Peter Brimelow Is Scum!

(And Michael Lind is a…)

A few days ago, I commended to Peter Brimelow
a sensible new article in the British magazine Prospect
by Michael Lind, the fashionable journalist and
political intellectual, now a Senior Fellow with
something called the New America Foundation
It`s called "National Good" and the
subtitle tells it all:
"Ethnically-homogenous nation-states have
been replacing multinational empires for the
past 200 years. The trend continues — and a
good thing too." [].

Peter plaintively replied, "Lind`s
weird, isn`t he? Bitter attacks on me, but
why?" That got me to thinking.

Michael Lind is indeed an odd duck. His
tendencies toward self-promotion, narcissism,
and paranoia unfortunately distract attention
from his flashes of genuine insight and
originality. For example, his articles on mass
immigration`s deleterious impact on America`s
poor are also sound. This excellent 1996 column
("Huddled Excesses") from the New
(!) is illustrative:

What`s not unusual at all about Lind, though,
is his practice of ferociously denouncing
writers with whom he substantially agrees in
order to make himself sound more politically
correct than he really is. Russian peasants
fleeing across the frozen steppe in a sleigh
will occasionally toss one of their own number
to the pursuing wolf pack. Far too many
well-known thinkers who try to stay both
modestly realistic yet socially acceptable try
the same thing. If you want to say anything at
all realistic about immigration, race, genes, or
IQ, yet still maintain your reputation as
"mainstream," you must pick out
somebody with whom you generally agree, distort
his position shamelessly, and then viciously
attack this human straw man of your own
concoction. (See also my comments on Luigi

The widespread practice is particularly
disgraceful in the case of an outstanding human
being like Charles Murray, co-author of The
Bell Curve
I am in regular e-mail contact with several
hundred of the leading figures in the human
sciences and intellectual life. Murray may well
be the most sincere, careful, and judicious of
them all. He`s also achingly vulnerable to the
nonstop shitstorm directed at him for the last
six years. It`s painful to watch him mull over
every nonsensical slander, wondering whether
there isn`t some grain of truth in it that would
mean that he really is at fault.

Maybe the only social scientist with a finer
personal reputation is the great IQ researcher
Arthur Jensen. He has had to put up with the
same garbage for 31 years. I don`t know him
well, but to those scientists who do, he is a

On the other hand, I`m neither a saint nor
sensitive. So, I`m going to play the game, too.
In each of my VDARE articles, I`ll toss in a few
calumnies against Peter Brimelow. Something like
this should do the trick: "While some may
find my realism unsettling, it`s important to
note the vast ideological chasm between myself
and the loathsome Peter Brimelow, who not only
advocates but also practices female genital

In turn, Peter promises to repeatedly
execrate me for my extremism.

Thus we shall each rise to respectability. The
New York Review of Books
will soon be paying
me to lie about Peter. NPR will hire Peter to
curse my name. If we keep it up, I`ll probably
get a grant from the Ford Foundation and Peter
no doubt will receive one of those lucrative
MacArthur Genius Awards that they give out to
oh-so-sensitive dweebs.

[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic

The American Conservative
His website
features his daily

Read Peter
Brimelow`s analysis of Michael Lind`s New
review of Alien Nation.
Michael Lind at

October 4, 2000