VDARE - Peter Brimelow on Unzism

Peter Brimelow writes:         Like Steve Sailer, I kind of like Ron Unz,         despite his propensity for Paul Gigot-type         childishness like calling critics of immigration         policy "anti-immigrant." (And me         quote-unquote "respectable." What is that         supposed to mean?)

This is an extract from his enormous post on         Steve Sailer's confidential Human Biodiversity         email group. Ron is defending himself against         Steve's point that his policies are implicitly         anti-black by arguing that immigration reform         won't win black votes either. Note his         inability to distinguish between facts and         values, very typical of immigration enthusiast         mystagogues.

[Ron Unz:]

[VERY LARGE snip]

…For example, I would characterize Peter         Brimelow as America's most prominent         "respectable" white nationalist         intellectual, and his 1995 anti-immigration book         Alien Nation has enormous impact in that         movement. The book repeatedly claims that         "Race and ethnicity are destiny in American         politics." Furthermore, Brimelow suggests         that despite multiculturalist claims to the         contrary, America began as a white nation, since         although blacks made up 20% of the population,         they were nearly all slaves, couldn't become         citizens, and had no political rights; as late         as 1950, he claims Americans considered America         to be "the racial hegemony of white         Americans." I suspect that these quite         inflammatory sentiments and policies, described         with clear approval, would not win many black         votes.

[Peter Brimelow reply:] List members who         flinched at this great tide of Unzprose can         count themselves lucky: Ron talks like this too!

To deal with his paragraph on me:

1] "race..is destiny in American         politics" - i.e. in the U.S., voting is         more importantly determined by ethnicity than         class. This is simply a fact - not, as Ron seems         to think, a "sentiment" or a         "policy."

2] "America began as a white         nation" - again, this is simply a fact. The         1790 Naturalization Act required applicants to         be "free white persons." In other         words, the view that the U.S. was founded as a         "proposition nation" that anyone could         join without regard to origin is a myth.

3] "as late as 1950, he claims Americans         considered America to be "the racial         hegemony of white Americans..."" This         is Ron's rather perverse way of reporting my         comment that this curious phrase, which began         circulating in the early 90s, would have had no         meaning four decades earlier, when the U.S. was         90% white. In those days, that *was* the nation.

4] I don't know that I described these facts         "with clear approval." But it         certainly appears they provoke Ron's visceral         *disapproval*. Hence, presumably, his         determination to America as it existed in 1965.

I do think that any political party         representing the ethnic majority will have a         problem attracting ethnic minorities, who are         inevitably alienated to some degree...like Ron.         But if you have the ethnic majority, why worry?

April 20, 2000