohnEngelman

            I was active in the anti war movement. I have talked to combat veterans of that war. I have never heard an anti war activist talk about showing disrespect for war veterans. I never heard a war veteran talk about being showed disrespect by an anti war activist.

            It probably happened, but I think it happened rarely.

          • dmxinc

            The blood thrown and them and the cries of “baby killer” may have been rare, but the apathy toward them and their sacrifices is well documented.

            That’s why there are cheers and parades for the Iraq and Afghanistan vets today – the Vietnam vets and their family members make certain these guys never experience the loneliness they did on their returns.

          • WR_the_realist

            Iraq war II was entirely unnecessary but I reserve my contempt for the politicians who dragged us into it, not the people who risked their lives fighting it.

          • JohnEngelman

            I did not vote for George H.W. Bush in 1988, but I have always liked him. For me it has been visceral. The first time I saw him on television, he reminded me of a friend of mine,

            I think he handled the War in the Gulf better than anyone else could have.

            As far as that negativity directed at Bush in 1988, how do you think I feel about the hatred directed against President Obama? How am I supposed to react toward those who shout “Traitor!” or “Kill him!” when his name is mentioned, and who claim that he was born in Kenya, hates white people, wants the terrorists to win, and so on?

            People who act and think that way may have admirable characteristics, but I have difficulty figuring out what they are.

          • WR_the_realist

            I don’t want to see Obama killed. I just want to see him impeached. Jumping into a civil war in Libya without any congressional authorization is more than sufficient grounds. That’s a much more serious crime than lying about a blow job.

            The problem is that the Republicans are no better. Does anybody seriously think that Romney would have saved the nation? The only thing I’m confident about is that Romney would have got us into a war with Iran by now. Oh joy.

          • WR_the_realist

            Tim Wise wrote a long public letter gloating over the impending deaths of the 60% of white people who voted Republican. He’s about as decent a human being as Joseph Goebbels, it’s just a different group of people he wants to annihilate. He makes his living preaching about “white skin privilege” as if we should have to apologize for creating a successful society.

        • Fair Dingum

          Bah. Politics is about power and lies. To believe anything else is to be a lamb among wolves.

        • PesachPatriot

          John, because you seem like a decent person you make the mistake of thinking america’s politicians are decent people who care about the country…maybe some of the local ones are ok but the national ones (at least in my 34 years on this rock) are narcisstic amoral sociopaths who would sell their own mothers for a nickel…most people my age or younger trust neither party after seeing the mess they both have made out of the greatest nation on earth. I’m sure you know the old joke “How can you tell a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving.”

    • Nick Gherz

      The Democrats are (and have been) stacking the deck in their favor.

      Their voting block is essentially anti-white, and they go out of their way to pander to it even at the expense of their own country.

      They divide:
      Rich vs. poor
      White vs. non-white
      Tax contributors vs. tax recipients

      In general they are not patriots, so much as they are loyal party members.

    • IstvanIN

      Are you insane? Naive? The Democrats care about power and only power.

      • JohnEngelman

        What do the Republicans care about?

        • IstvanIN

          Power and themselves. I don’t think the Republicans are good because the Demoncrats are bad. There may be slightly more patriotic Republicans than Demoncrats, but only slightly. They all need to face treason charges.

          • JohnEngelman

            You have had different experiences in life than I have, so I do not want to dismiss your attitude toward Republican and Democratic politicians.

            A lot of people feel the way you do. I think that is alarming. It indicates that millions of Americans have lost confidence in democracy, and may be longing for a dictator who agrees with them. A problem of course, is that if the dictator disagrees with them he may have them shot.

            The United States faces difficult problems without easy or obvious solutions. They will not be solved or even mitigated if most Americans become cynics, nihilists, or fanatics.

          • WR_the_realist

            I have lost all confidence in democracy. Democracy means whoever breeds fastest wins. Democracy means that the people who make the most important decisions are selected by their ability to win a popularity contest. The only hope that democracy has of working is if the electorate is both intelligent and moral. America’s electorate is less of both every year.

            Do I have a realistic alternative? No. But I don’t assume that every monarchy or dictatorship is necessarily worse than what we have. Certainly it is not worth bombing other countries to force them into democracy.

          • David Ashton

            For SOME people Obama fulfilled that longing.

        • Bo_Sears

          It doesn’t speak well for the commenters here who can be distracted so easily by your off-target comments.

        • WR_the_realist

          Republicans care about getting re-elected, and getting enough money from donors to make that easy. Democrats care about getting re-elected, and getting enough money from donors to make that easy. Rich people are donors so both parties suck up to the rich.

          That is American politics in a nutshell.

      • JohnEngelman

        The people I care about and the people I think most leaders of the Democratic Party care about are the working poor. i define these as people who make less than twice minimum wage, with few or not benefits. I am in favor of what benefits them, and opposed to what does not.

        My impression of Republicans is that they think that rich people are not only more fortunate and talented than the rest of us, but that they are better people. When Mitt Romney said that 47 percent of the electorate would not vote for him I believe he expressed a contempt that is widespread among Republicans.

        It should be obvious that 47 percent of the country is not lazily living off of welfare checks. Most of those 47 people are conscientiously performing low wage jobs with little chance of promotion.

        • Yaro

          One thing you have to give up is the fact that politicians care about you, or the poor. They don’t care at all; animal nature is entirely selfish. To think the Democratic Party is any more righteous than the Republicans..well, lets say your view of politics is more subjective than it should be.

    • Fair Dingum

      You’ve got to be out of your mind. The Democrats plan to build a power base with the flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, to neutralize the votes of middle and working class whites. The racial politics of the left have been anti-white since at least the ’70’s, and their long term goal is to create a new majority consisting of white progressives, blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats want a one party state, and the dispossession and disempowerment of the white majority is a necessary stage in their plan.

      The Democrats don’t care about white people and the Republicans don’t care about working people. Gott in Himmel! Can this end in any other way than catastrophe?

      • MikeofAges

        Probably not. One world is no world. Those who think they can ride the tiger of the white left’s one worldism to a future primacy of their own will find out too late. He who tries to ride the tiger will end up in the tiger’s belly. But subtlety and nuancing has never been their forte anyway. Or maybe they just don’t care if everything goes as long as the hated “machine” is gone. That’s part of my thesis. It is not “whitey” who is hated so much as it the “machine” that makes life so complicated and failure so unbearable. Short lives, and a feudal social structure might to many people be a small price to pay to get rid of it Even some whites would sign on to that idea.

    • WR_the_realist

      There are billions of people poorer than Mexican peasants, including almost the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa. So the idea that we can help the world’s poor by bring them all here is a policy of national suicide.

  • Spartacus

    “…current immigration policy will ultimately drive American whites—known until 1965 as “Americans”—into a minority. This is a demographic transformation without precedent in the history of the world. The notion that it is not “appropriate for the national dialogue” can only be viewed as evidence of the new Dark Age that Cultural Marxism has brought to the West.”


    Good. Only then will whites start fighting back, and when they do, it won’t matter if they’re outnumbered 100 to 1, it’s more than enough for victory – And victory can only mean a 100% White nation, regardless of how that is achieved.

  • Evette Coutier

    I am concerned about our fall as a nation. It is true that our downfall will wake up many people and they will hopefully make the necessary social corrections. But this misses the greater issue of America and its dominant position in the world. Should we fall from power due to internal conflict, there are several nations who will capitalize on this. We need to make efforts to fix the immigration situation so that we can avoid the impending wolves eager to feed on our carcass.

  • Robert11110

    The key to forming a political coalition against the open borders forces is to exploit the globalization issue. My politics is right wing conservative, but sadly, when I look at the state of this nation, it’s not difficult to come to the realization that nothing has been conserved over the past several decades. I believe this is due in part to them being beholden to the big business wing of the Republican Party. If conservatives from the right and blue collar/ union workers from the left would come together on a conservative, protectionist, anti-globalization platform similar to when Reagan won over the Reagan Democrats, it would blow the current political configuration out of the water. The only choices we have now are open borders communists/socialists and open borders vampire capitalists with their global plantation, and both choices stink.

    • You’re describing the Pat Buchanan Presidential campaigns to a tee.

      “But, but, but, he didn’t win the nomination much less the Presidency.”

      True, but he did something in 1996 several times that Ron Paul never did once at any point in his political career:

      He won statewide public elections, several Republican primaries and caucuses, including Missouri, which I was proud to be a part of.

      And he drew about 40% of the vote versus Bush 41 in NH in 1992, and that may not be a win, but versus a sitting President in a primary in his own party, that might as well be a win.

      • MikeofAges

        I have always wondered about what happened in the 1993 California primary. I voted for Buchanan. Everybody I knew voted for Buchanan. Yet he got a particularly low percentage in the area I lived in. I have never been sure there was an entirely honest count in that election. If you’re not an Uncle Walt (for Walter Cronkite) you just don’t get ahead in America. If you really need to told what that means, it means that you accept an implicit liberalism as the basic framework in which things and issues are explained, even if you disagree with liberalism. Pat Buchanan refused to accept that premise. He’s not the only one. Some are even on the left or are members of minority groups. All are marginalized, demonized and mocked in various ways.

        • Everybody I knew voted for Buchanan.

          Two words: Pauline Kael.

          • MikeofAges

            I know who Pauline Kael was, a film critic. I wish you or someone would elaborate on this a little because I don’t quite know what the relevance is.

          • “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” — Pauline Kael

            This quote is often misquoted as her saying, “I don’t know how Nixon won. I don’t know anyone that voted for him.”

          • MikeofAges

            That’s the way it is for a lot of people. One thing that may have happened in the 1992 California primary was that returns were withheld so that Buchanan would initially be reported with a lower percentage of the vote than he actually received. There still is a residue of doubt that the California vote was counted entirely properly. Maybe the country club-checkered pants crowd voted for the establishment candidate, i.e. George Bush. At least Pauline Kael admitted that she knew that she lived in a snow globe.

          • Even PJB knew he wouldn’t probably even win one state. He was taking on a sitting President within his own party. But 2.9 million votes compared to 9.2 million for Bush was nothing to sneer at.

      • Robert11110

        I admire much of Pat Buchanan’s writings but many of his foreign policy articles leave the reader with the impression that he wants America to dump Israel, stay neutral in the Middle East and leave them at the mercy of Russia and it’s Middle Eastern allies. That’s a major reason he did not win the nomination.

        • kjh64

          While I agree with Buchanan on immigration, I don’t agree with him on a lot of other things and I don’t like him.I would never vote for a staunch Catholic because you’d get the pope in the White House. I want separation of church and state.

          • WR_the_realist

            Strange, when John Kennedy was elected we didn’t have the pope in the White House. I agree with Pat Buchanan on about 85% of the issues, which is more than I agree with 99% of the other candidates.

        • Except some of us consider that to be more of a feature than a bug.

          Really, his not winning the nomination in 1996 had a lot of causes. He didn’t have all the money in the world to work with, but the only two competitors of his that season who had more money than he did was establishment-funded Bob Dole and self-funded Steve Forbes, (who bought the Arizona primary, his only win, mainly I think for the sole purpose of stopping PJB’s momentum on behalf of the open borders lobby).

          Part of the problem was PJB himself. He has had a life’s habit of promising us a lot of great things then retreating just when we think he’s about to deliver. (As an example, look up the Larry Pratt nontroversy in ’96). Then he turns around and maintains his loyalty to people and institutions that would feed him to a river full of piranhas if they had half a chance. In his endorsement of Bush 41 and Dole in 1992 and 1996 after he didn’t win the nomination, his reasoning in endorsing them read almost exactly like his arguments why people should have voted for him and not Bush or Dole. Part of his propensity to retreat probably had to do with preserving his media career after the campaign.

          Then there was a massive tactical blunder in ’96: While the days of being able to promise 20 different things to 20 different constituencies were already long gone by then, different people are going to have different concerns. PJB had a very very good deck of cards, but he made mistakes in trying to play the wrong cards in the wrong places. That which helped him win New Hampshire wouldn’t be so helpful in helping him win South Carolina. Play the economic nationalism card in Ohio, play the affirmative action card in South Carolina, play the immigration card in Arizona, play other cards in other states. IOW, be aware of the localized concerns of the state and parts of the state in which you’re campaigning, and choose the parts of your issue base which play to those concerns, without being a phony or two-faced or contradictory in the bigger picture. PJB tried to play the cards that helped him in NH in SC and AZ, and it didn’t quite work.

          • Robert11110

            There is a considerably wide swath of people who are opposed to any defense breaks with Israel, including myself. The different cards you describe could have been played in a large number of states in the early 1990’s and pretty much in every state in 2013. If some right wing conservative who believes in economic patriotism and doesn’t cater to any sort of immoral social fads going on right now, would step forward in the next election, the election would be in the bag. Ron Paul is an example of what to avoid. Someone who believes in legalizing drugs, throwing Israel under the bus, open borders and open homosexuality in the military. It’s no wonder he doesn’t even place a distant second in the primaries.

  • Bo_Sears

    Wow! “Intellectually, the immigration enthusiasts were utterly routed, unable to respond to the sudden refutation of clichés upon which they had relied for years….mud really does stick.”

    It was with personal abuse that “pluralism” was imposed, as well as its outgrowth, “multiculturalism.”

    It was with personal abuse that Charles Lindbergh and Joseph McCarthy were taken down.

    It was personal abuse on all of us stemming from the public drama and hoax called “the March on Skokie.” It was all stage-managed, but it served to shut up the adults in the Seventies and Eighties, and the continuing pattern of stage-managed publicity campaigns do the same thing with Duke athletes, kids starting White Student Unions, and anyone subjected to the anti-white narrative which is just the one-sided abuse and slurring of decent diverse white Americans. But it works.

    At Resisting Defamation, we know that there is a lot more going on than personal abuse, but that silences 98% of us…..so why hasn’t an anti-defamation league been started for the diverse white Americans? Well, such an organization was started in 1989 and has been very successful in meeting the academic project called “unpacking the knapsack of white privilege” with our own project, “unpacking the backpack of the white anti-narrative.”

    Yet as a diverse people, we continue to use for ourselves hate labels put on us and we continue to constrain our rhetoric to a mild defensive level, when even the multiracialist society that multiculturalism has created has left a large gap in the hard left’s field of fire called our right to name, label, define, and describe ourselves.

    We advocate a highly personalized (not racialized) attackback (one word) against the publisher or producer who stage-manages hatred against our children. These evil “people behind the curtain” flash people like the Sharptons and Jacksons on the screen saying hateful things, and allowing no rebuttal. We don’t need rebuttal, we need unashamed harsh attackbacks on the producers and publishers…it isn’t Sharpton or Jackson who are the enemy. No wonder they think we are idiots, we just kind of whine about the unfairness of it all.

    We pioneered a way forward in 1989. It’s mocked by our elders as not scholarly, but it’s remarkably effective. In our region, we’ve knocked out a whole lot of one-word public labels from honky to gringo, and shiksa to haoli. Kids don’t have to read this in the newspaper and hear themselves called those one-word insults so frequently on the school bus, in the classroom, and on the playing field in 2013 by bullies and bigots of all stripes.

    We say one-word labels because this is the type of label that strips us of our own diversity and nationality. In an age of diversity, we are the most diverse of them all….yet we throw that away in the massive clash of thoughtful white Americans against hateful white Americans. Our enemies are not other races at all, time to stop hating on them, and employ verbal rough justice on the publishers and producers who hate us.

    Oops, I forgot…it takes work to agree to monitor a newspaper, radio station, or TV station and attackback when hate speech or writing engages in personal abuse.

    Looking at one’s reputation after the collapse of a cause shows us that in every such collapse, the foremost people were always blamed for not doing more. So no one’s reputation who is reading this will be spared by our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, just as we wonder about the adults alive in the Thirties and Forties…why didn’t THEY do more. Nobody will escape that.

    • jane johnson

      I completely agree with your “behind the curtain” and attackback strategies, but would like to respectfully expand on your characterization of one-word labels as stripping us of our diversity and our nationality. While you didn’t give any specific labels in your post, I’ll use the three Rs (right-winger, redneck, and racist) as examples, and say that the intent is to strip us of our very humanity. By objectifying us, our enemies turn us into the monolithic “oppressor” of minorities, gays, and women. The fact that many of us ARE women becomes irrelevant because “things”, or objects, lacking humanity, also lack gender. You’re right, though; we must do more.

      • Bo_Sears

        Yes, there are lots of one-word labels that do more than strip us of our diversity and nationality. Objectification is rampant, especially to dehumanize us with plant, animal, insect, color, and food names. It is a fascinating field to study, purely as an intellectual exercise.

        For example, syndicated columnist Richard Cohen called one of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination “a big ape” and that appeared in newspapers all over the USA. Yet so far as we know, only Resisting Defamation did an attackback on Cohen for his bigotry and dehumanizing characterization. No elected officials & no Republicans admonished Cohen. Imagine someone saying something like that about President Obama!

        It is a deadly field to study, too, because it promises a world of diverse white children who have been utterly striped of their right to a decent sense of self-respect. Without that, they are nothing.

        Women our movement will have more to offer in teasing out the elements in the anti-white narrative because they are hit with variations on themes that men miss.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    To be sure, many conservatives cloaked their desire for cheap labor with a veneer of “tolerance.” The Left just lapped it up. It is really difficult to halt a train this long and when it wrecks the collision will last for years. In fact, the train wreck is well under way.

  • Puggg

    “Give me one black man with sagging pants and I’ll give you with five more with Ph.Ds.”

    And I bet all five of the Ph.Ds will be sagging their pants. What are their doctorates in? Sagging?

  • WR_the_realist

    Who won’t be exempted from the curses of those who come after? Both of my senators.