Peter Brimelow: 'Too Extreme For WND'

Last year, Peter Brimelow was a panelist at CPAC; this year he is having his columns rejected as “too extreme” by WorldNetDaily. In a blog post on VDARE today, Brimelow writes that a column he wrote about the immigration debate was just too out there for WND:

The difficulty in the immigration debate is what I called in Alien Nation back in 1995 “Hitler’s Revenge.” The elites of the West emerged from WWII utterly traumatized by the experience of confronting Nazism. It was so traumatic that they went overboard on the opposite side. They became convinced that any discussion of ethnicity or cultural heritage at all, let alone race, was unthinkable. You couldn’t address these things without being a Nazi.



My personal view is that the counter to the charge of racism is the charge of treason. What these people are doing is treason: they intend to destroy the historic American nation as it had evolved to 1965.

However, I wrote a column a couple of weeks ago saying this which was rejected as too extreme by WND—a considerable feat!

A “considerable feat” indeed.

What is in this too-crazy-for-WND column?

Brimelow argues that Democrats’ supposed support of an “invasion” and “colonization” of the US by non-white immigrants is treason because it reduces the percentage of the white population.

Hard to believe that WND, which has published Brimelow’s columns previously and is the home of anti-immigrant writers such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and Jerome Corsi (who peddle the same fears about the death of White America and the GOP), would find anything wrong with this column.

We don’t know what WND’s editors were thinking, because this reads just like a column one would see on their site.

There is a word that has the same incantatory power—and, unlike the charge of “racism,” it happens to be accurate. That word is “Treason.”

What the Left, the Democrats, and the immigration enthusiasts are doing to America is treason.



But the Founders did not mean that only armed attack constituted treason. The Supreme Court, in Cramer (1945), quoted a definition of treason as "an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the [United States] . . ." Treason required an act and conscious intent; but not necessarily war.

And this definition of treason must be read in the context of what the Founders believed they were doing. The preamble to the Constitution begins: "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ." [Italics mine.]

Not posterity in general, note—but the specific posterity of those men who signed that document. They represented a full-fledged nation, an organic ethnocultural community. Newcomers might be assimilated (although the Founders were actually fairly skeptical about further immigration, and there was in fact very little for several decades after the Revolution). But there was no thought that immigrants should transform.

Yet Leftists have no hesitations about boasting openly that they plan to displace this American Founding nation through a public policy—immigration.

For example, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the appalling Democratic National Committee Chairthing, has boasted that her party will be swept to power by the immigration-driven “browning of America.”



Democrat policy is to swamp the historic American nation by abetting, not just an invasion by foreigners, but colonization—the development of enclaves that are to all intents and purposes no longer American territory.

How much more treasonous can you get?

Filed Under

Organizations:

WorldNetDaily , VDARE