Peter Brimelow Blames ‘Cultural Marxists’ For Hotel’s Cancellation Of Anti-Immigrant Conference

Peter Brimelow VDARE

On the October 24, 2017 episode of The Morning Ritual, host Garret Lewis interviewed Peter Brimelow, the leader of the anti-immigrant hate group VDARE. The group — named after the first English child born in the New World — was set to have its first ever conference in March of next year, but received word that yet another hotel had decided not to host them.

Although VDARE regularly publishes racist invective and employs white nationalists, Garret Lewis disingenuously described the organization as one that is merely opposed to “illegal immigration.”

However, as Peter Brimelow states later in the podcast, VDARE also wants to slash the levels of legal immigration as well. In fact, VDARE contributor Joe Guzzardi wrote in a 2005 article that the “great on-going debate” at the website is whether legal or illegal immigration “does more to destroy the fabric of America.”

Lewis then told his listeners that “some pro-amnesty liberal groups called the hotel to put the fear of God in ’em and say, ‘Oh you’re gonna have a bunch of white supremacists there,’ things like that.”

Brimelow pinned the blame for this cancellation on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the liberal watchdog group Media Matters. (VDARE’s official Twitter account tweeted a terse “thanks $PLC!” in response to the news.)

According to Brimelow, whenever they find a hotel willing to host their conference, a “gang of Leftist, cultural Marxist vigilantes,” like the people who work for “the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters,” pressures them into rescinding their offers.

“Of course the problem is, and this is the really extraordinary thing, is we have a contract with these people,” he said, which means VDARE is owed liquidated damages for breach of contract. And the fact that these hotel chains are willing to pay large sums of money to avoid hosting white nationalists “is evidence of the extraordinary power of the totalitarian Left in the culture.”

Brimelow reiterated that while VDARE has been around since 1999, they haven’t hosted any conferences because “these cultural Marxist groups will come and try to close us down.” And he claimed that when venues like the Hilton El Conquistador decide they no longer wish to associate with hate groups like VDARE, it proves that “there is simply no longer free speech in America” and that “the Left is determined to repress opposition.”

As for the reason the Left is trying to shut down conferences for groups like his, Brimelow asserted that “continued Third World immigration is the only way they’re ever going to come to power in the U.S.”

Lewis asked Brimelow whether VDARE has ever “preached violence,” to which Brimelow responded, “No, of course not! Nothing illegal of any kind!” And he described himself as a respectable journalist with 40 years of experience writing for ForbesFortune, and the Wall Street Journal among other publications.

And that might have been true, at one point, that Brimelow was considered a respected journalist. But he and other paleoconservatives and white nationalists were effectively purged from mainstream conservative publications for their racist beliefs. Today Peter Brimelow is considered a pariah by establishment conservatives, and for good reason.

In fact, not long after calling himself a “perfectly boring, orthodox, elderly conservative journalist,” Brimelow echoed President Trump’s mistaken belief that there were “good people” among the violent white supremacists in Charlottesville. Yes, Peter Brimelow openly sympathizes with the men and women who carried torches while chanting “Jews will not replace us!” and “Blood and soil!”

Lewis tried his hand at whitewashing the movement to save Confederate monuments by citing Sandra Crenshaw, a black former city council member from Dallas who “aligned herself with Buffalo Soldier historians and Sons of Confederate Veterans to create a predominantly black group that is working to protect Confederate memorials.” Crenshaw’s reasoning was that removing such monuments wouldn’t end racism in the U.S., which is undoubtedly true.

But he uses this single example of African-Americans opposing the removal of Confederate monuments — on very narrow grounds — to paint the pro-Confederate movement as non-racist and motivated by history. A HuffPost/YouGov poll found that African-Americans are 18% more likely to favor removal than whites are, and that conservatives are far more likely than liberals to oppose removal.