The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Brimelow Archive
The Brimelow-Cotto Interview
Kudlow, the Reign Of Terror, and Social Media Censorship
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Above, Editor Peter Brimelow and Joseph R. Cotto of the San Francisco Review Of Books talk about the Two Minutes Hate following the revelation that Brimelow attended Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow’s 71st birthday party and the Reign of Terror of which it is part. This follows the firing of Trump speechwriter Darren Beattie for speaking at a conference at which Brimelow also spoke. There’s a lot about this in the MSM.

Editor Brimelow just replied to Newsweek :

Text below is adapted from that interview:

Cotto: When news broke that Larry Kudlow had invited you to his birthday party the reaction from him was pretty swift.

I think he said that he had no idea about your views, he only knew you pretty much as a financial journalist. Did you find his answer to be honest, serious, or however you should like to call it?

Peter Brimelow: Well, look, Joseph, I’ve known Larry for very nearly 40 years. As a matter of fact, he offered me a job when he went into the White House after Reagan was elected. That would have been probably very early 1981, maybe very late 1980. He’s been he’s been very kind to me personally. He knew my first wife, who died, and he met my second wife, Lydia, and started to invite us to these big summer dinners that he has down in southern Connecticut. He’s been very sweet to us and I don’t want to get him into [more!] trouble.

I mean, after John O’Sullivan and I were purged from National Review, a lot of people simply stopped talking to us—because they’re cowards and swine. Larry didn’t do that.

Of course, he was at National Review when I wrote my cover story on immigration in 1992, which subsequently grew into Alien Nation. He never liked it. We just agreed to disagree.

I think Larry handled it wrong tactically—he should just have said what I said: that we were friends for 40 years and we agreed to disagree on immigration. But he was obviously rattled. I feel sorry for him.

And I feel sorry for us. Because what it shows us is that Conservativism Inc still simply cannot handle race-oriented attacks. They just go pieces immediately. And until that’s resolved, we’re just not going get anywhere.

For example, in the room, there were like 50-60 people, and one was the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Connecticut, Bob Stefanowski, who had just won the primary—we didn’t vote for him because we thought his opponent sounded better on immigration. He was immediately jumped on by the local press who said “were you in this room with this white nationalist?” What he said was: “I didn’t know anything about it, I disavow, I disavow, I disavow”! [ Bob Stefanowski Says He Didn’t Know White Nationalist Promoter Was At Larry Kudlow Party, By Neil Vigdor, Hartford Courant, August 22, 2018]. What he could have said was: I don’t know anything about it, I’ll find out. But what he should have said was: he’s a friend of Larry’s, this is a personal dinner, a birthday party, I’m simply not going to extend the totalitarian reach of Political Correctness into birthday parties.

Of course what he ultimately ought to have said was: Brimelow is right on immigration because he’s supporting Trump’s line, Trump is right on immigration, Connecticut should not be a Sanctuary State, we’re going fight on this question, and that’s what’s we’re going to make the gubernatorial race about. But as a Conservative Incer, he’s simply too stupid to do that. And that’s why he’s going to lose.

Joseph Cotto: Do you think that the media was going after you and using Kudlow as a means to do that?

PB: Oh, it’s nothing to do with me. I’m completely irrelevant. The only reason this has become important—and I should say we’ve been going to these Kudlow summer dinner parties for 10, 11 years—is simply and solely as a way of hurting Trump.

And it’s also a way of trying to demonize the idea that immigration policy is not set in stone, it could be reformed, immigration could be reduced. The Ruling Class does not want that to happen. They want immigration to continue at these massive levels in order to Elect A New People.

JC: How do you think the Trump Administration should have dealt with this?

PB : You’re talking specifically now about the firing of the speechwriter Darren Beattie, who was a tenure-track academic at Duke and resigned that post to join the White House. They did treat him very, very badly. The only reason he was fired was that he showed up at Paul Gottfried’s H.L. Mencken Club in 2016—before the election— and gave an entirely unexceptionable speech (but then it was an entirely unexceptionable conference) and Main Stream Media just ramped one of these Two Minute Hates about it. Of course, the White House was stupid to fire him, and they paid for it with this subsequent week of publicity where Larry Kudlow was attacked. You know this guy Robert Costa of the Washington Post actually put out a tweet saying, okay, if Brimelow is the bright line who else has talked to Brimelow?

I mean, I’m 70 years old, I know vast numbers of these people, I’ve been in financial journalism for 40 years. So, of course, there’s all kinds of people they could out as having once had coffee with me or something. The White House should simply have cut it off at the pass by saying: “What Darren Beattie did was unexceptionable—bugger off!”

Excuse me, I’m not supposed to swear on this podcast! And that’s English swearing, it’s not even American swearing!

But they didn’t do that because they have no courage. And that’s entirely typical of these RINOs and Conservative Incers who infest the Trump White House.

I don’t believe the President knew anything about it because the President does not believe in retreating. If confronted with this, he would have fought. But I’m sure he knew nothing about it.

JC: That’s my perspective as well. I just can’t imagine that the president has enough time to even be aware of something like this.

PB: He could have been. Lyndon Johnson would have been. But that’s not how he operates. I’m extremely sorry for Beattie because, as I say, he not only sacrificed a tenure-track position, but he’s never going get back into the academic world because of the way those swine operate.

John Derbyshire keeps saying that what we’re looking with American academe right now is similar to what Henry VIII looked at with the monasteries in Britain. He decided the whole damn system has to be torn to ground, the monasteries dissolved, the monks expelled, and start from scratch. That’s we have to do here with these universities. We have to tear them to the ground and start from scratch. They’re totally politically corrupt and they cost a huge amount of money.

That that’s kind of a digression, Joseph, go ahead!

JC: Some thought the White House would let Kudlow go—

PB: This again raises the point, is the president involved? The President does know Larry Kudlow. He’s known him for many years as a TV talking head. So they can’t get rid of Larry without telling the President. I can’t believe he would let that happen. I think I think Larry’s safe

And I’m happy about that because I like Larry personally. I don’t think he handled himself very well, but, you know, in a situation like that, unless you’re really trained and unless you really know the whole race debate, which these Conservatism Incers don’t, you can easily get rattled.

JC: That POLITICO article about the Claremont email list featuring Charles Johnson’s statement—do you think that served to fan the flames?[Trump speechwriter’s ouster sparks racially charged debate | The Claremont Institute shuttered an email list after an exchange over white nationalism blew up, By Eliana Johnson, POLITICO, August 23, 2018]

PB: Yeah, we just posted a blog about this article by Eliana Johnson, who turns out to be the daughter of Scott Johnson at Power Line, greatly to both of their discredits. It’s just the usual disgraceful rubbish. Charles Johnson in his comment on the Claremont list said specifically that “neither [John] Derbyshire nor Brimelow are white nationalists” and she cut that out. Similarly, she edited what I’d said. They just want to make things as inflammatory as possible. It’s just part of the war. The Ruling Class, the Main Stream Media, want to establish the point that you cannot oppose the current immigration policy respectably and legitimately. Anyone who opposes immigration policy is a neo-Nazi.

You know, the president, bless him, tweeted out last night that he wanted [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo to look into the question of the South African farm expropriations and farm murders. And this is caused the most enormous hysteria in the Main Stream Media and the New York Times actually said “Mr. Trump echoed a talking point among white supremacists.” [Trump’s South Africa Tweet Seems to Embrace Racist Narrative on Land Dispute, By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Norimitsu Onishi, August 23, 2018]

Now the talking point in question is: do you like white South African farmers being murdered? So this now is the new definition of white supremacy: not liking whites being murdered. So they’re moving the debate along to the point where it’s simply not possible to discuss immigration policy or its demographic impacts.

JC: The Charles Johnson quote was very misleadingly edited, if you read his longer statement which he uploaded to his Facebook page.

PB: This woman should be ashamed of herself. But on the other hand, she’s trying to make a career in the Main Stream Media and smearing patriots is part of that.

JC: The White Nationalist/ White Supremacist label is applied in an ever-increasingly broad fashion to the point where these very specific things no longer seem to have a clear-cut meaning. Why?

PB: I think the critical issue is that the Left is desperate to prevent American whites—who of course until the 1965 Immigration Act would have been called Americans, because they were the overwhelming majority of the population—from realizing what’s been done to them by immigration policy until it’s too late. The Left wants to Elect A New People—they want to bring in Hispanics and Asians and African blacks and so on with the intention of outvoting the Historic American Nation. And they’re desperate that whites not realize that this is going on until it’s too late. And so they demonize any signs of even implicit white consciousness, by calling it White Nationalist and White Supremacist and of course they elide the two, they treat the two as if they’re the same.

Trump’s victory in this election was quite clearly an implicit white vote, in the sense that whites gravitated to Trump without him actually saying very much to attract them. He was just visibly not a Democrat and not a not a multiculturalist and that was enough.

And that’s driven the Left absolutely crazy, because they know that their current plan to take over America by Electing A New People could be frustrated very simply through legislative action, or even executive action.

JC: As the Kudlow-related media onslaught crashed down on you, how did you handle that? Was there any strategy you had ahead of time?

PB: No. I mean, for one thing, these things are completely unpredictable. But on the other hand, they’re also predictable, in the sense that anytime surfaces in the Main Stream Media, we’re going be denounced in the most hysterical terms. We just go on refuting what’s been said and not backing down. Which is what the president does. He never backs down.

JC: Your website seems to be subject to increasingly strict scrutiny by YouTube. The San Francisco Review of Books has done interviews with you before, and those interviews have just had actions taken against them. I’ll read what they said:

Regarding your account: San Francisco Review of Books

We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: How much will Republicans need the white vote during years to come? Peter Brimelow explains. has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s):

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Martinique, Malta, New Caledonia, Netherlands, French Polynesia, Poland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Portugal, Reunion, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte

YouTube blocks content where necessary to comply with local laws. Please review our help center article on legal complaints //

The YouTube Team

Here’s the video:

I certainly didn’t think there was anything even vaguely objectionable about this video, it’s just talking about political demographics and how they relate to partisan control. This whole thing says to me is that people are using “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” outside of what the terms traditionally have meant, they’re just applying them to views they don’t like, and not just as a matter of shouting them down in the public square but having legal action taken against an innocuous video

PB: It seems to me extraordinary that there would be any legal issues in Europe triggered by discussing the demographics of the American election. What possible implication could that have for Europe?

Of course, we’ve known about this reflex for a while. We started looking at this question of the white vote after the 2000 election. Steve Sailer wrote an article pointing out that the fashionable view that GOP had to appeal to minorities was actually wrong, that they would be much better off maximizing their white vote, which was historically low, and that that would easily swamp any conceivable gains the GOP could get from the minority vote. And that’s the point at which we were cut off by whatisname who runs Free Republic. He announced at that point that that no links would be allowed to be posted to Free Republic because we were obviously a racist site— although we were just discussing the arithmetic of the of the electoral situation in the U.S. and Free Republic is supposed to be a right-wing site, a conservative site, a Republican site!

Of course, the real problem there, I think, is that Free Republic is actually run on Republican money. And the Republican consultant class, and the Bushes and so on, simply did not want this question raised.

Well, 16 years later Trump wins precisely by appealing to the white vote. And of course it’s also true that, in winning this election, he did no worse among Hispanics and blacks—in fact in some ways he did better—than Romney did, even though he spent absolutely nothing on Hispanic and black outreach.

So this seems to be some kind of a trigger point for the Political Class—just discussing the demographics of the vote, at all, is not allowed, even though the Democrats gloat about it all the time and gloat about the fact they’re going to be able to win elections because they’re Electing A New People.

It’s very, very bad. But, Joseph, I noticed tonight that ALIPAC, Bill Gheen’s organization, has said it’s gotten Facebook to back down, so I really urge you to complain about this.

JC: Very encouraging news!

PB: I think there’s a lot of erratic issues with these bannings. I think some of them are done by operatives living in India who just ban anything they don’t like without any regard to what the standards of debate are in this country

JC: We did another You Tube interview about your perspective on what you call The War On Christmas, and that one got a complaint—YouTube didn’t actually say the nature of the complaint—and it was banned in the same countries as the white vote video, and in Israel.

PB: I have to say I do think the Israelis are capable of handling a video discussing the War On Christmas in America without any particular distress. I don’t think that it would cause them to keel over and drop dead if they heard this argument. So this is really a bizarre thing that YouTube is doing.

As you know, one of our one of our interests at is the attempt to drive Christmas out of the public square, which we think is closely related to immigration and the desire to remake the American population. But it’s obviously absurd on its face that this is something that people shouldn’t be allowed to listen to. If they don’t like it then they can go away.

I saw in the New York Times this morning, Joseph, a story that Facebook is banning the Iranian and some other government, I forget which, because they’ve apparently started Facebook operations in the US to put to promote these governments’ point of view. Does this mean that the Voice Of America is going stop broadcasting to foreign countries? Does it mean that the BBC is going stop broadcasting overseas?

I mean, obviously governments try to put their point of view to a worldwide audience. Is this something that’s wrong? They’re just using Facebook to project the Iranian government’s point of view? Americans are perfectly capable of handling this. And Trump said that in his tweet this morning.

And we have to assume that’s the case if we’re going to run democracy—unless we’re going to have an elite that’s deciding what people should think.

But of course that is what these people think. They want to be the ruling elite and they want to make sure that nobody has any contrary arguments

JC: There is a question of how this should be dealt with—should these social media organizations be regulated as public utilities, which is what Milo Yiannopoulos told me? I’m somewhat cool on that, because I don’t like the expansion of government into the private sector. What do you think? Obviously, it’s not going to be as easy as it was to disseminate heterodox ideas on immigration.

PB: Well, it was only in a brief period when we were able to do this. Prior to the advent of internet, these points of view were completely suppressed.

Basically, there are two ways of looking at economic activities like this—it’s all in The Tragedy Of The Commons. One answer is regulation and the other answer is property rights and the law of tort.

I think that the application of normal legal standards to these utilities would make a big difference. In other words, either they publish everybody, in which case they’re a public forum and they’re immune from libel law, or alternatively they start censoring us, in which case they’re immediately liable to libel claims because they’ve made editorial decisions. That’s going be very difficult for them. I think they’re going want to go back to being a public forum and not discriminating

So I think this stuff can be handled through the common law rather than through regulation. But we’ll just have to see. Obviously, there’s a real backlash against these Tech Totalitarians and they’re going have to deal with it. Otherwise there will be legislation, and they’re going find their position very much altered.

JC: Does have a contingency plan in case social media knocks you off?

PB: Well, we existed before Twitter and Facebook, and we’ll go on. Jared Taylor’s been knocked off Twitter and Facebook and he’s still functioning.

Of course, there are real nightmare scenarios when they’ll start to get to the webhosting companies, or even the banks that handle the credit card processors. There are a number of different credit card processors but they all use the same small number of banks. I was horrified to see this morning that David Horowitz at the Freedom Center—what’s he ever done? But still a couple of the banks have cut him off from credit card processing. They’re just asking for massive legislative backlash, as long as Republicans control Congress. God knows the Congresssional Republicans are extremely stupid and out of the loop and so on, but they are going to get the message that something has to be done, otherwise their supporters and people who advocate the same opinions that they advocate, or are supposed to advocate, are going be cut off

We reposted the other day the Forbes article I wrote about Andrea Millen Rich and Laissez Faire Books—are you old enough to remember them, Joseph? There was this bookstore in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s called Laissez Faire Books, a storefront operation that became a direct mail operation, basically getting libertarian books out to the audience. By the 90s it was a huge force, and then of course it was creatively destroyed by the rise of the internet and by, where it became possible for people to find books. That was the issue, you know, in the old days. If you lived in Cleveland, you could go into a bookstore try and find Human Action or any of the great libertarian classics, but you simply wouldn’t find them, you’d have to order them, or you wouldn’t know about them. Well, what Andrea Rich did was she had a catalog which was like a magazine and discussed all these books and issues. People became very committed to it and she built a real business on that. We may have to go back to that—we may have to go back to direct mail

We’ve put a lot of effort into our magazine, The VDARE QUARTERLY. I must say this was entirely against my better judgment, because I think dealing with treezines is a huge pain in the neck, after spending 40 years in treezine journalism. It’s technically very difficult to produce a magazine. And I turned out to be completely wrong, because this may be the wave of the future

On the other hand, I have to say that when PayPal cut us off after Charlottesville, which we had absolutely nothing whatever to do with but they still cut us off, they destroyed our entire subscription list and we’ve still not built back from that. We’re still working on getting back to where we were in early 2017.

So these people are swine. And, you know, they’re sowing the wind and they’ll reap the whirlwind—legislatively.

JC: Do you have any thoughts about what the Kudlow situation says about where the country is—about the present as well as the future?

PB: One, the Reign of Terror is getting ever more intense. And it’s fundamentally focused on immigration issue. The Left is desperate that immigration not become a political issue. Their intention is to Elect A New People, they were right on the verge of doing that, and they want to prevent America from waking up and stopping it

Two, Conservatism Inc., among which I have to include my very dear friend Larry, is still completely out to lunch. They’re incapable of defending themselves against attacks about “racism” and so on. And that’s a very bad thing after 2016. The President showed the thing to do is not back down. But he’s unique. Very few people won’t back down

Three, at least these issues are being discussed now. For most the time we’ve been doing, from 1999 onwards, it was really very much just whispered about in the catacombs. Conservatism Inc. was proceeding along talking about marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes and all this nonsense and just hoping for the best in elections. Because of the president, and also I think because the immigration issue is getting more acute, it can’t be ignored anymore

I wish I wish I could say the same for Libertarianism Inc. As you know, Joseph, I was kind of a fellow traveller for libertarianism for a long time and the greatest disappointment I had when I wrote my book on immigration in 1995, Alien Nation, was that the libertarians were so bone-headed. They just simply wouldn’t listen to reason about what the effects of immigration are on the prospects for a libertarian society. There are some who do, for example Hans Herman Hoppe. But generally, they’re not gotten the message.

And they’re going have to if libertarianism and free societies are going to survive. It requires at least a stable, and probably a culturally specific ethnic base for a libertarian society to function.

JC: That was a very important discussion, Thank you!

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 25 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We may have to go back to that—we may have to go back to direct mail

    It worked for Morris Dees:

    Direct Marketing Association Names 4 to Hall of Fame

    PB: I think there’s a lot of erratic issues with these bannings.

    The “terms of service” are a bait-and-switch operation. That’s a fundamental issue, and creates an opening for free-marketers to go after these companies with clear conscience.

    Because libertarians have always maintained they oppose force and fraud.

  2. that’s driven the Left absolutely crazy, because they know that their current plan to take over America by Electing A New People could be frustrated

    The Left’s plan to take over Russia by revolution and genocide made the mistake of not subjecting the country to mass immigration, leaving Russian identity and culture intact. This time round, in America and throughout the West, the Left has learned its lesson well and white nations may never recover.

    I presume that Peter Brimelow is aware of the identity of ‘the Left’. On his failure to name names, I can do no better than to quote his own words: ‘And until that’s resolved, we’re just not going [to] get anywhere.’

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  3. Altering the immortal words of Monty Python: no one ever expects the PC Inquisition. Maybe Warhol’s view that every person will have 15 minutes of fame has now changed to 15 minutes of infamy.

  4. @Johnny Rottenborough

    …not subjecting the country to mass immigration, leaving Russian identity and culture intact.

    What are you talking about? Russia has 35 official languages in addition to Russian. The Soviet Union, the Red Russian empire, had fifteen “republics” with their own races and languages and fell apart against the wishes of the Russians themselves. Russia is a racial hodgepodge– Chechens, Tatars, Buryats, and Bog knows who else. They were multicultural centuries before America.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
  5. utu says:

    Hey, Brimelow and Derbyshire go back to England and do as many reenactments of robbing the monasteries and the tragedy of the commons there as you wish. Historical reenactments are great for old impotent men.

  6. ” The Left is desperate that immigration not become a political issue. Their intention is to Elect A New People, they were right on the verge of doing that, and they want to prevent America from waking up and stopping it ”

    I more and more get the horrible idea that on both sides of the Atlantic the intent is to destroy white civilisation.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Russ
  7. Biff says:

    It requires at least a stable, and probably a culturally specific ethnic base for a libertarian society to function.

    This needs more ‘splaining. I’ve seen specific ethnic based societies being very authoritarian, and aome mixed up ethnic societies as not.

  8. Who is going to start the back up to You Tube and other deplatforming?

    How about being able to go to [or an equivalent which is available] and finding whatever banned video, audio or article isn’t total junk and has been banned by the currently dominant players?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  9. @Reg Cæsar

    Reg Cæsar—The Russian identity and culture which you describe are much as they were before the Revolution, untouched by the mass immigration which may prove the death knell of the West. By the way, President Putin, speaking from 0:45 in this video, sees Russia as ‘undoubtedly a European space’:

    ‘You have said Russia is a vast territory, and it is indeed so—from its western to eastern borders, it is a Eurasian space. But as regards culture, even language, language group and history, this all is undoubtedly a European space as it is inhabited by people of this culture. I am saying this because we have to preserve all this to remain a significant centre in the world’.

    • Agree: fnn
  10. fnn says:

    I don’t what is to be done at the macro level, but at the micro level the WH should just hire Beattie back after the midterms and say they made a bad mistake by caving to the witch hunters. The POTUS could do a brilliant tweet on the subject.

  11. The Derb and Brimelow: the *real* crown jewels.

  12. fnn says:

    Vox says free speech on campus is a threat to “individual freedom”:

    In a vacuum, the notion of promoting “viewpoint diversity” is laudable. But we aren’t operating in a vacuum: We’re operating in a world where Republican legislators are using allegations of a campus free speech crisis and liberal bias among the academy to further efforts to crack down on individual freedom. As I wrote in the original piece:

    Four Republican-controlled state governments have set up new rules for political speech in public universities in response to concerns about free speech. At least seven other state legislatures are considering doing the same, efforts that the New York Times reports are “funded in part by big-money Republican donors” in a “growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the crosshairs of the American right.”

    In Wisconsin, the strictest of these states, rules drafted by the state university’s board of regents allow students to be expelled if they are found to have disrupted the speech of other students three times.

    I would assume Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures. But by working to promote the idea that liberal bias and, yes, political correctness is a crisis, they provide ammunition to supporters of such efforts.

  13. Russ says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I more and more get the horrible idea that on both sides of the Atlantic the intent is to destroy white civilisation.

    Is not “white” redundant therein?

  14. Russ says:

    Note also how a ringleader in this Salem witch hunt is Robert Costa, who earned his doctorate in defenestration at no less than National Review. This ilk knows no bounds.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  15. Dan Hayes says:


    Until now, I was unaware of the Costa – National Review connection. They were (and are) made for each other. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised such a nexus is one made in heaven, or to be precise, in deepest Hades.

  16. Government involvement isn’t ideal, but it’s the lesser of two evils, so I say bring it on. Big tech is out of control.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  17. S says:

    During the 19th century when the monetization of chattel slavery and its trade (ie ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration) was first attempted to be put into practice within what is today called the Anglo-sphere the slave dealers whom came up with the idea ran into some real problems in regards to race when they attempted to implement their nefarious scheme.

    Calling it ‘extermination’ famine stricken Irishman in 1847 were shooting members of the British aristocracy whom were promoting/sponsoring the Irish people’s mass exodus from Ireland as ‘immigrants’. Apparently the Irish thought a real chance of starving to death as an individual whilst staying in Ireland was better than seeing the Irish people’s entire destruction and genocide due to ‘mass immigration’. The London Times would entirely concurr with this Irish assessment in 1851 when it declared that directly as a result of their enmasse predation that the Irish would be ‘known no more’ as a people. The Irish during the Famine years of roughly 1845 – 1850 were losing as many from the Famine as they were from ‘immigration’, ie 250,000 a year.

    And too, there was real opposition also on the receiving end of this ‘mass immigration’ during the 19th century which was also centered upon race and concerns of genocide.

    [It will be recalled that China after having been first flooded with drugs, and then feebly resisting their debasement, had been smashed by the British Empire not once, but twice in the two Opium Wars of 1839-42, and 1856-60. It was the First Opium War which set off what the Chinese refer to as ‘The Century of Humiliation’ between 1839 – 1939. China, like Ireland with its Famine, was then ripe for their enmasse predation as wage slaves (ie ‘cheap labor’ so called) within what is today’s Anglosphere. Elements of the corporate media within the United States from 1853 onwards through the 1870’s were declaring it a done deal that tens of millions of Chinese would be imported by diktat into the US and that the country would soon as a direct result be predominantly Asiatic in character…not only that they advocated this.]

    In a Spring, 1874 edition the Pall Mall Gazette of London expresses its pleasure that hundreds of thousands of Chinese are being utilized as “cheap labor” in such far flung places as North and South America, Hawaii, and in Australia, but laments that there is growing worldwide resistance to this phenomena. The newspaper, besides referring to this “anxiety and alarm” as “out of proportion”, comments that there is:

    “A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race, has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.”

    In an article that’s reminescent in certain ways of the biblical rendition of Christ’s temptation, the Gazette attempts to pursuade its readers that the Chinese as cheap labor do work others won’t do, are great cooks, are excellent gardeners, etc. The writer attempts to induce guilt, and lastly, almost beggingly to the reader, makes the claim that untold wealth is to be taken from the Earth if only the Chinese could be brought in to do the work.

    Finally, the writer acknowledges that peoples’ resistance (particularly from Europeans in Australia and North America) as to their physical, cultural, and economic displacement, by Chinese cheap labor is strong, and everywhere things are tending “to their discouragement.”

    With the 1882 ‘Chinese Exclusion Act’ in the United States and the 1901 ‘Immigration Restriction Act’ in Australia a mortal blow seemed to have been struck against this project.

    The Anglo-Saxon and Jewish slave dealers of the British Empire and the nascant United States, however, had not given up the lucrative chattel slave trade for the planned for far greater riches expected to be had with their 19th century introduction to the world of the monetization of that trade, aka ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration…only to have the entire project blow up in their faces. They were not going to be denied their profits.

    It would be over a hundred years yet before they would develop the perfect ideological vehicle to make the world safe for ‘cheap labor’…or so they would think. Along with its integral anti-race campaign they would give this future ideological vehicle the name multi-culturalism.

    Pall Mall Gazette (Spring 1874) – Chinamen Out of China

    ‘OF late years we have heard so much of “Chinese cheap labour” from various parts of the world that it is somewhat difficult to realize the fact that not more than 200,000 Chinamen are working in foreign countries at the present time. Even this number is quite an outside estimate. America and Australia have so far been the favourite resorts for Chinese emigrants. Allowing 130,000 for the former country and 30,000 for the latter, 40,000 are left for Peru, the Sandwich Islands [ed. Hawaii], and other places; evidently a more than sufficent margin. Yet the anxiety and alarm shown have been altogether out of proportion to these figures. We cannot help thinking that this is one of these cases – more common perhaps than is readily admitted – in which imagination plays a considerable part.’

    Below is a link to the full article which first appeared in a Spring 1874 edition of The Pall Mall Gazette of London and is republished here in the April 11, 1874 issue of Littell’s Living Age pg 124-127;view=1up;seq=136;skin=mobile

  18. S says:

    In reference to Mr Brimelow’s ‘electing a new people’; how this has been done historically is described on page 4 of the paper excerpted and linked below and which was published in 2003 by two Israeli university professors. The paper was entitled ‘Between urban and national: Political mobilization among Mizrahim in Israel’s ‘development towns’’.

    The perpetrators of such an act could be one’s own corrupted elites and or alien elites.

    ‘..the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups; settlement on the ‘frontier’ (periphery); and control over the natives and their land..’

    Cities (October, 2003) – Settler Society and the Making of Ethno Classes

    ‘..In order to advance the project of nation and state building, the new settling regime had to ‘import’ immigrants who entered society at a status lower than the dominant group the ‘founders’ but higher than the indigenous ‘natives’. To advance the project of territorial ethnicization, the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups; settlement on the ‘frontier’ (periphery); and control over the natives and their land (Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis, 1995). These dynamics generally result in the maintenance of hegemony..’

  19. @America First

    Government involvement isn’t ideal, but it’s the lesser of two evils, so I say bring it on. Big tech is out of control.

    It’s not the hardware, it’s the software. Particularly the Internet.

    But the “information superhighway” is like the literal superhighway, built with federal funds (and, yes, other sources, too) on common property. More so. Eminent domain isn’t involved.

    Thus, regulation thereof is no different from speed limits and seat belt laws. It’s the price of using collective property.

    Of course, the so-called libertarians sold out their principles to the road lobby ages ago. So they won’t be of much help here, either.

  20. @RadicalCenter

    Well t least I have heard of hookt ube now. But it seems a bit messy. I have in mind that anyone going to any one of several possibly available domain names which might come to mind – like BANNED, CENSORED, DEPLATFORMED, etc. – might be guaranteed that they were seeing properly indexed material which had been censored by Google, YouTube, Facebook or whatever

  21. I’m glad to have been able to read the transcript of this very interesting interview vs. listening to the podcast(?)/video for 2 reasons:

    1) At least as it appeared on VDare, the sound was bad. It takes a tad bit of extra effort to listen to Mr. Brimelow’s English accent even when the sound is good. There was some slight reverb in the sound, and I was very glad to see the interview was written out after a couple of minutes of listening.

    2) As commenters discussed under a Sailer post a couple of days back, it’s 5 x quicker to read than listen. That’s just my number, as estimated from my reading time of John Derbyshire’s “Radio Derb” vs. the total time that shows on the podcast.

    Since I COULD read it, let me say that Mr. Brimelow came across very diplomatic towards his semi-traitorous friends/aquantainces. If the one guy, Mr. Kudlow, were to have taken a stand with no backing from above, it’d indeed would have probably done nobody any good. In a good organization, with a good leader that is, the underlings know that the boss has got their backs. President Trump needs to be a better leader of his organization (the entire administrative branch of the US Feral Gov’t.).

    It’s good to see Peter Brimelow on here. Thanks, Ron Unz, for that.

  22. Russ says:

    I truly concur, Ach. Brimelow is both eloquent and gracious on a grand scale. I too appreaciate his presence here.

    Kudlow since his 1990s rehab and conversion to Catholicism always appears to aspire to grace. Perhaps one can charitably allow him a bit of latitude in that he has already has one heart attack on the job.

  23. Miro23 says:

    This is a useful interview with Brimelow.

    And I feel sorry for us. Because what it shows us is that Conservativism Inc still simply cannot handle race-oriented attacks. They just go pieces immediately. And until that’s resolved, we’re just not going get anywhere.

    That’s probably because America’s Founders forgot to define the United States as a European derived country. They took it for granted. If they had explicitly stated that the US was the home of New European Americans there would be a lot less problems. For example, China is the historic home of ethnic Chinese, Japan of ethnic Japanese, Russia of ethnic Russians, and although these countries have other ethnicities and foreign residents, there is no confusion about which ethnic group holds political power (i.e. who owns the house).

    In contrast, the British, French and Germans have not defined their countries as ethnic homelands – hence the problem. “Good fences make good neighbours” actually improves international relations. For example, a country like Switzerland has plenty of North Africans on work contracts (and rich foreign residents), and both groups are fine with being there – but they don’t aspire to be Swiss. The Swiss have it clear who they are historically and ethnically, and don’t accuse each other of being “racists” for not handing out Swiss citizenship to anyone who wants it.

    The Ruling Class does not want that to happen. They want immigration to continue at these massive levels in order to Elect A New People.

    They want Brazilianization because 1) it breaks white European majority power 2) removes the nationalist threat to over-powerful minorities such as Jews 3) removes unity and embeds special interest power 4) ensures high profit/ low wage production in the US and cheap global outsourcing.

    However they are getting push-back. Brexit (British exit from Europe) was driven by the rejection of the “New People” idea. If European frontiers had been secure, and Brussels was not captured by globalists, there would have been no Brexit, and Great Britain would still be a happy member of the European family. Similarly Trump’s election was primarily driven by immigration, and rejection of the “New People” idea. If the US had solid Swiss style frontiers Trump would never have been elected and there would have been no Trexit (Trump supporter exit from the Disunited States).

    And then there’s the surprise appearance onstage of Democratic Socialism.

    MSM weapons are finely tuned to attack the Traditional Right, but they’re dysfunctional with regard to Democratic Socialism since the billionaire elite are themselves speciously claiming to be SJW Leftists. Their attacks on Ocasio-Cortez (US) and Corbyn (UK) just look like elite attacks on working people, which is essentially what they are.

    Obviously, there’s a real backlash against these Tech Totalitarians and they’re going have to deal with it. Otherwise there will be legislation, and they’re going find their position very much altered.

    Regulation could be quite straightforward – rather like utility companies are obliged to provide water and electricity. They’re providing information and the end user can do what he wants with it, but here again, if a country has a clear historic/ethnic definition of itself many of these issues disappear.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Brimelow Comments via RSS