VDARE – Ron Unz asks Peter Brimelow a Question

[Ron Unz:]

Peter, I`ve gotten some quite interesting
responses to my American Enterprise
piece, which raised certain thoughts in my mind.

Given the fact that you and I very strongly
agree on certain issues and very strongly
disagree on other issues, I`ve become curious
regarding the relative weights of your views.
If, say, there were a measure on the ballot
which would

(1) completely outlaw current ethnic
affirmative action;

(2) completely get rid of bilingual
education; but

(3) freeze into law current
(relatively) high levels of immigration,
maintaining the current ethnic/skills

 â€¦would you vote for or against such a

For the sake of this thought experiment, you
can assume that affirmative action and bilingual
education really would permanently disappear,
while immigration really would permanently
remain as currently.

And how do you think most of your
fellow-travelers would react to this same

Best, Ron

[Peter Brimelow replies:]

Dear Ron: sorry about delay.

First, I really must stipulate that I don`t
believe any such deal could be struck, nor do I
believe that, even if struck, it could be
sustained. These tendencies flow inexorably from
social diversity a.k.a. division. They are part
of the reason one is forced to wonder if a
diverse society can be truly free.

Second, of course I would vote No. For at
least two reasons:

a] Why should public policy second-guess the
American people on population size? Why should
the population be 400-500 million in 2050,
whereas absent immigration it would only be
250-270 million? It`s not a matter of projecting
national power: what matters there is quality
not quantity, and anyway much of the current
inflow is unmistakably forming a new underclass.
We could reorient to more skilled immigrants,
but you`re not proposing that. At the very
least, this is an amenity issue. California will
no longer be the Golden State: it will be the
Golden Subdivision.

b] Why do you want to drown the American
nation – the historic ethnocultural community –
as it had evolved in 1965? This is clearly what
you want to do, since you specify that the
current "ethnic" mix, 90%
non-traditional, must be unchanged. Maybe you`ve
got a good reason. But what is it?

I`d guess my "fellow-travelers"
would reject your deal too. How about your
fellow subversives?

Best, Peter

[Ron Unz replies:] Thanks…I was

April 21, 2000