A review of Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster by Peter Brimelow (pictured); published by Random House (New York, 1995)
by Dr. William L. Pierce
THE REVIEWS OF this book in the controlled press have been extraordinarily hostile. Many reviewers thought it shouldn’t have been published. They denounced its author as a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” for his views on immigration.
A review in the New York Times sniffed: “Mr. Brimelow . . . wants to keep the immigration flow not just limited, and not just higher skilled, but also mostly white. . . . Mr. Brimelow doesn’t consider Jews to meet his definition of ‘white’ either . . . .”
The Jewish executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Ira Glasser, complained in a letter to the editor of the New York Times that Brimelow wants an America as White as the one we had in 1965, before the change in US immigration law allowed the sewers of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to swamp our shores with their wretched refuse. Especially galling to Glasser is Brimelow’s description of Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting rooms: “Just as when you leave Park Avenue and descend into the subway, when you enter the INS waiting rooms you find yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but is also almost entirely colored.” Glasser concludes that Brimelow’s words make it clear that he is a racist.
Almost any objective reader of Alien Nation would reach the same conclusion, if by “racist” we mean a person who is conscious of the existence of races, doesn’t feel obliged to pretend that he isn’t conscious, and also doesn’t mind saying that he prefers his own race.
Actually, Brimelow goes a bit beyond that. He understands and is not afraid to state, for example, that a nation (as the etymology of the word indicates) is really an extended family, in which every citizen is linked to every other by birth and blood. He points out that back in the days when the United States was still a nation, its immigration law required an applicant for naturalization to be a “free white person.” And in his introduction, where he explains why he wrote the book, he says: “My [four-year-old] son, Alexander, is a white male with blue eyes and blond hair.” He wants America to be a country where his son will have a place, a country that his son can feel a part of. That’s enough to send people like Ira Glasser into a frothing rage of hatred against Brimelow and his book.
Despite all this, Brimelow goes out of his way trying to persuade people that he isn’t a racist — not that his denials throw the Jews off his scent for a second. In a recent episode of the television interview program Crossfire, the Jewish co-host Michael Kinsley hammered away at him for his alleged racism, citing one statement after another from his book with racial overtones and keeping Brimelow on the defensive throughout the program. One wonders why he doesn’t just come right out and say, “Yes, I’m a racist. I want a White America for myself and my posterity, and there will be no place in it for Jews.”
In the first place, if he’d taken such a forthright position, his book wouldn’t have been published by Random House, and it wouldn’t be displayed on the shelves of bookstores all over the country. That would be a shame, because despite its failure to come fully to grips with racial matters Alien Nation is a very valuable book.
In the second place, we can’t be sure that Brimelow really has come to grips with race even in his own mind. He begins his preface with the statement:
There is a sense in which current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. The US political elite emerged from the [Second World] war passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia. Eventually, it enacted the epochal Immigration Act . . . of 1965.
Unfortunately, the US cultural elite — and Brimelow, as a senior editor of Forbes magazine, is a member — also let itself be stampeded into denying any racist taint. The fashionable attitude since the war has been individualism. One must not think of oneself as a member of a racial group, but only as an individual. And one must never judge anyone else by his race, but instead must pretend not to be aware of racial traits at all and must look on everyone only as an individual. Thus, it matters not whether a person is a Jew or a Gentile, a Black or a White, a man or a woman: He or she must be judged separately, with no consideration of group characteristics.
Brimelow, to his credit, has largely rejected such foolishness, but it is not clear that he has thought things through completely, especially where Jews are concerned. In a number of places in his book he notes the anti-White bias of the mass media. He cites specific media statements which exemplify their approval of the continued “browning” of America and their determined opposition to any effort to get a grip on the out-of-control immigration situation. But he fails to connect this bias to the Jewish control of the media.
His naïveté is more striking when he speculates on the reasons for the present immigration mess. He notes that Jews played a disproportionately important role in pushing the 1965 law through the Congress. Then he writes:
Why were the 1965 Act’s supporters all so wrong? The kindest answer must be staggering technical incompetence. They simply did not think through just how the immigration system that they had put together would really work.
Does Brimelow really believe that Emanuel Celler and the others in Congress who designed the present system didn’t understand exactly what they were doing?
Perhaps he’s reluctant to come to the conclusion that the Jews actually set out to destroy the racial basis of America decades ago and are continuing to do everything they can to further that destruction today, because he knows several Jews who have weaseled their ways into leading positions in immigration reform organizations. It’s difficult for most Gentiles to accept the fact that Jews always have employed the fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse strategy: Slip a few Jews into the Gentile camp and arrange for them to grab as many key positions as possible in the defense structure. That just seems too devious and unnatural for non-Jews to grasp, and so patriotic organizations, ranging from the National Rifle Association and various citizens’ militias to immigration reform groups, usually are overjoyed to have a few “patriotic” Jews volunteering to help them. They believe that having Jews in prominent positions will protect their organizations from accusations of racism and anti-Semitism.
Brimelow also is aware that Jews are not the only ones who want the browning of America to continue. On the Crossfire program cited above, one of the participants who attacked Brimelow most viciously was a representative of the Roman Catholic Church. And it was that faithful son of the Church, Edward M. Kennedy, who co-sponsored Emanuel Celler’s 1965 immigration law. Although the great majority of White Americans with Catholic backgrounds do not share the aims of the Catholic hierarchy, the latter are hell-bent on keeping the flood of Catholic Mestizos coming across the southern border. On top of that, there is an all too abundant supply of guilt-ridden, Bible-crazed Protestants who are hoping to atone for being born White by giving away their birthright to the swarming, colored masses of the world.
The kindest explanation of Brimelow’s failure to be forthright on the Jewish role in immigration policy is that he made a conscious choice: either write a best-selling book which gets most of the facts on America’s immigration disaster out to the American people, without blaming that disaster on the Jews; or blame it on the Jews and find himself with a manuscript that no mainstream publisher would touch. This book is so much better than other recent books calling for immigration reform — it comes so much closer to dealing frankly with the racial aspects of the subject, and it even hints at the Jewish aspects — that kindness in this regard seems justified.
If one is less inclined to be kind to Brimelow, however, one might guess that he is simply a captive of his class: a yuppie unable to overcome yuppie prejudices. The world of the yuppie is based on money, status, and standard of consumption. In the yuppie world Jews play a prominent and enviable role: they are so clever, so successful, so efficient at accumulation. To criticize Jews in any fundamental way is to undermine the basis for one’s own existence: It is to lower one’s own status and seriously jeopardize one’s ability to continue accumulating. It is to risk being drummed out of the country club in disgrace.
More than that, it is to violate the most deeply ingrained rule of yuppie behavior: It is to show bad manners. It is to become déclassé. One simply does not break ranks and level blanket charges against one’s own class or any significant portion of it. It just isn’t done.
The very boldest of yuppies may hint that Blacks are deficient in some way, if his hints are politely worded, because Blacks really aren’t a part of the yuppie world. Even so, anything said about race must be said in the most roundabout manner possible and larded with plenty of apologies: Plain talk is not a yuppie virtue. To speak as plainly as Brimelow does causes gasps and raised eyebrows among his fellow yuppies. He has risked being offensive, and giving offense is a yuppie no-no. To go further and say that the collective Jewish strategy is and always has been to destroy every other nation or race which permits itself to be infiltrated by Jews would be offensive indeed. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, Brimelow just can’t bring himself to say that: perhaps not even to think it. In the yuppie world, there is nothing more offensive than racism and anti-Semitism.
In any case, let us be happy with what Brimelow does say. He tells us, for example, that the Whitest decade in America’s existence was the 1940s, when the country was 90 per cent White. The country had been growing Whiter by the year in the preceding decades, because immigration from Europe gave the White portion of the population a faster rate of growth than the non-White portion. Furthermore, the non-White portion of the population (with the exception of the Jews) was excluded from White society and from the political process. Films, books, magazines, and other records from that era portray an essentially White country.
The Second World War changed everything. It was an ideological war, and the ideology of America and her allies was egalitarianism. In the name of equality we poured fire from the sky and incinerated German cities. For the sake of equality we promoted the ethnic cleansing of the eastern German territories, in which millions of ethnic Germans were expelled from their ancestral homes and millions more were butchered. To teach the Germans about equality we subjected hundreds of thousands of their women to gang rape by our Soviet allies. In order to further the cause of equality we installed an anti-nationalist and anti-racist occupation government over the conquered Germans, staffed all of their schools and their mass media with people considered traitors by their former government, and used the latest techniques of psychological conditioning to instill a deep sense of racial guilt and self-hatred in the German people. How, then, could we justify maintaining a White America? How could we avoid applying the same principles of egalitarianism to our own society that we had rammed down the throats of the Germans?
That was the argument of the Jewish arbiters of fashion and their collaborators. The political elite, of course, was as eager as ever to be fashionable. And the cultural elite couldn’t think of a way to oppose the argument without being considered rude. And so here we are, three decades after the new immigration law, with a country which has dropped from 90 per cent White to 75 per cent White (72 per cent if one subtracts the Jews from the “White” category) and is dropping faster every year. As Brimelow points out, the relative effect of non-White immigrants in darkening America’s complexion has become much greater since the White birthrate dropped below the replacement level.
Alien Nation is a gold mine of hot statistics and factual arguments on every aspect of the immigration disaster: economic, political, cultural, legal, moral, etc. For example, there are the hand-wringing, limp-wristed types who believe that we mustn’t close our borders to Third Worlders, because to do so would make them angry: Keeping our border with Mexico open relieves the population pressure south of the border and lessens the likelihood of violence on the part of Mexicans desperate to find a better life in the United States. To counter this pathetic argument, Brimelow shows clearly that population growth in the Third World is far too high to be alleviated by immigration to the United States. Even if the immigration levels for Mestizos and Blacks are increased substantially, it won’t make a dent in the natural increase of populations in Mexico and Africa.
The real value of Alien Nation is not in its statistics, however. We don’t need to have it proved to us that non-White immigration to the United States is an unmitigated disaster. We already know that. The value of Brimelow’s book lies more in its anecdotal commentary on the bigotry, hysteria, and mendacity of the pro-immigration crowd. By exposing them as the crooks they are, by revealing the fallacies in their reasoning, and by not retreating when they begin screeching about racism and anti-Semitism, Brimelow can give courage and inspiration to many people who share our concerns but who heretofore have been afraid to stand up and speak out.
Still, it is mildly troubling that a man as astute and honest as Brimelow can’t seem to bring himself to be rude to the people whose policies he knows are destroying America’s racial basis. He chats politely with them at cocktail parties and seminars, and he even goes out to dinner with them. That’s just too civilized.
* * *