Recent News

When liberals discover that I have unorthodox views on race, they poke around for other unorthodox views. They think that if I am beyond the pale on enough fashionable subjects, it means I am a crackpot, and they can ignore the uncomfortable things I say about race.

The first poke usually goes like this:  “And what do you think about gays?” My reply: “I sure wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one.”

This question of whom I want my children to marry—or even more provocatively: whom I want your children to marry—was raised by John Derbyshire in

Well into the 2000s, the news and entertainment media told us incessantly that serial killers were overwhelmingly white, male, 20-45 years old. Blacks still repeat this canard. The father of that false profile: Robert Ressler of the FBI’s behavioral science unit. But Justin Cottrell’s new book, Rise of the Black Serial Killer, demonstrates that serial killers today are overwhelmingly black men, and that Ressler lied in court when he stated: “There are very few non-white serial killers.”

Cottrell argues that Ressler was afraid of being called a racist. I think Ressler had an appetite for the limelight and simply told the leftwing MSM what they wanted to hear. The MSM reciprocated by making Ressler a star. (Conversely, only VDARE.com notices Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome—at least 37 cases and 337 victims over 20 years).

During the 2002 Beltway Killings by the Nation of Islam’s John Muhammad and his young protégé, Lee Boyd Malvo (an immigrant), people were avoidably murdered because Montgomery County’s black police Chief Charles Moose promoted the baseless profile of a “white male” driving “a white box truck” that permitted the real killers to pass through police checkpoints undisturbed—even after one killer had spoken to Moose on the phone, and Moose knew he was black.

With time, the FBI became such an incompetent Politically Correct bureaucracy that even in cases where the killer was a heterosexual white male, it was more interested in catching someone else who fit the profile, above all if they were vaguely pro-authority or rightwing.

Recently, VDARE.com published my “Hate Crimes”: Washington’s War Against White Working Class Dissent, about unknown working class whites persecuted for having

"It's surprising what you can find on the internet," we used to say when the thing was new. Nowadays I am more often surprised by what I can't find on the internet. I posted an example here on VDARE.com a few days ago: a curious little flight of imagination by Winston Churchill.

Now here's another item whose complete absence from the internet until yesterday is even more puzzling.

I was noodling the idea of a piece on "the hostility many blacks feel toward whites," to quote from my infamous April 5 article in Taki's Magazine.

The phenomenon, though not of course universal among American blacks, is very noticeable to immigrants who come here when adults (as I did). It used to be a common topic of conversation among expatriates; though since I don't hang out much with expatriates any more, I cannot say whether this is still the case. Back in the 1970s, I once had a conversation about it with a black West Indian work colleague, whose perceptions agreed with mine. I have passed some occasional comments on the subject in my columns.

For such an inflammable topic, though, I thought I needed some backup. It could not possibly be the case that such an obvious feature (it seemed to me) of our social life had gone unremarked in the public prints and pixels. Surely some respectable journalist, writing in a respectable outlet, had commented on widespread black hostility to whites?

Dredging through my memory, I came up with a vague recollection of Amity Shlaes' article "Black Mischief," which had appeared in the London Spectator back in the mid-1990s. Ms. Shlaes, a Wall Street Journal features editor at the time (she is now a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg), had written frankly about the routine anti-white hostility New Yorkers faced from blacks.

She had, of course, gotten into trouble for the piece. There had been quite a stir about it all at the time — enough, at any rate, for me to have remembered it. The article must surely, I thought, have been posted to the internet at some point in the following 15 or 20 years.

I went a-googling, encouraged by Ms. Shlaes' very distinctive name. The obvious search arguments, that last name together with "black mischief" in quotes, did yield this; but it's not Ms. Shlaes' column, it's only someone writing about the column. It's also a "teaser," with some registration business to go through if you want to read the whole thing. No thanks.

For the rest, all I was getting was dry leads, mostly lists of books containing both Ms. Shlaes' contrarian 2008 history of the Great Depression and Evelyn Waugh's wonderfully non-PC 1932 Africa novel.

Adding "-waugh" to the search argument thinned things out considerably, to just eleven results in fact. None of them was the Spectator article.

I thought this was puzzling. Had I imagined the thing? No: Dominic Lawson, then editor of the Spectator, had written about "Black Mischief" and its consequences for Ms. Shlaes’ career shortly afterwards in a piece mocking American political correctness.[Taboo or not Taboo, November 19, 1994]I had that piece in my archives, for unrelated reasons. (It is very melancholy to re-read it now, when the Brits have fallen deeper into the darkness even than ourselves.)

Here is Lawson, on the reaction of Ms. Shlaes' colleagues when "Black Mischief" became known to them:

Over the next few days, Amity found herself being treated like Peter Sellers's strike-breaker in I'm All Right, Jack. A number of her

American Christians risk a pile of propaganda from the pulpit this Sunday. President Obama’s clearly impeachable extension of his administrative amnesty, to illegals who would have been covered by the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has repeatedly refused to pass, has the support, not merely of much (if not all) of the political class, but also of Big Religion. Here is Peter Brimelow on his Episcopalian Church. Here’s a scathing indictment of the Catholic Bishops’ hypocritical just-issued statement of support for Obama.

As an evangelical Christian myself, I’m particularly interested in the evangelical family organization Focus on the Family. According to the group’s own website,

Focus on the Family is a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive. We provide help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God’s design, and for parents to raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles. [About Focus on the Family] 

But Focus on the Family has just betrayed its contributors, betrayed families and betrayed its own principles by, for the first time, supporting amnesty.

As reported in my blog entry, Focus on the Family Boards the Amnesty Bandwagon, the group’s current leader, Jim Daly, joined a group of 100 similarly deluded evangelicals in signing a document, "Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform" calling for  "a bipartisan solution

With my daughter, Karia Sybil Nancy Brimelow,  born 10:51 pm June 13, 8lb 8oz:

[James Fulford writes: (June 13, 2012) We have a link on Sam Francis's page to his  columns on TownHall, January 4 2000-August 1 2000. That's an Archive.org link, so you couldn't find any of those columns by Googling. I'm posting this because the principle still applies, and while Sam and Charlton Heston have both passed on, and the gun controllers have a great deal less traction than they did even 12 years ago, Richard Cohen[Email him] still has a column in the Washington Post.]

Originally published on March 28, 2000

The republic has been edified in the last couple of weeks by the continuing debate between the National Rifle Association on the one hand, and on the other, bear with me a moment, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, former President Ford, Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, much of the national news media, and all of the gun control lobby over the NRA's unfairness toward the president. That NRA is dreadful, isn't it? Who will it gang up on next?

One lesson the debate teaches, though few seem to have learned it, is that the left side of the debate never hesitates to reject the moral legitimacy of its opponents, while at the same time screaming and screeching if the right side ever insinuates any doubt about the left's moral postures. Those who have followed the controversies between left and right over the years may have noticed that the left does this routinely.

In the eyes of the left, the right is almost always motivated by greed (Franklin Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth"), hate ("racism," "xenophobia," "homophobia," "anti-Semitism," "bigotry") or just general irrationality, if not outright insanity ("the paranoid fringe"). It seems to be impossible for the left to acknowledge that those who disagree with it from the right do so because they are rationally convinced of the truth of what they believe and the moral necessity of acting on it. To the mentality of the left, there's always an ulterior, and discreditable, reason why anyone disagrees with it.

The most recent display of this mentality popped out last week in a column by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on NRA President Charlton Heston. [Heaven Help the Gun Nuts, By Richard Cohen, March 23, 2000]Though I rarely agree with him, Cohen is one of my favorite columnists, not only because of his considerable writing talent but also because of his, well, innocence. It is his curse, if not his gift, to display to the world the way the unguarded liberal mind really works. Most other liberals have the prudence at least to try to hide those workings, but Cohen almost always lays them open like a child babbling family secrets.

It is Cohen's thesis in his column about Heston (which the Post published with a little box around it to draw the reader's attention to it) that Heston, in a word, "is nuts." He's nuts, that is, crazy, insane, irrational or mentally

Families see their wealth sapped; Middle Class Is Hit Hardest; Measure of net worth falls to early 90's level” ran the Washington Post’s headline on its page one story today [By Ylan Q. Mui, June 11, 2012].

So at last the effect of  years of excess alien importation,  known to all immigration reform patriots and reported in an incisive flow of VDARE.com stories, has appeared in an MSM paper—but, ironically and predictably, without explaining WHY!

Oh, yes, the WaPo story talks about the effects of the “economic downturn”, but it does not say WHY our economic downturn was so serious. Why is unemployment so intractable? Why are we sinking, California-style, into more and more entitlements and increasing national debt?

OK, our warmongering certainly plays a role. But the real reason there is now and will be for the foreseeable future a “weeping and gnashing of teeth” by far too many Americans is the excess immigration from 1965 onwards.