Building the New Majority—Peter Brimelow`s Speech To The American Cause


James
Fulford
writes:
Peter Brimelow spoke to Pat
Buchanan`s 


American Cause


 on June 20, 2009,
on a panel that included
Pat Buchanan,


Phyllis Schlafly
,


Ward Connerly
,
and


Lou Barletta
,
who are mentioned in the speech. The website


ThinkProgress.org made fun of a banner with a
spelling error printed on it
,
writing "One salient feature of the event was the banner
hanging over the English-only advocates. The word
conference was spelled “Conferenece.” View it



here
. The
panelists pressed on with their anti-bilingualism
diatribe without noting the irony of the obvious
misspelling on the banner… "


Ahem! Can the ThinkProgress.org people be sure the
banner wasn`t constructed with


immigrant labor?

If so, their complaints are automatically racist. And


bilingual conferences

would provide twice as many opportunities for spelling
errors/
faltas de
ortografia.


Read the speech and ask yourself why the


Republican Establishment

can`t figure any of this stuff out.

I mean, it`s quite obvious what the
solution to our problem is—we have to
elect Pat
president
in the

year 2000!

Or, for that matter, in `96
or `92.

Instead, we got Dubya—George
W Bush
—who turned out to be the worst president in
American history, even worse than
Franklin
D. Roosevelt
. At least

Roosevelt
was a good party leader—he led the
Democrats to a whole series of victories.

But as Pat just said, and as
Phyllis
Schlafly
said earlier, we`ve been here before.

I`m old enough—though I still think
I can read my notes here—I`m old enough to remember
being here in the 1970s after the disaster of

Watergate
, after the

fall of Vietnam.
I was up in
Canada
then, and I went down as a Canadian journalist to
interview
Bill Rusher,
then the publisher of
National Review.
(So you know he was a

squish
at heart!)

At that time, Rusher was trying to
start a new party, a

Third Party
, because he thought it was impossible
for conservatives to get control of the Republican Party
after
Ford
had defeated Reagan in 1976. We exchanged
cabalistic signs and established that we were on the
same side of the debate. And he

said to me, i
n confidence,
“You know the
problem we`ve got here is insoluble, we`ve left it too
late, and the Red Flag will one day wave over the
world—the


Soviet Union
will one day
conquer the world.”

But, he said, “We
persevere. Because, for one thing, you never know what
is going to happen next. And for another thing, there
are theological injunctions against despair!”

(This is an audience that
understands

theological
injunctions!)

Well, of course, five years later,
Reagan was elected presiden
t.

So I agree with what some people
have said here already. American politics are very
volatile. I`m not worried about a leader showing up—a
leader will show up. Or leaders. Maybe there`s one here
today. We can rebound much more quickly than people
anticipate.

At a similar moment in British
history in the 19th century, the Conservative
Party was in complete disarray and despair. And its
then-principal ideologist and eventual leader,
Benjamin Disraeli,
promulgated, came up with the
idea that the way the Conservative Party, which was seen
as an aristocratic and feudal party could win elections
was to appeal to
the


working class
—on
the basis of

nationalism
, on the
basis of
patriotism.

A famous British historian whose
name I forget, but Pat will remember, said that Disraeli

discerned in the working class

 "the
Conservative working man as the sculptor perceives the
angel prisoned in a block of marble."

[This

originally appeared
in
the Times of London, May 18th, 1883—the historian Peter was thinking of
was Sir Robert Ensor, who quoted it in his history of the period.]
And
that is exactly what real political leadership is—to
see the issues that you can build new coalitions around.

And in America today, these issues
have already in fact emerged. Let me give you an
example.

A good issue, a really strong
issue, can leap sectional divisions between Americans.
It can
leap
racial divisions
, if it is strong enough. Up in

northern Michigan,
there is a man called
Dr. John Tanton
who has really single-handedly built the immigration
reform movement in the U.S., because no political party
would take it on. He`s founded a number of organizations
including FAIR—Federation for Immigration Reform—and
US English
which was in favor of an official English policy.
[Subsequently succeeded by
ProEnglish].

Tanton is not a conservative. He`s
sort of a

Northern Progressive.
He`s an environmentalist. The
reason he got interested in immigration reform—this is
actually true!—is that he really likes trees, he`s
fascinated by trees. He prefers trees to people. And his
view is the more people you have, the fewer trees. So,
therefore, you don`t want mass immigration because that
is what is driving American population growth.

Now, something else about Tanton:
you`re all going to have to pray for him. He`s on the
wrong side of the abortion issue. So much that he and
his wife were leaders in an attempt to get abortion
legal is Michigan, way back when, before the

Supreme Court decided to do it for them
.

Needless to say, this initiative
lost. But nevertheless John Tanton and his wife voted
for Pat in the

1992 Michigan primary
because
of the immigration issue
. That was more important to
them than anything else, more important than social
liberalism and abortion issue.

So that`s how a strong issue can
jump over the conventional wisdom on what motivates
people to vote one way or the other.

Now, it happens that we already
know what these strong issues are—because they`ve walked
up the door of the

stupid California Republican Party
and banged on it.
Three of them!—Affirmative Action (thanks to Ward`s
1996
Proposition 209
), Official English (1998 bilingual
education

Proposition 227
) and illegal immigration (Proposition
187
).

They all

carried overwhelmingly
, despite being in California,
which we`re not supposed to be able to win any more, and
despite being
opposed by
overwhelming weight
of the California Establishment
and even substantial parts of the California Republican
Party. But they still carried.

The response of the Californian
Republican Party has been to dive under the bed and
hide. Which is why it`s not won any statewide elections
since Proposition 187 carried California in 1994.

But the issues are still there. And
they can be developed.

They`ve all been gone into today,
so I won`t say very much more about them, except to add
this about Affirmative Action: People ask, how do we
appeal to younger people? The only section of the white
vote that Obama carried was people below 30—he narrowly
carried them. But the fact is that it was suicidal for
any white male to vote for Obama because affirmative
action quotas are a zero sum game. The more quotas there
are, the more
white
males will be squeezed out of everything
—as also
will be the

families that depend on them
. That`s the issue that
should have been used to appeal to the young.

And this ties right into the
immigration issue. Because the amazing thing about
Affirmative Action it that

immigrants are immediately eligible for it
, even
though they weren`t
slaves
in this country
. They`ve never been discriminated
against. But they`re still eligible for Affirmative
Action.

By the way, on the immigration
issue, I think it`s important that we start thinking
about legal
immigration
too. Legal immigration is

as much out of control
as illegal immigration,
because of the

“family unification”
policy, which basically means that
foreigners who have relatives in America have a sort of

civil right
to come here, and ultimately it has the
same effect. The tremendous cross-subsidization from the
American taxpayer to illegal and legal immigrants in
this country just makes no sense from an economic point
of view.

I really do recommend the language
issue, because that polls even better than immigration
and Affirmative Action. Eighty-odd percent
[actually
84%
] of
Americans say they are in favor of an official English
policy. The wonderful thing about this is that, if you
look at what is actually going to happen here, you find
that the Obama administration is going to gradually
institute institutional bilingualism in the country—is
going to require people to speak Spanish in key
positions in the police force and so on. This is a
direct attack on the American working class because they
are not going to be bilingual.

Language policy has tremendous

public-choice
consequences. We`ve seen

that in Canada,
where language policy has

been effectively used
to simply displace

English Canadians from the federal civil service,
so
the
permanent government of the country
is in the hands
of the
Quebecois
. That was done, not by directly banning
English Canadians, but just by insisting that civil
servants speak both languages, which as a practical
manner English Canadians just don`t do.

Then there`s the trade question. It
has always
irritates me as a financial journalist
when Pat
talks about trade. For one thing, I think that he ought
to be talking about immigration. That`s a far more
important issue. I mean, no one throws bricks at you
when you talk about tariffs. It`s immigration that
provokes
the riots
—it`s much more exciting. Fundamentally,
economics is a boring issue, you know. I have to
write
about it for a living,
but it is fundamentally
boring.

But Pat is unquestionably
right—regardless of minor technical disagreements we
might have—that there is a tremendous redistribution
effect from free trade. It
costs some
people income
and it directs income towards other
people, and they`re not the same people. I might also
say by the way that econometrics show that the aggregate
gains from free trade are quite small. I think they`re
there, but they are quite small, so I don`t think it`s
worth arguing about.

What I do recommend to Pat, again,
not for that first time, is that he talk about

exchange rates
. You know, people go around saying
that Pat is a terrible fellow because he wants tariffs.
But in fact what we`ve had in this country, really since
the Clinton years, is a policy of effective negative
tariffs—inverse protectionism. Because Washington for
some reason has allowed the Chinese to peg their

yuan
, their currency, to the dollar. The Chinese
currency is massively undervalued. Nobody has raised a
peep about this, really, for nearly twenty years.

The Chinese are doing this because
it makes their exports cheaper to the US and it makes
American imports dearer in China. And they want to do
that, although it is not necessarily in the aggregate
economic interest of China, because they believe in
concentrating manufacturing capacity in their hands.
They`re

exchange-rate
mercantilists
.

But what`s the Americans` excuse?
What`s the excuse of the Clinton administration and the
Bush administration for this?

I don`t think there is a very nice
explanation. I think what we see here is a conspiracy by
Peking, Washington and

Wall Street
against Main Street. (Applause).

(My word, Pat—I guess people
are interested in economics.)

What happened was that the Federal
government in Washington decided it wanted to fund these
enormous budget deficits, it wanted to

borrow the money from the Chinese
. Wall Street
wanted to sell the paper, the bonds, to the Federal
government, to be the middle man between the Federal
government and the Chinese. And the Chinese wanted, as I
said, manufacturing capacity.

But Americans— the

American working class
across the board—got it in
the ear.

I also think that
we`ve not looked enough
at what caused this huge
financial crash last year. As a financial journalist, I
really do think that it`s
the
excesses on Wall Street in the financial industry

that caused this crash. They`ve not only succeed in
deindustrializing major parts of the US, but they have
also now brought down the economy park for the world.

So, talking of popular issues, I
think someone should stick a pitchfork in Wall Street.
Pat? When you`ve got the time?

I call these questions —Affirmative
Action, immigration, language, America versus trade and
finance—I call them
“The National Question”. They all go to the issue of whether or not
America is a nation, a political community that looks
after its own people, or whether it has become a sort of
global supermarket. And I think that people who are
interested in these questions are what I call
Nationalists—National Conservatives.

The National Question is the common
thread that runs through all of these issues. And there
will be more coming.

One that is coming right now, and
that I am urging Pat to write about, is that the Obama
administration is pushing this Hate Crimes legislation.
Now, as you know, it is already
illegal to shoot museum guards
in the US. This

Holocaust Museum shooter faces the death penalty
—how
many times can they hang him? Then answer is that they
are not interested in this man, in these crimes. What
they are

interested in
is

proscribing and banning political opposition
. They
are simply going to blame these things on everybody that
is interested in immigration and so on.

One of the things that we do are
VDARE.COM, which I edit, is monitor the number of
illegal aliens that

kill people
in
drunk driving
accidents.
There are hundreds of these cases. They
never make it to the national news. You have to watch
the local news to find out about it, and even there it
is very hard because the
police
don`t ask their immigration status.

Another thing we monitor is what we
call

“Immigrant Mass
Murder Syndrome”
.
For some reason immigrants,
quite often

Asian males
, have a habit of going amuck and killing
lots of people. The most famous case, of course, is the
Virginia
Tech killings in 2007
. But just recently a
Vietnamese immigrant killed about thirty people in a

Binghamton, New York immigration center
. There have
been at least 20 cases of these things in the last seven
or eight years, and more than 200 deaths. Nobody in the
Main Stream Media seems to want to put this together and
ask why is this happening? If this were
anything
else in the world,
the MSM would be saying this is a
Trend, with a capital T, and we have to look at it. But
as it is, you can`t find even the facts unless you go to
our site.

If this man who shot up those
people in Binghamton had been a white male, I`m sure
that people in this room would be under arrest—because
that`s what Obama wants to see happen. So we only have a
short time to get a grip on this situation. And that

Hate Crimes Bill
is something that the Republican
Party should really be focusing on.

But then what`s unemployment going
to get to eleven—twelve percent? Why isn`t the
Republican Party calling for an

immigration moratorium?
It makes no sense.

Sometime I think Bill Rusher was
right, Bay, we have to go to a new party. Bay`s
flinching she doesn`t like to hear that after

experiencing 2000!
But I still think it`s going to
happen.

I will end on an optimistic note.
I`ve concluded that nobody knows what`s politically
possible, least of all professional politicians. (I`m
sorry Lou [Barletta!].
They`re like

shrews
, they have very sensitive noses, they can
sense exactly what is in front of them, but they`re
blind—they don`t need to see more than a week out as
long as they can do a 360 degree turn and come out
facing the right way.

Do you remember
price and wage
controls?
They were seen as
“inevitable”
by
all the right people
at the time. They`ve happened
and collapsed and everybody has forgotten about them,
and
even Obama hasn`t proposed them
(yet).

Do you remember

inflation
? That was thought of in the 1970s as
irreversible. One amazing thing Reagan did was he
stopped inflation—again, for the time being.

Above all, think about the Soviet
Union. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to collapse. I
was talking to Phyllis about it this morning. Not only
those of us who were anticommunists didn`t expect it to
collapse—because we were constantly being told how
powerful it was and we actually began to believe it—but
the other side, the

Sovietologists
, didn`t expect it. I interviewed one
of the leading Sovietologists in 1987 for
Forbes
magazine, and he categorically said that the

Soviet Union
was going to go on from strength to
strength.

And yet, where is it now?

Well, actually, we know where it is
now—it`s
in the White House!
But we can get it out of there
too.

Thanks very much!


Peter Brimelow
(email him) is editor of


VDARE.COM
and author of the much-denounced
 Alien Nation: Common Sense About America`s Immigration Disaster,

(Random House –
1995) and


The Worm in the Apple
(HarperCollins – 2003)