So I’m going to say three things today. The first is I’ll briefly discuss who I am, because nobody knows who I am.
And the second thing I’m going to discuss what was actually the subtitle of my 1995 book, Alien Nation–Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster: the post-1965 Immigration Disaster.
“Common Sense,” of course, was an homage to Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, Common Sense, when he was also an English immigrant, was instrumental in fueling the American Revolution.
And the third thing I’m going to talk about is: what happens next?
- ·So–who am I?........
......Now, also in 1965, there was an immigration act passed in America, which is generally referred to as the Hart-Celler Act, after the two people, the Senator, and the Congressman, who sponsored it. And it kicked in in 1967.
Now you have to realize that immigration everywhere, but particularly in the US, is not like rain. It doesn’t just come and go, which is how people tend to think of it.
It’s a government policy. The government determines how many people come in, it determines who they are, it determines what race they are, what countries they come from, and it determines their skill levels. All of those are entirely determined by government policy.
So what the Hart-Celler Act did was, it opened the floodgates after a 40-year pause, when there was almost no immigration at all. In fact, there was net negative immigration in the 1940s.
The 1924 Act, which dramatically reduced immigration, was passed after the great influx of immigration between the 1880s and the 1920s, which is now referred to as the First Great Wave. So it reduced it very dramatically, and it’s also re-oriented it so that the immigrants coming in would have the same national origins as Americans who were already here. It wasn’t going to change the ethnic balance.
And it was a great success, and it was essential to assimilation......
First of all, it completely destabilized the racial balance of the U.S. In 1960, the U.S. was 90% white. At the last survey, it was below 60% white. And that’s entirely due to government policy.
People talk about the Great Replacement. There’s a term coined by Renaud Camus, a French intellectual, and if you look it up on Wikipedia or something, you’ll find it’s denounced as a “conspiracy theory.”
But it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. There is a Great Replacement going on right across the White West, right across the Anglosphere, right across North America. The population which was here is being replaced by a new population predominantly drawn from the Third World.
One of the interesting side effects of the 1965 Act, by the way, is that it dramatically cut off British immigration. Immigration from Western Europe in general, but particularly from Britain. Immigrants from Britain fell from about 40,000 a year to about 15,000 a year just overnight.
Which was a big problem for us, my brother and I, at Stanford. We were supposed to go back to the underdeveloped countries from which we came to help them develop, because we both had Fulbright Awards.
The second consequence of the Act was that the U.S. now has a much larger population, and is projected to have a very much larger population, than it would have done if that Hart-Celler hadn’t been enacted.
And the numbers are not small. If it was up to the 1924 Act, if that had been left in place, the population in the U.S. would have been 250-270 million. Instead, it’s 343 million.
This is a particularly interesting thing when you think about environmentalism.
I mean, environmentalism, since the 1960s, has been a really important force in American politics. But nothing degrades the environment more than importing 120 million people and paving over all of Northern Virginia to accommodate a million H-1B Indians.
Environmentalism is not just a question of ecology, of whether the environment is healthy or not. It’s also an amenity issue. I think the destruction of the Northern Virginia farmlands was a really serious aesthetic crime.
So the question is: where are the environmentalist groups on immigration?
And the answer is: they’re hiding.
They’re hiding because about 20 years ago, there was a huge riot. The Sierra Club used to be in favor of reducing immigration, stabilizing America’s population, entirely because they knew it was degrading the environment. But about 20 years ago, they changed sides on the issue.
First of all, they didn’t talk about immigration at all. And then, secondly, they joined various pro-Amnesty coalitions.
And the reason for this was they got enormous amounts of money from a Jewish hedge fund manager who was still hung up on Ellis Island and the Russian pogroms and so on, and thought the borders had to be kept open.
The monies were very large, and it just completely changed the Sierra Club’s mind as to what it thought about immigration.
Now, so to finish this section, I’m just going to quote from Senator Teddy Kennedy. He was the floor manager of the Hart-Celler bill in 1965
And he gave a quote, which is notorious among immigration patriots, in his final statement in the debate:
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same, as then about 300,000 a year.
Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the changes in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or the most populated and deprived nations, Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
Every single one of these predictions was proved false. Kennedy was either a fool or he was a liar. But either way he simply wasn’t telling the truth......
....I’m gonna conclude this section very quickly by saying we actually have a video in which the New York Attorney General henchman who is leading the charge against us, his name is Rick Sawyer, gave a speech to an Anti-Defamation League conference called “Taking Hate to Court.”
And he said [31m 21s into the video] that “hate,” “hate speech”—that’s us!—is protected by the First Amendment.
But, he said, there’s a way around that! You can simply subpoena—state attorney generals have enormous subpoena power—you can simply subpoena the purveyors of hate, namely us, to death.
In other words, he made an absolutely explicit statement of his desire to get around the First Amendment.
But we’ve been absolutely unable to get the courts to pay attention to this. And that speaks to the collapse of law in the US.
So that’s why I said earlier that banning “Hate Speech” is effectively on the verge of being written into the Constitution.
Which is partly, not entirely, but very much partly caused by the tremendous ethnic changes that have gone on in the U.S. For example, in our trek through the New York State Court system, we haven’t met one white gentile judge.
And this is particularly disturbing because there’s a ton of technical evidence that the concept of an objective law is really something only whites believe in. No other race apart from whites polls that way. That is, when most groups are faced with a preferred policy outcome versus the Letter Of The Law, they would rule against the Letter Of The Law. They just rule for what they want politically.
As I say, this idea of an objective law is a uniquely white thing, and it only worked when we had an overwhelmingly white nation.....
....Anyway, this is why what Solzhenitsyn says was so radical. He said:
In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face.
Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colors and bears within itself a special facet of God’s design.
Well, I think that the US, when I saw it when I came here in 1970, was a special facet of God’s design.
And I think we should keep it that way.
