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 “American Conservative Movement” Has Ended. the American Right Goes On.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Horatius Defends the Bridge at Rome. Credit:

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 Editor Peter Brimelow writes: I spoke at the H.L. Mencken Clubconference in Baltimore last Saturday, November 5. It seems like a thousand years ago. Subject: “The Right and American Conservatism.” Reading the transcript, I see it’s almost as f I thought Donald J. Trump might lose the November 8 election. Silly me.

[See also: America`s Egalitarian Temptation—Stalinism`s Unquiet Ghost, Peter Brimelow’s address to the 2008 inaugural meeting of the H. L. Mencken club].

Peter Brimelow: Ladies and Gentlemen: Some of you may recall I gave the banquet address at the H.L. Mencken Club last November. It’s been lost to history because (to my intense rage!) H.L, Mencken Club Chairman Paul Gottfried didn’t have it recorded. In it, I praised Ann Coulter’s great book Adios America!, which came to the same conclusions about immigration (moratorium, sealed borders, attrition through enforcement etc.) that I had in Alien Nation 20 years earlier. And a questioner said: “Why is she doing this? Why is she taking this risk?” And I said: “Well, look on the bright side, maybe Trump will win.”

There was sort of a shocked silence, as I recall. [Laughter] This was before the primaries had even begun. I was pretty shocked at the idea myself!

But, you know, he’s come very close. He’s come very close. The moral of this is: we should not give into despair. Amazing things happen—completely unexpectedly.

The subject I’ve got now from Paul is: “The Right and American Conservatism.” And I think it’s right that we should use the term “American Conservatism” because it’s on the point at becoming a Term Of Art. It represented a specific intellectual eddy, which came into existence relatively recently. I don’t know how widely the term “conservatism” was used in American politics prior to 1950s—Paul, do you?

Paul Gottfried:

It was not used often at all. Robert Taft described himself as a “liberal.”


Right. In Britain, of course, it didn’t exist at all before the 1840s.

Anyway, the American Conservative Movement came into existence in the 1950s—and now it’s ended.

I may say I immigrated to the American Conservative Movement. I discovered it when I was at university in England in the late 1960s, reading National Review, which we found in great bundles in the History Basement of the University of Sussex Library. They had discontinued their subscription—because they thought National Review was irrelevant and pointless. We of course were fascinated by the fact that there’d been a story on the cover proposing that the Americans nuke China, which struck us as very enterprising, the sort of initiative that was unthinkable in the British political context. [ January 12, 1965] So we made them re-subscribe.

And I’m not one of these people that thinks the American Conservative Movement did not achieve anything. It ended in failure, as all political movements do. But it did win the Cold War and that’s really significant. Some of you are old enough to remember the despair that prevailed in the mid1970s after the fall of Vietnam. And we had reason to despair. American society and American politics was riddled with no-goodniks who absolutely planned to staff the gulags after the Soviets arrived. Absolutely planned to do that. And, of course, now they’ve simply mutated into Cultural Marxists. They’re still planning to staff the gulags.

I was talking to Paul [Gottfried] a little earlier about Tom Fleming, our mutual friend, who was the long-time editor of the Chronicles. He’s a sort of wayward genius and I have learned to respect him because he told me more than 20 years ago that the great Lawrence Auster, the blogger, was in effect “mad, bad, and dangerous to know,” to use Lady Caroline Lamb’s description of Lord Byron. And he was understating the matter, although I do think Larry was a great man and we’ve missed him sorely in the immigration wars.

And Tom also said about 20 years ago that we had to give up the term “Conservatism”—because it had been co-opted by, basically, corporate lobbyists and rent-seekers.

I didn’t like this at all because I thought “Conservatism” was one of our very few—but there are a few—victories in the culture. Another one, for example, is the idea of Political Correctness. Everyone knows what Political Correctness is. It’s not that the Cultural Marxists wanted us to know, it’s just that somehow it made it to the front.

We saw Romney describe himself in one of the 2012 primary debates as “severely Conservative.” Now, of course, he’s not conservative at all, and he doesn’t strike me as particularly severe, he strikes me a rather a wimp as a matter of fact. But he felt obliged to say this because of the power that the word has achieved in the culture. So, I was kind of sorry to give it up. But I’m afraid that we are going to have to.

A few years ago, I learned with delight that the Indian Army has inscribed, on the monument erected in Tawang province to its soldiers who fell in the 1962 border war with China, now completely forgotten, the famous lines from the Lays Of Ancient Rome by Lord Macaulay—also now completely forgotten:

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds

For the ashes of his fathers

And the temples of his gods?

It`s always seemed to me that Macaulay`s verse is a litmus test for conservatism—or perhaps I should more accurately say, the Right. It either it speaks to you or it doesn`t.

Horatius defends the bridge at RomeIt`s vital to note that this verse is not vainglorious and chest-thumping, but somber and stoic. The scene, of course, is that Horatius is about to make a stand on the bridge to stop the storming of Rome by Lars Porsena and the deposed king of Rome,Tarquin the Proud. The previous lines are:

Then up spake brave Horatius

The Captain of the Gate:

“To every man upon this earth

Death cometh soon or late…”

In other words, Horatius` point is not that death facing fearful odds is so wonderful—but that there is no wonderful alternative. So why not?

Note also that Macaulay has Horatio fight for “ashes” and “temples”—that is, not in the hope of saving any living family members, or in the service of any gods in whom he has confident faith. The implication: he could have no family members and no hope of divine providence—but his death in battle would still have symbolic resonance.

The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions. Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the mother for her child—or such human instincts as the bonds of tribe, nation, even race. Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals—but not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational but a-rational—beyond the reach of reason.

This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War—I never thought it would. That’s because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn’t want to be conquered by Russians.

But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who harbored messianic fantasies about “global democracy” and and America as the first “universal nation”(i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had uses for the American military which hadn’t occurred to me. But they didn’t care about America—about America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.

I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC’s John Muir asked three candidates: “What does it mean to be Conservative?”

I’m going to quote from John Kasich: blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets—tax cuts—jobs—“but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows.”

By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although he did favor Amnesty, but “the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor…[and] our friends in the minority community.”

That’s because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.

Marco Rubio said:

…it’s about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level…It’s about free enterprise…And it’s about a strong national defense. It’s about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That’s conservatism.

Kasich and Rubio’s answers, of course, are not remotely “conservative” but utilitarian, economistic, classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify “strong national defense” in universalistic, Wilsonian terms: it will make the world “a safer and a better place.”

In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:

I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth…We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country.

Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and various Republican politicians. Somebody called John Hart, who writes a thing called Opportunity Lives—has anybody heard of it? It’s a very well-funded Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington.

Nobody has heard of it? Good.

Hart said:

Trump’s answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today’s modern conservative movement isn’t a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn’t about conserving; it’s about growth.

[Conservatism is Still A Second Language to Donald Trump Opportunity Lives, January 7, 2016]


Well, I don’t think so. And not just because I remember 1957.

As I said, I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it’s over.

Why did it end? After Buckley purged John O’Sullivan and all of us immigration patriots from National Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O’Sullivan, he was terrified of the neoconservatives who didn’t like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn’t want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too—because they are cowards, basically—and also because they have big corporate donors. And, I think that is part of the explanation.

darknessatnoonBut there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I’m old enough to remember, about why the Old Bolsheviks all testified against themselves in the treason trials during Stalin’s Great Purge. They all admitted to the most fantastic things—that they had been spies for the Americans and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they’d plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel,Darkness At Noon [PDF] by Arthur Koestler, one of the most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.

Do you agree about Darkness At Noon, Paul? [Paul Gottfried indicates assent]


Well, when Nikita Khrushchev got up and denounced Stalin in at the party conference in 1956, he was asked about this. Why did all these Old Bolsheviks turn turtle like this? And his answer was: “Beat, beat, beat.”

In other words, there is no complex psychological explanation: they were just tortured.

I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn’t tortured; it was bought. It was simply bought.

I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and I started by working for John Ashbrook (not Ashcroft, Ash brook) against Nixon in 1972–nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them. And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only become clear in the last five to ten years.

I think, in retrospect, with Buckley, who subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there was some financial transaction. I think that now.

It’s an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That’s not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn’t take that kind of risk, he’s a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump’s limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.

So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” It’s a racket.

But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism—or Rightism— is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again—just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.

So, I guess my bottom line here is: “Don’t despair.”

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of His best-selling book,Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rehmat says:

    Peter Brimelow like Kevin MacDonald has his moment to pat his bottom – but very soon the racist morons will find out that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was predetermined by the Zionist Globalists (mostly Jewish). As Iran’s president Dr. Rouhani and Louis Farrakhan predicted that American voters were given choice between two evils to choose but the elites preferred conservative Christian Trump to be the captain of the sinking ship….

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  2. Stan says:

    “It’s an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That’s not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn’t take that kind of risk, he’s a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump’s limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.”

    Any guesses as to the identity of the donor?

    • Replies: @Barnard
  3. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “We of course were fascinated by the fact that there’d been a story on the cover proposing that the Americans nuke China, which struck us as very enterprising, the sort of initiative that was unthinkable in the British political context.”

    Wow, I had no idea Nat Review was so crazy back then.

    Nuke China?

    And I didn’t know Robert Conquest was that nutty… or was he being funny?

    What to do when the Russians come?


  4. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Western ideology has been messed up by the dichotomy of left vs right and/or conservative vs liberal.

    The only division that makes sense is us versus them or ‘mas'(ours) vs ‘tous'(theirs).

    In any healthy organic community, there must be room for liberal and conservative. They need each other like man and woman, yin and yang, night and day, fire and ice.
    Choosing only the left or right is like choosing only masculinity or femininity. Men cannot go on with only manhood. They need womenfolk. And women cannot go on only with sisterhood. They need menfolk. To preserve food, we need ice and refrigeration. To cook, we need fire. Only a fool would declare himself an ice-ist and apply cold to everything. Only a fool would declare himself a fire-ist and apply fire to everything, even to a burning house that really needs water.

    Communism failed because it was all about the labor and worker. Now, communism was right to say the worker was deserving of certain rights and guarantees. But when the issue of class conflict became the ONLY lens for seeing, judging, and solving everything, communism was bound to fail. It disregarded or destroyed too many other sectors of society that play vital roles. It’d be like trying to warm the soup with a block of ice. Or like cooking where everything is fried, even ice cream.

    The poison of ideology is in trying to solve every problem with ONE idea as panacea for all things. But then, why did ideology arise? It was because of the problem of genealogy of power. There was a time when power was passed down along dynastic and noble lines. So, if your pa had the power, you had the power, even if you were an idiot, in which power became idiotological.

    Against this genealogy of power, people who wanted reform and change had to conceive reasons. Since they lacked power by bloodline, their justification for power was based on supposedly better ideas. The radicalized form of this was ideology where a one or few ideas became central and dominant over all else.


    This radicalization of ideas could have been avoided IF the power of genealogy had been more open to reform and change by those with good ideas. Great Britain avoided something like the French Revolution because those with power of genealogy allowed space and opportunity to those who offered up good ideas. Maybe this was more doable with the Brits cuz they had better manners. So, a Brit with a good idea might propose his ideas nicely, and the kings and noblemen might give him a hearing and chance. In contrast, French like to talk passionately and insult one another, and this might have led to great reluctance on the part of the kings and noblemen to give a hearing to those who were pontificating loudly.

    When the power of genealogy is too rigid, the other side turns to radicalization of ideas, or ideology. And it all came to a head in the French Revolution. On one side was the pig-headed power of genealogy of the French King. On the other side was the firebrand power of ideology of the revolutionaries who were convinced their ideas could change the world once and for all.

    But in fact, both sides were right and wrong. The power of genealogy may have been corrupt and repressive, but it preserved the heritage, culture, and glory of France. The power of ideology got violent and destructive, but it opened the way for new ideas and possibilities. Anyway, if the French had better manners, maybe an accommodation could have been found between the power of genealogy and power of ideology, a meeting of the minds between tradition and reform, as happened in Great Britain.

    Italian Fascists understood that the issue wasn’t right vs left. Mussolini began on the left but moved to the right, but he retained a respect for the left and wasn’t a simple reactionary.
    It’s like an organism needs all its organs. It cannot be brain-ist and ignore or attack other organs. It cannot be lung-ist and be anti-heart. It cannot heart-ist and be anti-anus. Every organ counts for something, and they must all work together.
    Same goes for so-called right and so-called left. They shouldn’t be seen as enemies but necessary partners. It’s like a tree needs roots, trunk, branches, and leaves. It would be stupid to discuss the tree in terms of rootism vs leavism. Both roots and leaves serve vital and necessary functions. Even though situated at opposite ends, their functions are most complementary.

    Any organism must conserve and preserve itself, and in this resides its rightist core. But organisms must also adapt and explore and evolve better ways to gain advantage, and from this comes the leftist ventures. No organism can be entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. Rightism is the clench, leftism is the release.

    Or consider a ship. Some people will work on deck with ropes. And some will work in the dark underbelly of the ship. And someone will be on perched up high with a telescope looking for land. Different people have different task and work at opposite ends of the ship, but they are all part of a same shared voyage. If the guy with the telescope sees land and yells out, he is doing it for the good of the entire ship, even those working under the deck.
    It’s like a sports team has offensive lineup and defensive lineup, but they all work for the good of the team. Football team has offense and defense, both both share the same goal. To win. The offense goes up against the defense of the other team but is served by its own defense that goes against the offense of the other team. So, the issue isn’t necessarily offense vs defense but OUR offense and defense versus THEIR offense and defense. Mas vs Tous.

    Same goes for right and left. The real question shouldn’t be right vs left but OUR right and left versus THEIR right and left. Indeed, the reason why Jews are so powerful is they understand this. There is the Jewish Right and Jewish Left, but both sides are agreed on serving Jewish identity and interests in Israel, US, and EU. Jewish Right and Jewish Left don’t fight one another like white right and white left.
    Neocons and Liberal Zionists may sometimes differ on policy proposals, but they are united on the necessity of serving and furthering Jewish interests. So, Jewish left and Jewish right are like the two fists of a boxer. They aren’t enemies but partners. The leftist jabs set up the opening for the right across.

    What Mussolini tried to do was fuse the left and right together. Granted, most Italian leftists saw him as an ideological turncoat, and he got too cozy with certain rightist elements, but he didn’t want an Italy divided along ideological lines. He wanted socialists, capitalists, monarchists, modernists, and spiritualists to find a way to work together and perform their vital duties of society. And the good side of National Socialism was an attempt to bring together German labor with German capital with German conservatives with German modernizers, and etc. And there were certain successes before Hitler went nutty with wars. (What some people fear most about Trumpism is not the ‘far rightism’ but the nexus of right-and-left fusionism among whites.) In the US, FDR fused right and left. He was pro-labor but not anti-business. He was certainly no communist. He pushed reforms but preserved conservative social values as he appreciated the power of social morality.

    This means that white people can have both left and right as long as both are ‘mas’, or ours. Right need not be rigid and pigheaded, and the left need not be traitor and self-loathing. When Germany and then Japan were modernizing fast in the late 19th century, both the right and left were united by a sense of nationalism. Preservists and Adaptists were agreed on serving the good of the race and nation. Japan had to modernize/westernize in order to survive. It would have to change and lose much of its old ways, but the core of Japanese race, identity, and race would be made stronger by the modernization.

    Now, the danger is that both the right and left can become cancerous, thus working against than with the other. The right can become overly rigid and pigheaded, like the Japanese militarist in the 1930s. And the left can become overly adventurous and reckless, like it did in Russia. Worse, leftism can turn traitor and collaborate with alien forces to destroy the core domain. The good side of leftism is its critical perspective and reformist impulses. But when healthy criticism turns into radical self-loathing — like white self-hatred — , it is cancerous and has to be replaced by a healthy leftism, a mas-leftism or ‘our leftism’.

    Both Mas-rightism and Mas-leftism are nationalist. Even though leftism is more likely to turn traitor and turn against itself, this danger exists on the right as well. After all, during WWII, it was the French Right that turned traitor while the French left took on the patriotic role of resisting German Occupation. And since end of WWII, it was the Japanese Right that has been most cucked out to US occupation and domination. Japanese Right is said to control Japan, but it cannot even resist Homomania since US insists on massive homo parades all over Japan or Cuckpan. And after WWII, many nationalist and anti-imperialist movements were led by leftists like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.

    Anyway, white folks need to create a new paradigm that goes beyond ideology of left vs right. Instead, they must acknowledge that a healthy society needs both the right and left, both conservatism and liberalism. It’s like a university is both conservative(in storing wisdom and knowledge passed down through the ages) and liberal(in carrying out research, debate, discourse, and/or experiments to find new truths or test improved theories). A university that is only conservative would never improve. A university that is only liberal would have no grounding, no compass.
    White folks need to think in terms of left and right, not left vs right.
    The problem is the left in the West has become synonymous with anti-white traitorism controlled and manipulated by the GLOB that uses Political Correctness and Pop Culture to turn whites into pod people and potheads. Instead of rejecting the entire idea of the left, white folks need to develop their own left that is racial and patriotic.
    There is no reason why the Left cannot be race-ist and nationalist. Zionism was social-nationalism.

    So, more crucial than the development of the Alt Right is the development of Our Left. The Left, in the healthy nationalist sense, means being open to new ideas and possibilities for the improvement of one’s own side.
    During the Meiji Reform era in Japan, the modernizers learned much from the West, but they were not serving the West but Japan. Likewise, the Young Turks learned a lot from Western Europe, but they were learning to empower Turkey.

    White people need Our Right but they also need Our Left. Mas-right and Mas-left.
    As long as it is Mas, it serves the white race.
    It’s like Israel has right and left, but both serve Zionism in the end. Of course, there is the cancerous left in Israel that is into open borders and that craziness, but there is a healthy left that upholds identity and nationalism.

    FDR was a mas-liberal. He proposed new ideas with leftist pedigree but he was an American nationalist. He wasn’t using leftism to hurt America or to destroy white folks.
    That kind of poisonous leftist came later, and there was an ethnic component to this.
    Many in the Wasp/Anglo Left wanted a better white society. Jack London was a racial-socialist. They proposed leftist ideas because they thought it would make white society even better, not because they wanted to destroy white society. Take the great Margaret Sanger who urged abortion for non-white babies, especially black ones. What a great feminist lady who loved her own race. Even feminism is good if it is Mas-feminism or Our feminism.

    But when Jewish leftists gained prominence, their sense of ‘our’ or ‘mas’ was different from that of white anglo leftists. In time, the Jewish leftists persuaded the white leftists to turn traitor against their own race, and this is when leftism turned cancerous for white folks.
    But then, same happened with conservatism when Neoconservatism took over National Review and the GOP. White Conservatism went from defense of White/Western Civilization to worshiping MLK(black god created by Jewish power), kissing homo ass, and waving the Israeli Flag. White Americans lost both ‘mas right’ and ‘mas left’ as both the right and left fell under the spell of Jewish-Globalist power.

    What needs to happen is that white folks need to create a new kind of fascist-democratic worldview that allows for mas-right and mas-left working together like husband and wife, like the man with the telescope and the man with the rudder.

  5. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Globalism is the Ugly-Americanization of the World.

    There is the decent American who goes to other nations with respect.

    But there is also the Ugly American who think the world is his oyster and exists only to put out to him.

    People around the world hated Ugly Americanism, the Yankee Imperialism, the gringo throwing his weight around.

    But now, this Ugliness has gone global. All these immigrants, legal and illegal, come to American and act UGLY.
    Just as Ugly Americans act like the rest of the world exists to roll out the red carpet for them and put out to them, the Ugly Immigrants act like America and the West exist only for them to invade and grab and take over. “Inside every American and European is a ‘global citizen’ trying to get out.”

    They come not with respect but with gypsy-like arrogance and contempt, made all the worse by education and media controlled by Jews and cucks. Jews and cucks encourage the ugliest attitudes among the Immigrants. So, whites must deal with Ugly Immigrants.


    These Ugly Immigrants have no sense of American history. No sense of how white folks with little arrived at a vast continent of wilderness and scatterings of ‘red savages’. There were no cities, no roads, no schools, no nothing. White folks with vision and fortitude had to chop down trees, plow the soil, build roads, navigate rivers, construct channels, drain swamps, build churches and schools, finance railroads, and etc. It was an epic achievement. In short time, a vast wilderness was created into a great nation of freedom and prosperity.
    In the past, immigrants came with more respect. Now, they come with no respect. They come as Ugly Immigrants feeling entitled. Some come as pregnant mothers to take advantage of anchor baby law. And they expect America to pay for everything and offer them amnesty.
    And their ugliness is encouraged by hostile Jewish elites who see the slightest white trepidation about mass immigration as ‘Nazism’.

    Ugly Americans and Ugly Immigrants deserve one another. Both should be sent to the moon as they have no respect for the nations of other people. Ugly Americans trample around the world acting like the world exists just to make things fun for Americans. And Ugly Immigrants invade the West in huge numbers with the arrogant entitlement mindset that they are owed everything by the white man.

    When whites came to America, there was nothing, and they had to build the foundations and the fundamentals of the nation from scratch. For several generations, these white folks only knew hardship.

    When immigrants come today, they come to an already developed nation with everything. But these Ugly Immigrants show no appreciation or gratitude. They’ve been taught by PC and Pop Culture that it is up to White America to provide them with everything and roll out the red carpet.

  6. Jason Liu says:

    The “Conservative” label was something that should have never been. The answer to leftism/liberalism is, and always will be, nationalism.

    Conservatism, relying on rhetoric about preserving the past, has always been a meek, passive opposition that gives the left too much room to breathe. Worst yet, American conservatives are not even remotely right wing. None of their thinkers embrace the key tenet of rightism: Social inequality. It’s like Bill Buckley set up the entire thing just for the purpose of losing.

    • Replies: @Olmec
  7. Che Guava says:

    Good evening, Mr. Brimelow.

    You run a very informative site.

    Interesting speech. As an outsider, I agree with some, but …

    I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

    That seems disingenuous. Donorist classes have been influential in US politics for a long time now.

    Some time between Kennededy and Carter, *the* donor class started working towards being a near-absolute, G.H.W. Bush seems to have been the last to attempt some independence from them … and look at all of the dirty media tricks that foiled his attempt at a second term.

    Reagan was most certainly not independent of their influence, but I suppose his encroaching senility in the later days of his second term didn’t help. Neither was Carter during his term.

    Every one since G.H.W. has been essentially their slave, most of the time. so ‘last ten years’ doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  8. No mention of Pat Robertson? He was the face of conservatism for many of us non conservatives. I was a fan of Barry Goldwater in my youth. I even worked for the election of Ronald Regan. But the social conservatives drove me away from the Republican Party. You say the conservative movement was bought. Certainly the government was bought. The new owners have had no use for ideology whether right or left. They are strictly in it for the money. I don’t have much use for ideology myself anymore. I am merely a populist and a nationalist in my old age. A Trump supporter. A deplorable.

    Thanks for a good read.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Alden
  9. Rich says:

    Mr. Brimelow is the kind of immigrant America used to get, the kind who came here to become American. Let’s hope his support of President-elect Trump turns out to be warranted and that the new president doesn’t sell us out like all our past leaders.

  10. @Anon

    Quite the opus, but spot on.

    However, nothing will happen so long as whites consider any form racial pride to be evil. From the minute white kids can read or watch TV, they are inundated with that message. And if they stray, they are punished.

    We live in a time of near mass delusion, and it will take a severe shock to snap people out of that. Until that happens, we can only make incremental moves, such as quietly forming business and community groups that, while not ostensibly white groups, are made up of whites trying to help, in general, whites. Bit by bit, you figure out whom in the group might have your views and purge the others.

    Over time, you have groups of whites who have that “mas” feeling, and those groups create almost a sub-society within the overall multi-culti society.

    Basically, white use Jews as a road map.

    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  11. Rehmat says:

    “What to do when the Russians come?”

    Pick up the phone and call Benjamin Netanyahu…..

    Remember Benjamin Netanyahu hailing Donald Trump as true friend of Israel on November 9. Trump’s selection of hardcore pro-Israel anti-Muslim Jews and Zionist Christians as part of his administration, proves Netanyahu was not wrong even though 70% American Jews voted for Hillary.

    So what Netanyahu expect the most from Trump as president of United States?

    David Wainer provided the answer at the Bloomberg recently. “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to win from Donald Trump what he failed to wring from Barack Obama: a harder line against Iran,” he said.

    The prime minister Netanyahu will argue, first and foremost, that Trump administration should work to diminish the partnership between Russia and Iran in the region, said Wainer.

  12. Barnard says:

    I was wondering that too, there has to be a relatively small group of people heavily subsidizing them. Does anyone know who the big donors of National Review are? Also, how much would you have to donate for Lowry to agree to put out an anti-Trump issue? National Review was supposed to take part in one of the Republican debates and had to drop out after they put out the Against Trump issue.

  13. Peter Brimelow

    Your immigration moratorium is a terrible idea that would allow nonwhite legal immigration to increase when the real wage of The Historic Native Born White Working Class begins to increase.Much better idea:0 nonwhite legal immigrants forever!!! There is no economic case for race replacing the Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    Second point….Vietnam posed 0 threat to the Historic Native Born White American Majority. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act and Emanuel were…and continue to be…an existential, mortal threat to the Historic Native Born White American Majority.

  14. @Rehmat

    the elites preferred conservative Christian Trump

    Thanks for the hilarious non sequitur of the day.

    the Zionist Globalists (mostly Jewish)

    You should thank these people, considering that they’re a major reason you’re in the West at all.

  15. Peter Brimelow

    Seriously…you are ruining all the great work and effort over the years by worshipping the pickled corpse of Ronnie Reagan. The Soviet Union for the most part posed 0 threat to The Historic Native Born White American Majority. Emanuel Cellar….The scummy Kennedy Clan…GE CEO Jack Welch…ADL…AIPAC…and the passage of the 1965 Immigrationn Reformn Act was the number one mortal existential threat the Historic Native Born White American Majority….

  16. Alden says:

    Here is a great quote from comedian Rob Schneider

    ” The Democrats haven’t been this mad since they lost the civil war and the slaves were freed”

    I read National Review during the 1980s. There were great exposes of affirmative action hiring practices. Albert Shanker was head of the teachers union and a New Yorker. His column was in every issue and it always had horror stories about the behavior of black thugs in the schools.

    And then it went from being pro White to what I call fuddy duddy conservatism; endless articles in praise of MLK, blathering on against abortion, gays, rap music etc.

    As I remember NR praised Regean even when he effected amnesty for illegal aliens.

    At the same time it went totally in favor of the most extreme Israeli AIPAC positions.

    So I cancelled my subscription. I understand the average age of subscribers is 66.

  17. The cultural Marxists and SJW crazies who’ve captured the now anti-union and prowar Democrats, with their wholesale accusations of “bigotry!” to even the mildest of protestations against the status quo doing us in economically, have now got me so disgusted with and unsympathetic to their plaints and emotional blackmail, to the point where Brimelow and company start to sound reasonable in comparison.

  18. @War for Blair Mountain

    Peter Brimelow

    I was refering to your great effort and work over the years.

    My contention is that abstract proposition “MUH CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!!!” Amuurica was a creation on the anti-commie crusade which gave us the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and reprobate Teddy’s permanent monument of demographic extermination to his Cold War anti-commie crusader brother and reprobate…JFK. And that monument was the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

    The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the causal precursor to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. The integration of the US Military was a precursor to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act……Which was a direct consequence of the Cold War Crusade against Russia.

    It is now time to rethink the Cold War…the future of the Alt Right depends upon it…

  19. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    NPI questions

  20. Olmec says:
    @Jason Liu

    American conservatives are not even remotely right wing. None of their thinkers embrace the key tenet of rightism: Social inequality

    What are you, a Hindu casteist?

  21. @Anon

    Where’s the reference to Robert Conquest come from? I can’t find reference to him.

    • Replies: @Anon
  22. @Che Guava

    How would you advise a group of donors or one big one to keep a second term president enslaved?

    That’s not a cute trick reply but a question that goes to the heart of your credibility as an opinionator.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Che Guava
  23. @WorkingClass

    You are right out on your own on UR as a commenter who thinks the donors are only in it for the money. Anti-Semites and Zionists alike would be aghast at your failure to honour the effective use of money (and the threat to withold or redirect it) by the Israel lobby.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  24. @Anon

    Interesting -including the “.ru” URL – but it doesn’t answer my question as to the reference in your comment to Robert Conquest given that it was the first on the whole thread.

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    that goes to the heart of your credibility as an opinionator.

    Can’t see why, the answers are obvious. I also don’t see any problem with my credibility as a commentor, sometimes it is only intended as a laugh.

    Right now, want to work on some sounds.

    However, will reply tomorrow evening or the evening after, and taking your other posts on this thread, if relevant, into account.


  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Look at this image in the article above:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  27. @Anon

    Yes but the reference to Robert Conquest was puzzling in the way it appeared to refer back to something already said by Brimelow when there was no previous reference to Conquest.

  28. @Wizard of Oz

    You got a smile out of me Mr. Wizard. Aghast at my failure to honor the effective use of money. Quite so no doubt.

  29. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your question isn’t really worth a reply, but I said I would, so will.

    As I also said, I have been pleasantly surprised that, although he never deserved a peace prize, Obama has been relatively restrained on external affairs.

    1. Blackmail.

    2. Promise of lots of money for dull speeches and deals, as has been the case for Bill’n’Hill.

    3. Threats of unfavourable financial manipulation, to create great unpopularity.

    Many others, not worth listing, many are inapplicable.

    The Obamas early path to being multi-millionaires is the same as that of the Clintons, shady real estate dealings.

    a question that goes to the heart of your credibility

    Why should I care about your overwrought statement?

    I agree with the empty-suit article, he was always clearly just an actor with nothing of substance to back it up.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  30. @Che Guava

    Well at least you have recognised the logical force of my point that there is a huge gulf between the strongs that can be pulled to keep a first term president who wants to be re-elected in line and those that can be used in his final term although there is one you didn’t mention that maybe only could have applied to Bill Clinton and very few others, viz. the spouse’s future career prospects….

    The three modes of pressure application are all possibilities but uncertain and highly contingent. “Blackmail” is a reminder that it would be more than dangerous against someone with the enormous power of a president. Some suggest Marilyn Monroe was killed because it was suspected she might speak outof turn. And think of the damage that can be done to businesses.

    Promises of future speaking engagements would be known to be worthless once a president was out of office unless there was a spouse who remained powerful. And lots of presidents have been content with far far less loot than the greedy Clintons. They are going to be hired as speakers anyway if they want it. They can count on people be suckers once anyway in most cities for their boring stuff.

    As to 3. that’s really close to my point. It has little power in a president’s final term and he can plausibly brow beat them by saying “I’m a better actor than you. You’ll be the one who ends up disgraced and execrated” and they’d better believe it as their enemies rub their hands and egg them on to get beaten up by thecWhite House.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  31. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Not badly said, the Monroe (or Baker) thing is interesting, and tragic however it happened, foul play can not be discounted, neither can suicide, but the botched investigation suggests the former.

    Seriously, Wiz, you would probably enjoy The Illiminatus Trilogy by, before he wrote that, apparently former Playboy editor Robert Anton Wilson.

    Found it in a major bookshop in northern Tokyo, parts make me laugh, it is too hippy gen. in parts for my liking, but a great set IMHO, it is like a roller-coaster.

    I do not suggest most of the conspiracies in the novels have any connection with reality (a few do), but the parody of Anna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand), and the adoption from Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues, others that to state, would lower your enjoyment of possibly reading the trilogy.

    Perhaps a library near you has it (perhaps not, it is X-rating I think). Seriously recommended.


    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  32. Che Guava says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Citizen of a Silly Country,

    near mass delusion


    From where, precisely, do you get the ‘near’? I’d say ‘full’.


  33. @Che Guava

    Thanks. All of us with perfectly sensible, rational, well–informed views must learn to value UR commenters with unimaginably crazy prejudices who nonetheless introduce us to interesting facts or texts and even show some appreciation of the rules of logic 🙂

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  34. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    That is snarky, sure, I am likey older than you, doesn’t mean you have to be stupid.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  35. Che Guava says:
    @Che Guava

    BTW, you really should read the Illuminatus trilogy, I guarantee that it will make you laugh.

    On a darker note, Norman Mailer’s bio of Norma Jean Baker is interesting (found it at a second-hand place that has English books), and very sad,

    *Spoiler alert*

    particularly of the casting couch days (permanent physical harm by VD from a Jewish producer on the casting couch).

    *Spoiler over*

    Mailer’s style irritates me.

    I have one other, An American Dream, the central points are a murder and a violent rape of a German au pair, very ugly. Mailer clearly holds his Jewish side to be the top.

    I would still recommend his Marilyn bio., read with cynicism.

    Doubt that you are really a reader, Wiz.

  36. Probably older than me? I like you better and better! Almost as much as the kid on the London Underground who remained seated while I stood and to whom I said amiably “Tell me, how old do you think I am”. “41” he said. Clever kid.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  37. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    OK, I am likely younger. Doesn’t make me a fool.


    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  38. @Che Guava

    And I’m not King Lear 🙂

    My recent reading has included George Orwell’s 1947 essay persuasively arguing that Tolstoy’s ranting criticism of Shakespeare and “King Lear” was because he was himself a King Lear.

  39. Alden says:

    I too was and am always a White, not an American Nationalist. America declared on its White population in 1968 with the affirmative action law The government, academia and the cutthroat capitalists are successful in their efforts to exterminate us.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Brimelow Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?