I’ve read the entire transcript, and I would say that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Buchanan held the day, if only in that they forced their opponents to state matter-of-factly what their views really entail.

What they entail is an open assault on the historic majority that made this country what it is. They candidly expressed their view that immigrants of their ilk have a natural right to come here at will and claim all the benefits and perquisites which pertain to American citizens, with none of the responsibilities inherent (or implied,) and that (real) Americans have a manifest obligation to accomodate any demands they make, including the compelled financing of their own dispossession, lest they all be considered ‘racist.’

This was an important broadcast, not least because Mr. Taylor was brought on in a surprisingly objective manner. Missing were the typically mandatory ‘disclaimers’ about how he’s this or that.

I say: Score another for our side!

I agree that on balance, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Buchanan did well on this program. But, I still see too much discussion about side issues like “language” and assimilation - in particular Mr. Buchanan’s longing for the “good old days” when all ethnic groups tried to be good Americans, with a common culture and a common language - the “melting pot” myth. It was never like this.

Simply stated, the United States and North America can not assimilate tens of millions of Third World peoples who are racially and culturally alien and hostile to our White Western people. And it’s not about language. When arch White hater Robert Mugabe gives his thugs orders to rape the 12 year old daughters of White Farmers still trying to make a go of it in Zimbabwe, he gives these orders in English - it’s not a language problem. The Roland Cripps, the Bloods, most of the Mexican Mafia, the Arab Muslim 9/11/01 terrorists all speak/spoke English.

Also, Buchanan and Taylor neglected to put a the blame where it is deserved :

on the White selfish, cowardly and traitorous Conservative Republicans who refuse to enforce laws against illegal immigration, who run companies like Wal-Mart and refuse to pay honest union wages to Americans, prefering endless supplies of cheap, non White immigrant labor.

Next time you see some fat, lazy White Republican big shot playing golf and doing nothing about immigration, don’t hold back.

While I agree with Mr. Robinson that a common language by itself would not solve many of the problems we’re experiencing, it remains true that the multitude of foreign languages crowding our land represents a threat of its own to national cohesion, identity, and sovereignty.

It cannot be considered a side issue.

The rest of what Mr. Robinson says requires little if any qualification.

Agreed that language is not a side issue. It is, however, a distraction and an escape when it is treated as the focus of the immigration issue—as many many people have treated it. You could have a society where everyone is speaking English and it still be a ruined, racially divided, multicultural society. But that’s the way most people are. They are only capable of seeing and articulating the most gross and obvious facets of a problem. So when they can’t find anyone who speaks English, they suddenly become aware that immigration is a problem. They remain blind to everything else that immigration is doing. (Which, I suppose, somewhat justifies Howard Sutherland’s criticism of the article by Herb London I posted a few weeks ago, in which London visited Chicago and was shocked not to be able to find any English speakers during a long stretch of time, and Mr. Sutherland wondered where Herb London has been all these years.)

Also, Buchanan’s specific statements and criticisms regarding immigration over the years have been extraordinally weak and inconsistent. He’s never worked out a coherent, comprehensive, principled view on the subject and taken a stand on it. Even worse, many times over the years he would reduce the issue to nothing but illegal immigration.

I must admit Mr. Auster has crystallized my concern about Mr. Buchanan. He seems simply inconsistent about things. This trait might carryover into his reputed inconsistency when it comes to Israel. I don’t think he wishes Israel or Jewish people harm as do the Moslems and many Europeans and leftists; but he might resent most American Jewish people siding politically with his opponents and denouncing him as a you know what. I suspect he simply likes to think out loud, much as I do here. He follows the path of a moral and conservative man, but it is the path of a river: north, south, east, and west.

All of which is part of the reason he did poorly as a presidential candidate.

I think Buchanan has a much more consistent view of immigration than most conservatives, that is largely what Death of the West is about. His view seems to be that illegal immigrants should all be deported and it should be stopped on the border. He also believes that assimilation is not possible without a pause to absorb the current population, and therefore has supported an indefinite moratorium until assimilation occurs.

The one area where he has wavered is on the issue of race and immigration. While he has touched the issue-The Death of the West goes in great detail about racial demographic and he made the famous ‘Zulus and Englishmen’ quip—- he seems to be unclear about whether he believes that non whites can be sucessfully assimilated, but he has certainly been more thoughtful about this issu than most other conservatives or immigration reformers.

I like what Mr. Murgos says, and I also agree with much of what Mr. Epstein says. :-) It’s possible that in Death of the West Buchanan worked out a stronger overall position on immigration (though, absurdly, the only immigrant group he discusses in the book as far as I remember was Mexicans in the Southwest). However, over the years, he has sounded a _very_ uncertain and wavering trumpet on this issue. (To blow my own horn here, probably the strongest column he ever wrote on immigration was the column he did on The Path to National Suicide in the the spring of 1991. And one of the reasons that column was strong was that he embraced my racial angle on the subject, that immigration is a double standard by which non-whites advance themselves and whites are dispossessed. But he didn’t stay with that theme in his later writings.)

As for Buchanan’s general lack of ability to form a coherent view, I remember the dissapointment I felt on reading his book Right from the Beginning around 1989. Having admired his columns for years (I thought he was the top conservative in America), I was expecting something really important. But the book revealed that his politics was more a congeries of acquired attitudes and feelings than a thought-out, comprehensive view of the world.

I should quit after such a high compliment, but I am human. (I started the following before seeing the compliment.)

Mr. Taylor’s amazing articulation illustrates how one shall know evil by its fruits. Stealing a part of a richer man’s money or home to accomplish the end of making one more prosperous will end in the utter devastation of the thief. The massive influx from the poorer countries will simply turn the richer country into a poorer country that can offer no assistance or compassion whatsoever to the poorer country. The richer man might have to spend some time in purgatory and might go to hell, but the poorer man will surely have gone straight to hell.

The new “drug” bill for seniors provides $1 BILLION for hospitals that serve a large amount of illegal immigrants. It is hard to believe that when all the benefits are taken into account that the country gets a net benefit from illegal immigrants even if all of them that are supposed to pay taxes do pay taxes.

This is the first time I have come across this site and I must say I am impressed with the intelligent anecdotes being put forward on the subjects of demographics and the preservation of western culture. I will surely add comments in the future when an issue of importance arises.

Mr. Simek,

Welcome aboard! With President Bush’s proposal to amnesty the millions of illegal aliens already squatting here and to make it easier for still more millions of aliens to flood in, we have an issue of paramount importance on the table: whether the United States can survive such an onslaught and betrayal by our ruling class. Weigh in! HRS