Editor’s note: Blog partner Judy posted this today at Potomac Tea Party Report, but it is also important for followers of RRW to read it and consider its implications.
Peter Brimelow publishes an adaptation of a speech he gave in a post called “Hitler’s Revenge” And Donor Riots: Why Americans Aren’t Allowed To Talk About Immigration. Brimelow is a longtime critic of our immigration policies and author of the 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster.
Peter Brimelow
The speech is too complicated to summarize, and it is well worth reading in its entirety, but I’ll give you some excerpts. This one makes one of his key points:
…the West now faces another existential threat—every bit serious as the Soviet Union. And that is mass Third World immigration.
In the U.S., mass immigration as was kicked off again by the 1965 Immigration Act, after a 40 year pause during which there was essentially no immigration at all. Simultaneously, enforcement against illegal immigration collapsed, so that there are somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegals in the country right now.
The demographic impact of this is dramatic. Because immigration is skewed by public policy toward non-traditional sources, by 2040 a majority of people in the U.S. will be non-white. This is a country that was 90% white in 1965, when the Immigration Act was passed.
Now, of course, what that means is that at that point the US will cease to exist. It will not be the historic America that we know. It may be something else. But it’s not going to be America.
And this is going to happen very soon. Within the lifetimes of at least two people in this room!
Now the amazing thing about this transformation is that it isn’t inevitable at all. It’s the result of a public policy that isn’t popular at all–in fact, it is extremely unpopular.
Of course Brimelow has been called a racist and excluded from polite society. I myself would not emphasize the color of the immigrants but rather their culture, which is the important thing. In fact, I recall Pat Buchanan writing several decades ago that he would rather have an educated Nigerian neighbor than a British football hooligan, or something along those lines. Another excerpt:
So now, federally, we have the third major Amnesty drive in the last 10 years, the Gang of Eight’s bill that was put together after the last election—S744. It’s important to recognize that this bill is not simply an Amnesty bill: it also double or triples legal immigration, which was already at record highs. It’s a mind-boggling thing.
Obviously, this tremendous, well-funded campaign for the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill was not put together in 5 minutes after the 2012 election. It was ready to go regardless of who won. I believe that had Mitt Romney won the election, he would have supported Amnesty, just as George W. Bush did. Romney actually said that in the Hofstra debates (“I’ll get it [Comprehensive Immigration Reform] done. I’ll get it done. First year.” But nobody paid any attention to him.
So why the huge gap between what the ruling class wants, including the GOP establishment, and what the vast majority of Americans want? Why can’t we even have a proper debate? Two very interesting points. The first:
Everyone here is interested in the power of ideas and ideas rule the world and we all agree on that. The difficulty in the immigration debate is what I called in Alien Nation back in 1995 “Hitler’s Revenge.” The elites of the West emerged from WWII utterly traumatized by the experience of confronting Nazism. It was so traumatic that they went overboard on the opposite side. They became convinced that any discussion of ethnicity or cultural heritage at all, let alone race, was unthinkable. You couldn’t address these things without being a Nazi.
Second is something I’ve not seen before, at least anything beyond slogans of the rich benefiting from immigration:
But there’s a secondary finding that hasn’t has gotten even as much publicity as the general finding: Although immigration doesn’t benefit in aggregate to the native born, it does cause a redistribution of income from labor to capital. It’s running somewhere at 2-3% of GDP, it’s a very large number.
Republicans who benefit from this redistribution are the big donors.
You hear a lot about how the Republican Party is a captive of an extremist faction—that is, the Tea Party. But I actually think that the real extremist faction is not the voters, but the donors.
In some ways, you can interpret the GOP’s history in the last 20 years as a kind of donor riot. The donors just simply refuse tolerate any kind of restriction on immigration at all. They go straight to the candidates, and above all to the consultant class, and tell them they won’t spend money on elections.
There’s lots more, including an account of how Israel recently solved its illegal immigration problem. Solved it. Because they knew it was a matter of national survival. But Israel has an identity as a Jewish state. We have lost our identity, as those who asserted there was such a thing as an American culture (not popular culture but one concerning traditions, morals, politics, religion, etc.) have been stigmatized as racists and have, for the most part, shut up.