Previously, we had embedded a video of the conference speech, but since this speech was delivered, both VDARE.com and American Renaissance have been banned from YouTube—because of our success, really. Watch the speech on Bitchute Video here.
Peter Brimelow writes: This is an adaptation, and a translation into American, of the talk ("Immigration: Is This The Breaking Point?") I gave to the American Renaissance conference on April 17-19 2015. Many thanks to Jared Taylor and all involved.
Thank you Jared. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Jared has been kind enough to invite me to speak at American Renaissance conferences before, but I’ve always wimped out. And I am here now because, well…John F. Kennedy said he became a war hero because “It was involuntary, they sank my boat.” That is basically what happened to me!
Of course, after Alien Nation, my 1995 book on immigration, the die was really cast. I was with Forbes Magazine at the time. Alien Nation caused a huge stink, it was denounced, reviewed twice by the New York Times and all that kind of thing; and it upset the Forbes family terribly. So it was never mentioned in Forbes Magazine—a ludicrous situation: one of the most prominent writers at Forbes, but his book is not mentioned in his own magazine.
That was kind of a bad sign! And things have continued downhill since then. For the last decade or so, I was a columnist for Dow Jones MarketWatch, writing about very arcane financial issues, never about politics. But more recently it became increasingly clear that I was being offered a choice between Mainstream Media and VDARE.com. This was irritating because, as Jared says, at my advanced age I have a young family to feed.
But at the age of 67, you get to the point where you say to yourself: if not now, when? When am I going to be actually allowed to write about the things I want to write about?
I think this is important to note, because one of my general themes is that doom is not inevitable, despite the title of John Derbyshire's book (We are Doomed). (By the way, John has copies of his second anthology published by VDARE.com, which has finally managed to crawl through the publishing process, and he'll be happy to sign them for you). This phenomenon of repression is not completely new in the Main Stream Media.
When I began in the MSM over 40 years ago, it was a very Bad Thing to be anti-Communist. Recently, I’ve discovered that no one under the age of 40 has any idea what the Cold War was like (although they do know about the Holocaust, oddly enough). But there really were communist cells in major papers that worked to repress non-communists and to promote their line. There's a wonderful novel about this, by the way, by Irwin Shaw, called the Troubled Air, which I really recommend to you. Similarly, there's a fine biography of Ralph Ingersoll (Ingersoll by Roy Hoopes), who eventually became a capitalist and founded a whole chain of newspapers, but who was at least a sympathizer with the Communist cells within Time Inc. and the newspaper PM. They were there, and they were working hard.
So I survived in the MSM by going into financial journalism, a repellant and boring subject interesting only to those interested in it. But they leave you alone there. It’s like Bre’r Rabbit and the Tar Baby story—he persuaded Bre’r Fox to throw him into the briar patch because he could survive there. I survived in the briar patch of financial journalism.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a sort of interglacial, a brief period when Jared’s book Paved With Good Intentions was published, and my Alien Nation was published, and The Bell Curve was published, and so on. Then, quite suddenly, this new Red Terror came surging back, orders of magnitude worse than McCarthyism (which was justified anyway), and run by the same people, the same sorts of people, who ran the Communist cells.
When I was younger, I used to believe elaborate socio-psychological theories of how this happened—Joe Sobran, who I’m sure many of you remember, used to have this concept of the “Hive,” that all liberals do the same thing at the same time because they have this collective mindset. But now I think it’s all a damn conspiracy.
And I think that the discovery of that JournoList listserv group, where MSM Leftists were actually conspiring during Obama’s 2008 election campaign, to beat up on conservatives and accuse them of racism, proves it.
As Jared will tell you, it’s gotten much harder to get on talk radio than it used to be. VDARE.com no longer announces in advance when our writers are going to be on radio or TV, because we’ve learned that Cultural Marxist enforcers like Media Matters or the Southern Poverty Law Center call the radio station and tell them they’re going to have a neo-Nazi on and the radio station will back down. These kids who do the booking for these shows don’t know anything. They are too frightened to take the risk.
The reason for this intensified Red Terror, I think is demographic. The Left knows that the U.S. is very close to a tipping point—very close to getting a non-White majority in the US. Already, the majority of children in the US are non-White.
(When the Census Bureau announced that news, by the way, the Editor of MarketWatch told me he had fifteen of my colleagues come into his office or email him to tell him not to let me write about it. Not that I’d ever written about political issues for MarketWatch, but they knew about me from the attacks by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And their reaction was they wanted to endorse those attacks. They absolutely, positively wanted to see suppression of alternative points of view. This is the atmosphere in the MSM today).
The Left knows they are very close to victory—but also they know they could be easily stopped—the demographic shift could be reversed, it could be finessed in various ways, Americans could wake up as to what’s going on. So it’s essential to the Left to keep White consciousness suppressed and to keep Americans in general divided.
It’s no longer a conspiracy, it is an outright lynch mob. And they actually came all the way down into this obscure financial rathole that I was working in.
Now, frankly, this is a very bad lookout for younger people. Jared and I and John Derbyshire are too old to care. But I don’t know how you would operate now in the Main Stream Media as a younger person. You would have to be completely underground. I think that this is actually what’s happening, by the way, with the younger generation of Conservatism Inc. writers—some are actually very sympathetic, but they never say so in public. They tell me “I read VDARE, but I can’t admit it!” They are very sensibly underground.
The Breaking Point? Which Way?
We chose this title, “Immigration: The Breaking Point” because Jared likes to get things prepared very far in advance. (You’ve got your speech written out already, haven’t you, Jared?) [Answer: yes]. It’s ambiguous, because it wasn’t clear what was going to happen to Obama’s unilateral Executive Amnesty. Of course, I believed it was going to be overthrown because the Republican leadership told me so, and they wouldn’t lie about a thing like that, would they?
It is important to realize what a tremendous unsung achievement it has been, over the past 14 years, to stop Amnesty and the illogically-associated, but nevertheless always concomitant, Immigration Surge. Three times this thing has come up in the shape of legislation. And three times it has been stopped by just absolutely massive inchoate resistance from the American grassroots.
And that’s why Obama ultimately had to go for Executive Amnesty. He didn’t want to do it, he was very nervous about it, there were lots of indications of that. You can see he was nervous by the way it was designed. It's only for three years. It doesn't cover H-1b—they originally wanted to bring many more guest workers by executive action, but they didn't do it because they decided to keep the legal focus as narrow as possible. As even Speaker Boehner pointed out, Obama had repeatedly explained to his more rabid supporters why Executive Amnesty was illegal and he couldn’t do it.
But then he had to do it anyway—because he couldn’t get Amnesty through Congress.
So the GOP had three options. The most obvious—VDARE.com was saying this back in the summer of last year: they should have moved to impeach Obama. That's the appropriate Constitutional answer. And it was the appropriate answer last summer when the southern border collapsed and a great wave of so-called refugee kids came in from Central America. It was quite clear that the Administration had no intention of stopping them, that he wasn’t enforcing the law he swore to uphold. So he should have been impeached.
The GOP leadership put impeachment off, because they said they had the power of the purse and they were going to stop Executive Amnesty that way. And Congress does indeed have the power of the purse and it has indeed repeatedly stopped things that it hasn't wanted by cutting off funding. Including the Vietnam War—that's how the Democrats finally finished the South Vietnamese off.
So the GOP Leadership could have stopped Obama either by a wholesale shutdown of the government or at least shutting down the Department of Homeland Security.
And, third, they could—and Ted Cruz, to his credit, pointed this out—simply refuse to confirm nominations. Above all, the nomination of the new attorney general, Loretta Lynch. They’ve got the votes to do that, they could do it easily. [They didn’t]. That was one obvious way of stopping Executive Amnesty.
But in fact, the GOP Leadership has done absolutely nothing. They’ve achieved nothing.
But who knows how long that’s going to last? I was talking to a conservative lawyer I really respect last night, and he quipped that the rule of thumb now with litigation is that what the Red states want is unconstitutional and what the Blue states want is constitutional. So he has no hope that this judicial decision will ultimately hold, as it is appealed up the system.
James Kirkpatrick wrote a piece for VDARE.com in January saying this Congress was the “Hour Of Decision” for the Republican Leadership. Other people said it was the Moment of Truth. It has turned out to be an hour of capitulation—and a moment of lies.
Well, why have the Republican Establishment done this? The obvious explanation: they are in the pockets of the donors. That is particularly true of the Republican campaign consultants. Those of you who don’t remember the Cold War won’t remember a time when we didn’t think about campaign consultants They’re a relatively new form of infection that has gotten into the body politic really only in the last 20-25 years. Their intention is to raise as much money as possible and spend it on themselves. They’re much less interested in winning elections.
But I don’t think that is a complete explanation. Look at the situation with the Iran treaty in Congress right now. The donors may not want patriotic immigration reform, but they do want war in Iraq. VDARE.com doesn’t get involved in foreign policy, although I personally can’t see the point of this war in terms of America’s national interest. But it used to be you needed 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.
I think the problem may just be that the GOP leaders are just really stupid. They just can’t think their way through things at all.
This is a particularly telling moment for me— this breaking point. It’s almost 20 years to the day since Alien Nation was published. It’s been almost 23 years almost to the month since I published the National Review cover story that ultimately grew into Alien Nation. (You will have noticed the celebrations.)
In 2012, the 20th anniversary of the cover story, I had Ed Rubenstein do a calculation. He found that, if the U.S. had imposed an immigration moratorium within a year of the cover story, there would now be 26 million fewer people living in the US. And the date at which whites (which of course means Americans—because in 1965 whites were what we meant when we said “Americans”) would go into a minority would have been pushed back from 2032 or so to something like 2077—for practical purposes, forever.
The Immigration Act of 1965 and the collapse of enforcement against illegal immigration certainly had done enormous demographic damage by 1992. And that damage would have continued to metastasize, as the immigrants had American-born children.
But the assumptions involved in a population projection extending out to 2077 are heroic. All kinds of things could happen—above all, falls in fertility rates. Most people don’t realize, for example, that black fertility rates in the U.S. have fallen below replacement level. It is just not the case that fertility rates remain high forever. And that could equally happen with Hispanics. We may never get to a white minority.
Furthermore, the electorate is going to remain majority American even longer, because you have to be over 18 to vote, and you have to be legal to vote….in most cases!
So an immigration moratorium in 1992 would have a great deal of good.
Now, I didn’t expect 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 said this in a VDARE.com article in 2001.
The reason for this is that it generally takes about 30 years for big new issues to work their way through the political system. Thus the Immigration Restriction League was founded in 1894, and the final cutoff was in 1924. In the current case, FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the first and best-funded patriotic immigration reform organization, was founded in 1979. So I thought it would be reasonable that the cutoff would at least be debated by 2010.
And the amazing thing is that it was being debated by 2010! VDARE.com published some excellent articles on this by William L. Houston (if he’s here, I wish he would identify himself, I’ve never actually met him!) In 2010, literally dozens of states were passing legislation modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070 and immigration was an issue in all kinds of local elections…and elected all kinds of Republican legislators.
But what happened was, after 2010, when Boehner became Speaker of the House, he didn’t bring up any of these issues. It’s like chess—he should have bought the issues up and forced the Democratic-controlled Senate to block them and gotten the issues into public debate, they’re all intensely popular. People do want immigration reform, Official English, an end to Birthright Citizenship and so on. But he didn’t do anything like that.
At this point, William Houston gave up writing on electoral politics and stomped off in disgust, and I can’t get him to write for us anymore.
So the immigration issue was emerging—it’s just been aborted, in a very unusual and questionable way.
All It Would Take Is ONE SPEECH
Now I want to say, to emphasize here, that I haven’t given up on the idea of Patriotic Immigration Reform happening—of immigration being cut off. All it would take to get this issue into politics is one speech.
In Britain—the British people in the audience will testify to this—the impact of Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech was absolutely enormous. And it did stave off mass immigration for a generation. He was denounced, of course, but at the same time the politicians were too frightened to increase immigration—until Tony Blair was elected. That’s when the floodgates were really opened in Britain.
Similarly in the U.S., the issue of Communist subversion—which was a genuine problem, even if no-one under 30 has heard of it—really exploded after Joseph McCarthy’s speech in 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia.
Note that, in in both cases, in Powell’s case and McCarthy’s case, the preconditions were already forming. Quite a number of people had been talking about immigration in Britain for a long time before Powell, they just weren’t as prominent. In McCarthy’s case, people forget that Alger Hiss was already in jail, for perjury related to his testimony about his activities as a Soviet agent, before McCarthy spoke.
It’s just that suddenly one spark starts the conflagration. And that could still happen in the U.S. All it needs is a spark—and all it needs is one ambitious politician.
For example, I was very impressed by the fact that Scott Walker has said he’s changed his mind on Amnesty and that he’s also now critical of legal immigration. It’s not clear how far he’s changed his mind, or if he’s changed it back, but he did say it. It’s at least the homage that vice pays to virtue He can see that this is a good issue to get around Jeb Bush with.
So I still think it’s possible that, in this Presidential election cycle, someone (Walker? Rick Santorum?) will decide to drop the bomb on the immigration issue. In that case, the sense that this is the “breaking point” on immigration could be optimistic. I don’t want to rule this out. But I also think that we may have to face the fact that it may be a Breaking Point in a negative sense.
In other words, immigration may not get into politics in time for the historic American nation to retain control of the country it created.
We may have to move to “Plan B”.
I have to say I anticipated this in Alien Nation. I had a passage in which I said that if immigration is not cut off, then
Deep into the twenty-first century, throughout the lifetime of my little son…
(Alexander had just been born. He had blue eyes and blond hair. There’s just one (1) reference to his blue eyes and blond hair in the book, in the absolutely unimpeachable context of the absurdity of immigrants getting Affirmative Action preferences at the expense of the native-born, but this is what Alien Nation is most famous for, for reasons I’ll leave you to contemplate)
…American patriots will be fighting to salvage as much as possible from the shipwreck of their great republic. It will be a big wreck, and there will be a lot to salvage. But the struggle must be contrasted sadly with the task of completing the “Great Society” upon which Americans were encouraged to think they were embarking in 1965
…i.e. the year in which when Immigration Act opened the floodgates. That was the point where America could have become Switzerland. It was 90% white. But in fact, it opted, or at any rate it was compelled, to become Brazil.
If Americans do go into a minority in their own country, then the historic America—the America known to history—will simply cease to exist. The country will probably break up, because the different parts of it will as unalike as any regions in the world. It may well be that Richard Spencer will get his ethnostates!
The nightmare scenario, of course, is South Africa: that what we at VDARE.com call the “historic American nation”—the nation that had evolved by 1965, it’s not exclusively a racial entity, it’s an ethnocultural entity—will be so paralyzed by White Guilt, as Richard said in his talk, that it will never defend itself.
It will be like one of these grubs that gets stung and paralyzed by a wasp which then proceeds lay its eggs on the grub, and the larvae eat the grub alive—one of the unpleasant facts of biology that I have learned from my four-year old daughter, who is very interested in science,
That’s the nightmare.
So how do we go about salvaging from the wreck?
Of course, the fact is that I don’t really know. We are in uncharted territory. There’s never been a case of a country abolishing itself in thscenariois way—and yet still having within itself the most powerful, the most accomplished, best organized group, which has simply lost control of its own polity, its own nation-state. That’s what we call at VDARE.com “the National Question”—can the Americans retain control of its polity; will the U.S. 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, in some ways bigger.
But I want to again emphasize that minority status is not the end for the historic American nation. It is the beginning of a new chapter.
For example, it is really quite clear that Hispanics and blacks don’t get along with each other. How, if you read Jared’s book White Identity, how many dozens of cases of fist fights and gang wars are there in high schools where there are no whites present at all—but they still don’t get on together? The Left is going to have trouble holding its coalition together.
One example, alas, of a way that we are adapting this new reality, the biggest change in VDARE.com since we began, is all that now almost our writers use pseudonyms. I don’t let students in particular use their own names, because the risk is too high. So we are already behaving as if we are in an occupied country.
Let me review the wish list that I set up in Alien Nation.
First: an immigration moratorium. That is, there should be no net immigration. We can still have immigration, because a couple hundred thousand people leave every year, but no net immigration. Ironically, two to three hundred thousand is the number that Ted 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 in an atrocious way to colonize parts of America that are not sufficiently “diverse.”
And that would encourage, what Mitt Romney famously called “self deportation”—he only said it once, which shows you how sensitive this issue is—what we normally call attrition through enforcement. Kris Kobach has estimated that about half the stock of illegals in the U.S. would leave in five years if the laws were actually enforced.
I also think we should throw in there a reorientation of immigration toward whites. In effect, the 1965 simply choked off immigration from the traditional sources. Why is it okay for Hispanics to want more Hispanics, but not okay for whites to want more whites? That’s a question that is worth asking.
The resolution, the way in which this situation unwinds, may be more like the end of Reconstruction (a period I’m trying to get Jared to write an article about).
Most of you know that on the Jefferson Memorial this ringing phrase is carved: “Nothing is more surely written in the book of fate, then that these people”—these American blacks— “are to be free.” What isn’t commonly realized is that Jefferson went on to say “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live 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 the end of Reconstruction, the North saying, “Oh, maybe the South was right after all, it really is very difficult for these two races to live together under free institutions.” They didn’t actually admit that—but they stopped trying to enforce integration. And gradually, the situation resolved itself until it ended up at the extreme solution of the imposition of Jim Crow. (In the 1890s—Jim Crow came quite late).
We may see something like that happen with America’s post-1965 Immigration disaster. Small changes can have big results. The 1965 Immigration Act itself was not presented as a major step forward. It was said to be a purely symbolic measure. But it had these profound results.
There are lots of signs that the Left is bored with blacks too. My wife recently graduated from Loyola Chicago, which is on the edge of the ghetto. And yet, when I used to visit her there, I saw no sign that the Loyola Left was interested in the black problem at all. What they were interested in was homosexuals—gays. And, to a less extent, Hispanics. So we may find the same sort of solution here. The immigration disaster may be dismantled by small measures.
We have list of quite a number of these measures in VDARE.com. For example, our writer Federale, who really is a whistleblower in the bowels of the federal beast, has pointed out that if what Obama is doing is illegal, then the bureaucrats in the DHS have the right not to do it. They could simply refuse to do these illegal acts. And they ought to be protected, by the Republican majority in Congress simply passing a whistleblower act, saying they can’t be punished for not following the Obama Regime’s illegal instructions.
I like the idea of abolishing the utterly irrational “Hispanic” category in the Census. That all by itself will enormously mess up Affirmative Action, and I think that it will prevent the professional activists from assembling this curious anti-nation within America.
I think we could continue to work on Affirmative Action, particularly because there are increasing conflicts between the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. There’s not enough pie to go around.
I’m extremely interested in abolishing Birthright Citizenship, which is an anomaly and a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. And, actually, the patriotic immigration reform groups inside the Beltway, whom we generally don’t think that much of, are trying to coordinate a campaign to get Birthright Citizenship abolished. We’ve calculated that all by itself this would halve the drift of the Republicans, or what I call the Generic American Party, the party that draws on white vote, towards 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, they just wouldn’t be citizens, and their children wouldn’t be citizens. But who cares about the American working class? Certainly not the Left.
I think dual citizenship should ended. When you swear to become a citizen of the US, you actually swear to “Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen.” But it’s a dead letter, because of a Supreme Court decision on behalf of an Israeli who wanted to have American dual citizenship. That means the Israelis won’t like the abolition of dual citizenship very much. But at the same time, dual citizenship has greatly enhanced the ability of Muslim terrorists to come in and out of the US. So maybe the Israelis will let us do it now.
I think we ought to have Official English. I think that there should be English-only laws in the U.S. just as there is French-only legislation in Quebec.
All of these things are enormously popular.
What I actually think is the Americans should invade Cuba—and then maybe they could have Miami back! This isn’t impossible, by the way. Again, it may not happen for explicitly pro-American reasons, but not all communist regimes end peacefully. If you think about the chaos in Romania or Yugoslavia, it’s quite possible that the Americans may have to interfere to restore order.
More generally, while we are on the subject of happy thoughts, I think there is a case for Americans simply occupying Central America, and setting up governments there that will undertake to stop the illegal immigration from the South passing through. The American and the Israelis did have deals like this with Libya and Egypt, not to allow illegal immigrants to pass through, which collapsed after the Arab Spring. (Of course, Europe should simply reoccupy the African coast, as it was occupied a hundred years ago, to stop these people from coming through).
I think we should talk about secession—at the state and local levels to start off with.
The whole point of federalism was to allow the several communities to have political representation—not to be swamped by the population centers. But these states are too big now anyway, even apart from the stresses introduced by non-traditional immigration.
My candidate to begin is Texas. Texas already has the right to split itself up into five states any time it wants, it was a condition when it entered the Union. I often ask Texans about this— my wife is Texan—and they often react somewhat uneasily. My position: I import a slogan from the Vietnam War Era, which I’m old enough to remember—“Two, three, many Texases!” (Remember that, Jared?) The more Texases the better!
While we’re on the subjects of slogans, I think we need to get more slogans and catchphrases into the popular culture. Although the popular culture is controlled by the other side, we’ve been quite successful at doing this in some areas. For example, “Political Correctness”—everyone knows what that is. “The War On Christmas,” which I’m particularly interested in—according to Wikipedia, I was partly responsible for starting it, which caused The Daily Beast to run an article on the Evil Roots of Bill O’Reilly’s War On Christmas Campaign—the only way I’ve gotten any credit, O’Reilly certainly didn’t give me any credit for it! “Social Justice Warriors”—a very useful concept that has just suddenly become widely accepted, mysteriously. There’s this interesting thing, “The Mantra”—“Anti-racism means anti-white.” Very interesting thing, very widely known, how that became accepted I don’t know. I recommend the slogan “Whites have rights”. How can anybody object to that?
And of course the single most important catchphrase is “Treason”—that what the other side are doing, deliberately aiming to transform America, is treason. That’s the answer to their incessant hysteria about “racism.”
I have a VDARE.com article making this catchphrase point about the Indiana disaster, Governor Mike Pence’s capitulation on the religious freedom legislation. The problem here is that there’s a mantra on other side, “discrimination,” which has been hammered into Americans’ heads as being a Bad Thing. But the counter to that is “Freedom of Association”—we should 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. I think we should hammer on the concept of “Christophobia.” I was appalled to find the other day when I googled on the word “Christophobia” that VDARE.com was one of the very few places where it is actually mentioned, although it is very clearly one of the driving forces in American culture right now.
I know that some of you don’t want to fight on the gay marriage issue, on the homosexual issue, but the fact is it can’t be contained, they won’t stop at that. 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, it has to be abolished now. It doesn’t work. We tried it. It was a mistake. It’s just turned into a staging area for more anti-white indoctrination.
And we need—Matt Tait was quite right about this— to form alliances. The problem is in this particular area that the Christian groups are very chary about forming alliances with anybody. But look what’s happened to them! They’ve been totally rolled.
And I think also Matt was right to consider the question of internal secession—people creating their own organizations. It’s amazing to me that Russian civil society survived the Soviet regime. It showed up in a number of ways, one of which was the survival of the church. Another example: one of the first things they did after the fall of Communism was to change the name of Leningrad back to St. Petersburg. For seventy years, two generations, people in the rest of the world had forgotten that it was once called St. Petersburg. But, obviously, not in Russia. Now people are forgetting it used to be Leningrad.
So these things can happen. I think we see people actually are forming these informal organizations, because that’s what the whole phenomenon of whitopia is. People will not live together, the races naturally self-segregate.
And I think that this is the importance of our websites and conferences like this. It is much more important in this situation, of complete political dispossession, then it would have been before, because we have to build networks. We have to get to know each other.
Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents—I know Counter-Currents is not everyone’s cup of tea, but he wrote a very interesting piece recently discussing an attack on him and Counter-Currents by the Washington Post. They linked to him, which is very unusual for the Main Stream Media, but he said that very little traffic resulted. People who read the Washington Post are just not interested in the rest of the world. What he does get traffic from is other Dissident Right organizations when they link to him.
So, the Dissident Right is achieving a critical mass here, under the radar. And we have to continue with it.
Now I’ll turn to my one big idea. Forty-odd years ago, in Canada, an ambassador from the U.S. Libertarian Party came up to see us. (In those days, I used to hang around with libertarians). He talked about the Libertarian Party and he said that Americans don’t see ideas in principle, they don’t think about things in theory. The only way to 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 any elections or anything, but I saw the other day a headline saying Contenders Battle for the Libertarian Vote in New Hampshire [Hillary Vaughn, FoxNews.com, April 16, 2015]. I don’t know how many of you have been to New Hampshire but the average New Hampshirite that you see in a coffee shop is not sitting around reading Ayn Rand. But there is a Libertarian party there and it has defined enough voters for the professional politicians to be interested in them.
Wouldn’t we love it if the headline was “Contenders Battle 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 particularly note of this [he/ she/ it didn’t—obviously terrified of the idea], that Jared Taylor is going to run for election in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District!
[At this point, the ever-modest Taylor leapt to his feet and started to make Shermanesque gesticulations. It doesn’t show on the video, but PB can be seen laughing dismissively]. Wait a minute!
What he is going to do is run in the general, not the primary, because he can get into the general and he can get a protest vote against the useless RINO in there at the moment and, who knows, maybe tip the seat to the Democrats. Rule or ruin!
And furthermore, he’s going to keep doing it! People think that running repeatedly for election is sort of like Harold Stassen and you become a joke figure. But I’d like to point out to you that Norman Thomas ran for president as a Socialist six times and at the end of his life every plank in his original platform had been adopted!
So all of those in favor of Jared running?
The motion is carried! Jared?
[Watch this space].
I have a dream!