vdare--2020-02-05--NYT Film Critic: "Best Picture" Nominees Are Too White & Male, But Also They Are Better Than 2019's

NYT Film Critic: "Best Picture" Nominees Are Too White & Male, But Also They Are Better Than 2019's Nonwhite Nonmale Movies

From the New York Times : Dear Oscars , I Love You .
But We Need to Talk .
The Academy Awards have made mistakes before , our critic writes .
But this year ’ s crop of best-picture nominees may be the breaking point .
Best-picture nominees this year include… “ 1917 ” ; “ Ford v Ferrari ” ; “ Jojo Rabbit ” ; “ Joker ” ; “ Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood ” ; “ The Irishman ” ; and “ Marriage Story.
” Plus , “ Little Women , ” which was ho-hum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Oscars , what about them is most wrong ?
The joylessly algebraic nomination process ?
All those old white voters ?
That we seriously call September to February awards season , like it ’ s weather or the flu ?
Whatever it is , we ’ re looking at nine best-picture nominees and 19 actors that have got a lot of people rolling their eyes — people like me .
And I ’ m not an eye-roller about these things .
I love the Academy Awards .
Why the hell am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay ?
The Academy Awards are like the Big Gay Super Bowl , so they ’ ve finally taken my advice and rather than schedule them long after anybody could remember the end-of year releases , they moved the ceremony up in the year to the Sunday after Super Bowl Sunday .
Now here ’ s an amusing admission from Morris : the White Male nominee movies are pretty good this year , better than the competition : Why ’ s race such a factor now ?
Well , for one thing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is some accounting for taste .
And this year , the problem isn ’ t with the particular remaining movies — “ 1917 , ” “ Ford v Ferrari , ” “ The Irishman , ” “ Jojo Rabbit , ” “ Joker ” and “ Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood ” — or the white people in them .
Not since my wish list and Walkman days , have I despised so few nominees in this category .
Most of them I love .
As for the one failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get with the program .
But after four tries , I gave up .
This Joker , quite often literally , has no clothes .
Joker is the first billion dollar art house drama in movie history .
It ’ s not for everybody but clearly it ’ s for a lot of people .
Assembled , these distinct movies become a representative entity , and a person like me notices a theme that could poke out an eye .
And whiteness is part of that story .
It ’ s always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year feels different .
A homogeneity has set in .
The nominated movies start to look like picture day at certain magnet schools .
“ Jojo Rabbit ” is a Hitler Youth comedy !
Quentin Tarantino ’ s “ Once Upon a Time … ” is a dream about the accidentally heroic pre-emption of racist Charles Manson ’ s murder plot .
And “ Little Women ” quietly dramatizes the freedom white women experience after the men have left to fight a war ; a war to end the enslavement of black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and yet the movie means us to understand the irony .
Those white ladies are better off than any black people .
They ’ re just not equal to the women ’ s enlisted brothers , fathers and beaus .
Uh , aren ’ t the white women at home in Concord , Massachusetts better off than the white men fighting and dying in the Civil War ?
The border between their time and ours has a gusty permeability .
Some of what ’ s so strong about “ The Irishman ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes from how remembered they both feel — rue-soaked in the first movie ; heavy with “ what if ” in the other .
At the movies ( in the West ) , the convenient thing about the past is that you can solve the matter of race by pretending it doesn ’ t exist .
Most of these movies , in addition to their thematic rearview , are based in actual history .
( “ 1917 ” sends two British World War I soldiers on a critical , thrillingly stressful postal mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonwhite people in places they weren ’ t — and when a movie does , you get something mildly anarchic like a biracial Jewish New Zealander having a ball playing Hitler .
Quentin Tarantino ’ s “ Once Upon a Time … ” has a great line ; as they wait for their car , Brad Pitt tells a weepy Leonardo DiCaprio , “ Don ’ t cry in front of the Mexicans.
” Their white American maleness is too mythic and valuable to go around blubbering all over valets .
“ Joker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t have Tarantino ’ s sense of humor about its whiteness .
Whiteness here is a tragic , symbolic condition .
… Couldn ’ t these nine movies just be evidence of taste ?
Good taste ?
They certainly could .
They are .
And yet , after the hash tags and threatened boycotts , after “ Hidden Figures , ” “ Get Out ” and “ Black Panther ” and “ BlacKkKlansman ” ; after “ Moonlight ” winning over “ La La Land ” ; after no woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the touted diversification campaigns and calls for “ inclusion riders ” ( calls in acceptance speeches ! )
; and in the same year that a popular Latina surprisingly missed the cut and the only black acting nominee is playing a plantation escapee ( albeit one of history ’ s most famous escapees , but still ) — the assembly of these movies feels like a body ’ s allergic reaction to its own efforts at rehabilitation .
In other words , it ’ s almost as if the most talented figures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are white men such as Quentin Tarantino , have tended to react to The Great Awokening by moving in the opposite direction .
Only two of the nine movies are set in what we ’ d called the present moment ; and one of those ( “ Parasite ” ) comes to us from Seoul .
Which means , the other seven — six of which are set in the United States — take place in the past .
… Out with the new , in with the ancient !
Maybe this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what could the Academy have done to prevent itself from duplicating schisms beyond the movie theater ?
National schisms .
( Nationalist schisms . )
According to all the forecasting , these were the nine most predicted nominees .
There ’ s no shafted movie by or about nonwhite people , despite certain passions for “ The Farewell ” and “ Hustlers ” or even mine for “ Waves.
” … I can look at these otherwise innocent movies , gathered together , and surmise progress fatigue : We already did that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscar for “ Joker , ” he ’ s likely to remind his fellow industry professionals , as he did last Sunday at the BAFTAs , that their tiredness is not an option , that it ’ s an embarrassment .
Phoenix ’ s BAFTA award speech summarized : I got mine !
Now , voters , start discriminating harder against younger guys who look like me .
That fatigue starts to mirror life everywhere else , as it used to be and sometimes as it remains .
Separate , unequal : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pop hits that you have to think alternatively .
So when the so-called awards season heats up , you can ’ t find anything serious , nonwhite and good .
So come nomination morn , the Oscars suddenly look like evidence of white flight , this reliable suburb of “ quality ” and “ taste ” and eligibility .
… Wesley Morris is a critic-at-large .
He was awarded the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for his criticism while at the Boston Globe .
He has also worked at Grantland , The San Francisco Chronicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wesley_morris

From the New York Times:
Dear Oscars, I Love You. But We Need to Talk. The Academy Awards have made mistakes before, our critic writes. But this year’s crop of best-picture nominees may be the breaking point. Best-picture nominees this year include… “1917”; “Ford v Ferrari”; “Jojo Rabbit”; “Joker”; “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood”; “The Irishman”; and “Marriage Story.”
Plus, “Little Women,” which was ho-hum.
By Wesley Morris
Published Feb. 4, 2020 If something’s not right with the Oscars, what about them is most wrong? The joylessly algebraic nomination process? All those old white voters? That we seriously call September to February awards season, like it’s weather or the flu? Whatever it is, we’re looking at nine best-picture nominees and 19 actors that have got a lot of people rolling their eyes — people like me. And I’m not an eye-roller about these things. I love the Academy Awards. Why the hell am I like this?
Because you are gay? The Academy Awards are like the Big Gay Super Bowl, so they’ve finally taken my advice and rather than schedule them long after anybody could remember the end-of year releases, they moved the ceremony up in the year to the Sunday after Super Bowl Sunday.
This year the X-ray feels like it was removed from a time capsule. And a little Oscar radiology reveals that eight of the nine movies (minus “Parasite”) are about white people — and, excusing “Little Women,” and Scarlett Johansson in “Marriage Story” notwithstanding, about white men. “Little Women” is the lone nominee that a woman directed.
And rather poorly.
Now here’s an amusing admission from Morris: the White Male nominee movies are pretty good this year, better than the competition:
Why’s race such a factor now? Well, for one thing, when it comes to the Oscars, there is some accounting for taste. And this year, the problem isn’t with the particular remaining movies — “1917,” “Ford v Ferrari,” “The Irishman,” “Jojo Rabbit,” “Joker” and “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” — or the white people in them. Not since my wish list and Walkman days, have I despised so few nominees in this category. Most of them I love. As for the one failure, I’ve never worked harder to get with the program. But after four tries, I gave up. This Joker, quite often literally, has no clothes.
Joker is the first billion dollar art house drama in movie history. It’s not for everybody but clearly it’s for a lot of people.
Assembled, these distinct movies become a representative entity, and a person like me notices a theme that could poke out an eye. And whiteness is part of that story. It’s always been, of course. But this year feels different. A homogeneity has set in. The nominated movies start to look like picture day at certain magnet schools. “Jojo Rabbit” is a Hitler Youth comedy! Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time …” is a dream about the accidentally heroic pre-emption of racist Charles Manson’s murder plot. And “Little Women” quietly dramatizes the freedom white women experience after the men have left to fight a war; a war to end the enslavement of black people. Sounds a little too ironic, and yet the movie means us to understand the irony. Those white ladies are better off than any black people. They’re just not equal to the women’s enlisted brothers, fathers and beaus.
Uh, aren’t the white women at home in Concord, Massachusetts better off than the white men fighting and dying in the Civil War?
The border between their time and ours has a gusty permeability. Some of what’s so strong about “The Irishman” and “Once Upon a Time …” comes from how remembered they both feel — rue-soaked in the first movie; heavy with “what if” in the other. At the movies (in the West), the convenient thing about the past is that you can solve the matter of race by pretending it doesn’t exist. Most of these movies, in addition to their thematic rearview, are based in actual history. (“1917” sends two British World War I soldiers on a critical, thrillingly stressful postal mission.) You can’t put nonwhite people in places they weren’t — and when a movie does, you get something mildly anarchic like a biracial Jewish New Zealander having a ball playing Hitler. Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time …” has a great line; as they wait for their car, Brad Pitt tells a weepy Leonardo DiCaprio, “Don’t cry in front of the Mexicans.” Their white American maleness is too mythic and valuable to go around blubbering all over valets. “Joker” is about a comedian, but it doesn’t have Tarantino’s sense of humor about its whiteness. Whiteness here is a tragic, symbolic condition. … Couldn’t these nine movies just be evidence of taste? Good taste? They certainly could. They are. And yet, after the hash tags and threatened boycotts, after “Hidden Figures,” “Get Out” and “Black Panther” and “BlacKkKlansman”; after “Moonlight” winning over “La La Land”; after no woman being a two-time directing nominee; after the touted diversification campaigns and calls for “inclusion riders” (calls in acceptance speeches!); and in the same year that a popular Latina surprisingly missed the cut and the only black acting nominee is playing a plantation escapee (albeit one of history’s most famous escapees, but still) — the assembly of these movies feels like a body’s allergic reaction to its own efforts at rehabilitation.
In other words, it’s almost as if the most talented figures in the movie business, most of whom are white men such as Quentin Tarantino, have tended to react to The Great Awokening by moving in the opposite direction.
Only two of the nine movies are set in what we’d called the present moment; and one of those (“Parasite”) comes to us from Seoul. Which means, the other seven — six of which are set in the United States — take place in the past. … Out with the new, in with the ancient! Maybe this is just bad luck. I mean, what could the Academy have done to prevent itself from duplicating schisms beyond the movie theater? National schisms. (Nationalist schisms.) According to all the forecasting, these were the nine most predicted nominees. There’s no shafted movie by or about nonwhite people, despite certain passions for “The Farewell” and “Hustlers” or even mine for “Waves.” … I can look at these otherwise innocent movies, gathered together, and surmise progress fatigue: We already did that. If Joaquin Phoenix wins the best actor Oscar for “Joker,” he’s likely to remind his fellow industry professionals, as he did last Sunday at the BAFTAs, that their tiredness is not an option, that it’s an embarrassment.
Phoenix’s BAFTA award speech summarized: I got mine! Now, voters, start discriminating harder against younger guys who look like me.
That fatigue starts to mirror life everywhere else, as it used to be and sometimes as it remains. Separate, unequal: You’ve put enough nonwhite people in pop hits that you have to think alternatively. So when the so-called awards season heats up, you can’t find anything serious, nonwhite and good. So come nomination morn, the Oscars suddenly look like evidence of white flight, this reliable suburb of “quality” and “taste” and eligibility. … Wesley Morris is a critic-at-large. He was awarded the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for his criticism while at the Boston Globe. He has also worked at Grantland, The San Francisco Chronicle and The San Francisco Examiner. @wesley_morris
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-02-05--Gateway Pundit "Stunned" By Mexican Poll, But VDARE.Com Readers Aren't Surprised. (Donate To VDARE.c

Gateway Pundit "Stunned" By Mexican Poll, But VDARE.Com Readers Aren't Surprised. (Donate To VDARE.com!)

Gateway Pundit reported a recent poll indicating that Mexicans want border control , and the title of the Gateway Pundit article called the poll a `` stunner '' .
It would n't really be a stunner if you 've been a faithful reader of VDARE.COM since at least this past summer .
While liberal activists derisively accused him of building and paying for “ Trump ’ s wall ” by putting Mexican troops on the border with Guatemala to interdict migrant caravans , a new poll shows a sharp increase of support so that now a super majority of Mexicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ López Obrador ( nicknamed AMLO ) in his efforts to secure Mexico ’ s southern border .
AMLO sent National Guard forces to the border last month to stop caravans from crossing through Mexico to the United States and deport them to their home countries .
The poll also shows a majority of Mexicans agree with the idea that Mexico is acting as “ Trump ’ s wall ” , but that has not impacted the strong support for AMLO or his extraordinary actions against the caravan migrants .
64 percent support closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 73 percent support using troops to stop the flow of migrants .
AMLO ’ s approval rating is 71 percent .
Poll Stunner : Super Majority of Mexicans Support AMLO Blocking Migrant Caravans , Using Troops to Guard Border as 'Trump 's Wall ' , by Kristinn Taylor , The Gateway Pundit , February 4 , 2020 Yes , but it 's really not a `` stunner '' .
Mexicans do n't want their country overrun by illegals any more than Americans do .
See my blog post from last July about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of those polled think migrants are a burden to Mexico , 51 % were in favor of using the Mexican National Guard againts illegal aliens and 55 % thought illegals should be deported .
[ WaPo/Reforma Poll : Mexicans Don ’ t Want THEIR Country Overrun Either , Say Deport Central Americans ! ]
An even earlier poll , taken in June , found that 68 % wanted the National Guard on the Mexican Southern border , 67 % thought Mexico 's border should be militarized and that the migration to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75 % support deportation of illegals , and 63 % thought the Mexican border should be closed to migrants , that last figure up from 54 % two weeks previously .
See MEMO FROM MEXICO : Mexican Media Elites Lighten Up On Trump—Rank-And-File Mexicans Agree With Him And Want Guatemala Border Closed !
Also , as I have reported in some of my other articles , the comment sections of Mexican articles reveal a get-tough attitude toward non-Mexican migration in Mexico .
So VDARE.COM is ahead of the curve on this and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consider donating .

Gateway Pundit reported a recent poll indicating that Mexicans want border control, and the title of the Gateway Pundit article called the poll a "stunner."
It wouldn't really be a stunner if you've been a faithful reader of VDARE.COM since at least this past summer.
From Gateway Pundit:
While liberal activists derisively accused him of building and paying for “Trump’s wall” by putting Mexican troops on the border with Guatemala to interdict migrant caravans, a new poll shows a sharp increase of support so that now a super majority of Mexicans are in favor of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (nicknamed AMLO) in his efforts to secure Mexico’s southern border. AMLO sent National Guard forces to the border last month to stop caravans from crossing through Mexico to the United States and deport them to their home countries. The poll also shows a majority of Mexicans agree with the idea that Mexico is acting as “Trump’s wall,” but that has not impacted the strong support for AMLO or his extraordinary actions against the caravan migrants. 64 percent support closing Mexico’s border to migrants and 73 percent support using troops to stop the flow of migrants. AMLO’s approval rating is 71 percent. Poll Stunner: Super Majority of Mexicans Support AMLO Blocking Migrant Caravans, Using Troops to Guard Border as 'Trump's Wall', by Kristinn Taylor, The Gateway Pundit, February 4, 2020
Yes, but it's really not a "stunner." Mexicans don't want their country overrun by illegals any more than Americans do.
See my blog post from last July about a previous Mexican poll which found that 64% of those polled think migrants are a burden to Mexico, 51% were in favor of using the Mexican National Guard against illegal aliens and 55% thought illegals should be deported. [WaPo/Reforma Poll: Mexicans Don’t Want THEIR Country Overrun Either, Say Deport Central Americans!]
An even earlier poll, taken in June, found that 68% wanted the National Guard on the Mexican Southern border, 67% thought Mexico's border should be militarized and that the migration to the U.S. through Mexico should be stopped, 75% support deportation of illegals, and 63% thought the Mexican border should be closed to migrants, that last figure up from 54% two weeks previously. See MEMO FROM MEXICO: Mexican Media Elites Lighten Up On Trump—Rank-And-File Mexicans Agree With Him And Want Guatemala Border Closed!
Also, as I have reported in some of my other articles, the comment sections of Mexican articles reveal a get-tough attitude toward non-Mexican migration in Mexico.
So VDARE.COM is ahead of the curve on this and many issues. Yet another reason you ought to consider donating.


vdare--2020-02-05--Sailer: Three Theories Of The Anti-Admissions Testing Fad

Earlier : Mexican vs. Asian War Brewing Over Abolishing SAT/ACT at U. of California How much of the current anti-admissions test movement by colleges is : • Sincerely Woke ?
Are they really outraged that blacks and Hispanics do worse on average , which , in their worldview , can only be due to the tests being biased ?
• An attempt to get ahead of the coming crash in college students c. 2027 when the tiny cohorts born post-Great Recession start applying to college ?
By the end of this decade , many colleges will have to scrape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay in business that they will need to junk objective measures of who won ’ t benefit from going to college .
• A white assault on the growing dominance of Asians in taking tests pretending to be Woke ?
My counter-reform would be that no institution would be allowed to get paid by federally subsidized college loans unless they could show they actually used national standardized admissions tests to turn away at least , say , 20 % of their applicants .
One of the really big scandals of the 21st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for-profits , trawling for people with sub-90 IQs to sign up for student loans for education in fields where they will never ever be employed .

Earlier: Mexican vs. Asian War Brewing Over Abolishing SAT/ACT at U. of California
How much of the current anti-admissions test movement by colleges is:
Sincerely Woke? Are they really outraged that blacks and Hispanics do worse on average, which, in their worldview, can only be due to the tests being biased?
An attempt to get ahead of the coming crash in college students c. 2027 when the tiny cohorts born post-Great Recession start applying to college? By the end of this decade, many colleges will have to scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard just to stay in business that they will need to junk objective measures of who won’t benefit from going to college.
A white assault on the growing dominance of Asians in taking tests pretending to be Woke?
My counter-reform would be that no institution would be allowed to get paid by federally subsidized college loans unless they could show they actually used national standardized admissions tests to turn away at least, say, 20% of their applicants. One of the really big scandals of the 21st Century has been educational institutions, especially for-profits, trawling for people with sub-90 IQs to sign up for student loans for education in fields where they will never ever be employed.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-02-05--Radio Derb Transcript Up For January 31: Day of Brexit, Year of the Rat, Etc.

The Radio Derb transcript is up for January 31 .
Go here to read or listen .
01m18s Year of @ @ @ @ @ showed up right on cue . )
09m59s Control-freakery in the managerial state .
( @ @ @ @ @ . )
16m54s Brexit came too late .
( The lesson from Britain . )
@ @ @ @ @ ( He saw it 70 years ago . )
26m42s My favorite Clem story .
@ @ @ @ @ . )
28m07s Well done , Your Majesty !
( QE2 overtakes FJ1 . )

The Radio Derb transcript is up for January 31. Go here to read or listen.
Playlist:
01m18s Year of the Rat. (He showed up right on cue.)
06m13s Brexit Day. (Sorry, macushla.)
09m59s Control-freakery in the managerial state. (Why Brits hate the EU.)
16m54s Brexit came too late. (The lesson from Britain.)
24m57s Attlee was right. (He saw it 70 years ago.)
26m42s My favorite Clem story. (An oldie but goodie.)
28m07s Well done, Your Majesty! (QE2 overtakes FJ1.)
30m06s Naturalization, Swiss style. ("Uh" is the wrong answer.)
32m36s The death of true multiculturalism. (Goodbye, SOAS.)
35m31s Signoff. (With Joyce DiDonato.)


vdare--2020-02-07--“Women Of Color Bolt”—The Present of the American Wokeplace Comes for Liz Warren's Campaign

The campaign of former Woman of Color Elizabeth Warren , just like the Buttigieg campaign , is being held hostage by its verklempt Women of Color staffers .
From Politico : Women of color bolt Warren ’ s Nevada campaign in frustration “ Complaints , comments , advice , and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords , but not much else.
” A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren ’ s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state ’ s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at loggerheads .
The six staffers have left the roughly 70-person Nevada team since November , during a critical stretch of the race .
Three of them said they felt marginalized by the campaign , a situation they said didn ’ t change or worsened after they took their concerns to their superiors or to human resources staff .
“ During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren , there was definitely something wrong with the culture , ” said Megan Lewis , a field organizer who joined the campaign in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I filed a complaint with HR , but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.
” Another recently departed staffer , also a field organizer , granted anonymity because she feared reprisal , echoed that sentiment .
“ I felt like a problem — like I was there to literally bring color into the space but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it , ” she said in an interview .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out because she believed the campaign ’ s internal systems failed and needed to be fixed .
Too often , Lewis said , such problems are ignored or swept under the rug because people fear damaging the larger cause .
“ Every election will always be the most important election of our lifetimes , ” Lewis said .
“ Organizing culture needs to change because the fact is our well-being is more important than any election .
I hope this starts a conversation that helps facilitate personal reflection about ways we can change @ @ @ @

The campaign of former Woman of Color Elizabeth Warren, just like the Buttigieg campaign, is being held hostage by its verklempt Women of Color staffers. From Politico:
Women of color bolt Warren’s Nevada campaign in frustration
“Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else.”
By ALEX THOMPSON
02/06/2020 03:29 PM EST
A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.
The six staffers have left the roughly 70-person Nevada team since November, during a critical stretch of the race. Three of them said they felt marginalized by the campaign, a situation they said didn’t change or worsened after they took their concerns to their superiors or to human resources staff.
“During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, there was definitely something wrong with the culture,” said Megan Lewis, a field organizer who joined the campaign in May and departed in December. “I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.”
Another recently departed staffer, also a field organizer, granted anonymity because she feared reprisal, echoed that sentiment. “I felt like a problem — like I was there to literally bring color into the space but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it,” she said in an interview. …
She said she felt compelled to speak out because she believed the campaign’s internal systems failed and needed to be fixed. Too often, Lewis said, such problems are ignored or swept under the rug because people fear damaging the larger cause.
“Every election will always be the most important election of our lifetimes,” Lewis said. “Organizing culture needs to change because the fact is our well-being is more important than any election. I hope this starts a conversation that helps facilitate personal reflection about ways we can change campaign culture.”


vdare--2020-02-06--Immigration Patriots And Vaccine Skeptics—A Natural Alliance

See , earlier , by Michelle Malkin : Fight for the Freedom to Question Vaccines and Vaccine Skeptics Under Siege By Tech Totalitarians If GOP strategists really think the party is having trouble with suburban white women because they of what they wrongly believe to be a nasty anti-immigrant racial animus , here ’ s an idea : seek common cause with the very many suburban moms worried about mandatory vaccination—and make sure they know that Open Borders and mass immigration isn ’ t helping their cause or the health of their children .
Unvaccinated “ migrants ” from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of them fatal .
You can ’ t fight the statist push for more and more childhood vaccinations if a disease-bearing horde is crossing the border every day .
Disclaimer : VDARE.com takes no position on the mandatory vaccination controversy or on anything else not directly related to the National Question .
But these issues clearly overlap .
Vaccine skeptics who want to decide what health measures are best for their kids are an implicit white community .
Yes , Orthodox Jews and other groups oppose compulsory vaccination , but most skeptics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Convince Orthodox Jews To Vaccinate , New York Messes Up The Yiddish , by Elizabeth Cohen , CNN , May 22 , 2019 ] .
• Rich , White , And Refusing Vaccinations , by Nicholas Bakalar , New York Times , December 24 , 2015 Those headlines suggest that our cultural civil war has never been between whites and minorities , contrary to the Main Stream Media stereotype , but between Good Whites and Bad Whites .
Problem is , white people who work together to exercise their sovereign rights are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grievous Thought Crime .
This explains the MSM ’ s frequent Two Minutes Hate against “ anti-vaxxers.
” The Washington Post ’ s Juliette Kayyem has argued that parents who decline to vaccinate their children should be arrested and prosecuted [ Antivaxxers are dangerous .
Make them face isolation , fines , arrests , April 30 , 2019 ] .
Scribes at The Boston Herald think parents who decline vaccinations should be hanged [ Preying on Parents ’ Fear , May 8 , 2017 ] That ’ s quite something given that Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet beyond the obvious racial aspect of the Left ’ s campaign against white anti-vaxxers is the statist impulse behind it .
The Left is pathologically devoted to socialized medicine and healthcare mandates for the obvious reason that if the government can control the public ’ s healthcare , they can control the public that depends on it .
Similarly , undermining the family unit removes an obstacle to the Left ’ s collectivist ambitions [ The Left ’ s War on the Family , by Thomas S. Garlinghouse , American Thinker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better way to undermine the family than to seize control of medical decisions for children ?
Thus , virtually every state has proposed legislation to make all childhood vaccinations 100 percent compulsory—a drive that began ( where else ? )
in California , a political harbinger for the rest of the country .
Here , on the dysfunctional Left Coast , we experience most every public policy disaster before the nationwide rollout .
In 2015 , state Senator Richard Pan , a white-loathing Asian , successfully championed legislation that eliminated religious exemptions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition [ California Vaccination Bill 277 Signed By Governor , Becomes Law , by Tara Haelle , Forbes , June 30 , 2015 ] .
Pan promised , of course , that the new legislation would safeguard all medical exemptions , but that turned out to be a lie [ Senator Richard Pan - HERO OR LIAR ?
, by Parents For Healthcare Rights , YouTube , May 5 , 2017 ] .
In 2019 on Facebook , Pan labeled medical exemptions a form of “ white privilege ” and passed legislation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California would need state OK under new bill , by Alex Koseff , San Francisco Chronicle , March 26 , 2019 ] .
Now even if your child has suffered a serious vaccine injury , he will almost certainly have to be vaccinated again .
Unfortunately , this political virus recently spread to New York state , which eliminated virtually all religious and medical exemptions in one day [ Get Vaccinated or Leave School : 26,000 N.Y. Children Face a Choice , Sharon Otterman , New York Times , September 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to this tyranny .
A little history helps explain why : Vaccination policy was born in the darkest depths of the Deep State swamp .
The two costliest mistakes of Ronald Reagan ’ s presidency occurred in 1986 : the signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act ( for obvious reasons ) and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act .
Because the pharmaceutical industry was hemorrhaging money over vaccine injury lawsuits , the legislation indemnified the vaccine business .
So the only product in America for which there is zero liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damages or even kills your child , you can not sue the manufacturer , or the doctor who prescribed the vaccine .
“ I have serious reservations , ” said Reagan at the signing ( who had similar reservations about the ‘ 86 amnesty that he also failed to heed ) [ Reagan Signs Bill On Drug Exports and Payment For Vaccine Injuries , by Robert Pear , New York Times , November 15 , 1986 ] .
It is surely no coincidence that as soon as childhood vaccination acquired zero liability , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The legislation also shifted compensation for vaccine injury from the pharmaceutical companies onto taxpayers through the establishment of a Vaccine Injury Court , which has paid out over $ 4 billion to the families of vaccine-injured children .
If vaccines are really as safe and effective as our elites claim , then why all the hefty settlements ?
You ’ re never going to see any of this on the evening news , of course , because Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other industry and is the second-largest buyer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seeing More Drug Ads on TV ?
You Are , and Here ’ s Why , by Joanne Kaufman , New York Times , December 24 , 2017 ] .
And here ’ s something else you won ’ t see on the evening news that would show where vaccinations and immigration policy meet : Big Pharma also aggressively lobbies for Open Borders and foreign workers .
[ Big Pharma Depends On Immigrants , It Kept Quiet About Trump ’ s Travel Ban , by Carolyn Y. Johnson , Washington Post , February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t you know it , those who most vocally denounce vaccine skepticism routinely applaud mass immigration and are untroubled by the horde of illegal aliens swarming over the border with an incalculable number of diseases [ Illegals Show Up At Border With Rotting Feet , Disease , Fevers , by Amber Athey , The Daily Caller , March 5 , 2019 ] .
Indeed , a pro-immigration editor at Time Magazine , Jeffrey Kluger , has called for Facebook to ban all groups that question vaccination policy [ Facebook Must Shutdown the Anti-Vaxxers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
Rep. Adam Schiff ( NumbersUSA F- ) —architect of the impeachment to remove President Trump , which would end any hope for a border wall—has formally asked all the Big Tech CEOs to do the same [ Schiff Sends Letter to Amazon CEO Regarding Anti-Vaccine Misinformation , Schiff.House.gov , March 1 , 2019 ] .
So mandatory vaccination and Open Borders are both classic expressions of anarcho-tyranny .
Which explains why vaccine skepticism has , like patriotic immigration reform , found itself in the crosshairs of Big Tech ’ s Deplatforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cripple the information flow to those parents—most of them suburban Moms— who rely on social media to educate themselves on vaccine safety and who work together to oppose mandates .
And that provides an opportunity for immigration patriots not only to help the GOP with suburban Moms but also move those Moms to support a halt to mass immigration , particularly the unvaccinated illegal aliens surging across the border at a rate of 40,000 a month .
Traditionally the GOP has done relatively poorly with suburban white women because they are especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrant sob stories .
But vaccine skeptics are invariably white women—Moms—recently mugged by reality .
In California at least , these women understand that increasing mandatory vaccination is a direct result of the Third Worldization of the state .
They have begun to acknowledge the world as it really is—or more exactly as they always knew it was but would not admit it is because of the aggressive socialization and assimilation required to be an accepted suburban Mom .
They now seem to understand what the GOP and Conservative Inc. do not : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more social distrust exists within it , and the less we work together to exercise our sovereign rights .
A nation of strangers can not defend itself against the encroachments of the state , particularly when many of the strangers are Third World immigrants who don ’ t mind the encroachments , and in fact invite them because they come with free money .
Vaccine skeptics get it .
And they are , helpfully , a highly effective grassroots army , just like the immigration patriots who continually pressure their representatives with well-informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office visits [ Genial Force Behind Bitter Immigration Overhaul , by Julie Hirschfeld Davis , The New York Times , December 3 , 2014 ] .
This the vaccine skeptics have won impressive victories in Leftist strongholds like New Jersey and Massachusetts simply because they understand the power of an organized citizenry speaking with one voice [ Strict Vaccine Law Stumbles in N.J. Legislature , by Sharon Otterman and Tracey Tully , New York Times , December 16 , 2019 ] .
Donald Trump directly appealed to this constituency in 2016 and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
But he has yet to deliver [ Bill Gates convinced Trump to drop his anti-vaccine commission , by Stephen Neidenbach , Medium , May 18 , 2018 ] .
Immigration patriots and vaccine skeptics , then , aren ’ t the proverbial strange bedfellows one would think .
In some sense , we ’ re sailing into battle against a common enemy—the Ruling Class elites who want to deny parents their traditional rights , and concomitantly flood the country to replace the Historic American Nation .
We are , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We must all grab an oar and start rowing together if we are to defeat our common enemy .
Matthew Richer ( email him ) is a writer living in Massachusetts .
He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine .

See, earlier, by Michelle Malkin: Fight for the Freedom to Question Vaccines and Vaccine Skeptics Under Siege By Tech Totalitarians
If GOP strategists really think the party is having trouble with suburban white women because they of what they wrongly believe to be a nasty anti-immigrant racial animus, here’s an idea: seek common cause with the very many suburban moms worried about mandatory vaccination—and make sure they know that Open Borders and mass immigration isn’t helping their cause or the health of their children. Unvaccinated “migrants” from the Third World bring Third World diseases, some of them fatal. You can’t fight the statist push for more and more childhood vaccinations if a disease-bearing horde is crossing the border every day.
Disclaimer: VDARE.com takes no position on the mandatory vaccination controversy or on anything else not directly related to the National Question. But these issues clearly overlap.
Vaccine skeptics who want to decide what health measures are best for their kids are an implicit white community. Yes, Orthodox Jews and other groups oppose compulsory vaccination, but most skeptics are middle- and upper-class whites [Trying To Convince Orthodox Jews To Vaccinate, New York Messes Up The Yiddish, by Elizabeth Cohen, CNN, May 22, 2019].
Consider these headlines:
Those headlines suggest that our cultural civil war has never been between whites and minorities, contrary to the Main Stream Media stereotype, but between Good Whites and Bad Whites.
Problem is, white people who work together to exercise their sovereign rights are, these days, guilty of a grievous Thought Crime. This explains the MSM’s frequent Two Minutes Hate against “anti-vaxxers.” The Washington Post’s Juliette Kayyem has argued that parents who decline to vaccinate their children should be arrested and prosecuted [Antivaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests, April 30, 2019]. Scribes at the Boston Herald think parents who decline vaccinations should be hanged [Preying on Parents’ Fear, May 8, 2017]. That’s quite something given that Massachusetts doesn’t execute cop killers.
Yet beyond the obvious racial aspect of the Left’s campaign against white anti-vaxxers is the statist impulse behind it. The Left is pathologically devoted to socialized medicine and healthcare mandates for the obvious reason that if the government can control the public’s healthcare, they can control the public that depends on it.
Similarly, undermining the family unit removes an obstacle to the Left’s collectivist ambitions [The Left’s War on the Family, by Thomas S. Garlinghouse, American Thinker, February 24, 2004]. What better way to undermine the family than to seize control of medical decisions for children?
Thus, virtually every state has proposed legislation to make all childhood vaccinations 100 percent compulsory—a drive that began (where else?) in California, a political harbinger for the rest of the country. Here, on the dysfunctional Left Coast, we experience most every public policy disaster before the nationwide rollout.
In 2015, state Senator Richard Pan, a white-loathing Asian, successfully championed legislation that eliminated religious exemptions from childhood vaccination, despite extremely vocal public opposition [California Vaccination Bill 277 Signed By Governor, Becomes Law, by Tara Haelle, Forbes, June 30, 2015]. Pan promised, of course, that the new legislation would safeguard all medical exemptions, but that turned out to be a lie [Senator Richard Pan — HERO OR LIAR?, by Parents For Healthcare Rights, YouTube, May 5, 2017].
In 2019 on Facebook, Pan labeled medical exemptions a form of “white privilege” and passed legislation to effectively eliminate them [Childhood vaccine exemptions in California would need state OK under new bill, by Alex Koseff, San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2019].
Now even if your child has suffered a serious vaccine injury, he will almost certainly have to be vaccinated again.
Unfortunately, this political virus recently spread to New York state, which eliminated virtually all religious and medical exemptions in one day [Get Vaccinated or Leave School: 26,000 N.Y. Children Face a Choice, Sharon Otterman, New York Times, September 3, 2019].
Every state is now vulnerable to this tyranny. A little history helps explain why: Vaccination policy was born in the darkest depths of the Deep State swamp.
The two costliest mistakes of Ronald Reagan’s presidency occurred in 1986: the signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (for obvious reasons) and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Because the pharmaceutical industry was hemorrhaging money over vaccine injury lawsuits, the legislation indemnified the vaccine business. So the only product in America for which there is zero liability are childhood vaccines. If a vaccine damages or even kills your child, you cannot sue the manufacturer, or the doctor who prescribed the vaccine.
“I have serious reservations,” said Reagan at the signing (who had similar reservations about the ‘86 amnesty that he also failed to heed) [Reagan Signs Bill On Drug Exports and Payment For Vaccine Injuries, by Robert Pear, New York Times, November 15, 1986].
It is surely no coincidence that as soon as childhood vaccination acquired zero liability, the number of required vaccines skyrocketed.
The legislation also shifted compensation for vaccine injury from the pharmaceutical companies onto taxpayers through the establishment of a Vaccine Injury Court, which has paid out over $4 billion to the families of vaccine-injured children.
If vaccines are really as safe and effective as our elites claim, then why all the hefty settlements?
You’re never going to see any of this on the evening news, of course, because Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other industry and is the second-largest buyer of media advertising [Think You’re Seeing More Drug Ads on TV? You Are, and Here’s Why, by Joanne Kaufman, New York Times, December 24, 2017].
And here’s something else you won’t see on the evening news that would show where vaccinations and immigration policy meet: Big Pharma also aggressively lobbies for Open Borders and foreign workers [Big Pharma Depends On Immigrants, It Kept Quiet About Trump’s Travel Ban, by Carolyn Y. Johnson, Washington Post, February 1, 2017].
And wouldn’t you know it, those who most vocally denounce vaccine skepticism routinely applaud mass immigration and are untroubled by the horde of illegal aliens swarming over the border with an incalculable number of diseases [Illegals Show Up At Border With Rotting Feet, Disease, Fevers, by Amber Athey, The Daily Caller, March 5, 2019].
Indeed, a pro-immigration editor at Time Magazine, Jeffrey Kluger, has called for Facebook to ban all groups that question vaccination policy [Facebook Must Shutdown the Anti-Vaxxers, Time, February 19, 2015]. Rep. Adam Schiff (NumbersUSA F-)—architect of the impeachment to remove President Trump, which would end any hope for a border wall—has formally asked all the Big Tech CEOs to do the same [Schiff Sends Letter to Amazon CEO Regarding Anti-Vaccine Misinformation, Schiff.House.gov, March 1, 2019].
So mandatory vaccination and Open Borders are both classic expressions of anarcho-tyranny. Which explains why vaccine skepticism has, like patriotic immigration reform, found itself in the crosshairs of Big Tech’s Deplatforming marksmen.
That, of course, would cripple the information flow to those parents—most of them suburban moms—who rely on social media to educate themselves on vaccine safety and who work together to oppose mandates.
And that provides an opportunity for immigration patriots not only to help the GOP with suburban Moms but also move those Moms to support a halt to mass immigration, particularly the unvaccinated illegal aliens surging across the border at a rate of 40,000 a month.
Traditionally the GOP has done relatively poorly with suburban white women because they are especially susceptible to emotional appeals, such as immigrant sob stories.
But vaccine skeptics are invariably white women—Moms—recently mugged by reality. In California at least, these women understand that increasing mandatory vaccination is a direct result of the Third Worldization of the state. They have begun to acknowledge the world as it really is—or more exactly as they always knew it was but would not admit it is because of the aggressive socialization and assimilation required to be an accepted suburban Mom.
They now seem to understand what the GOP and Conservative Inc. do not: the more diverse the population, the more social distrust exists within it, and the less we work together to exercise our sovereign rights.
A nation of strangers cannot defend itself against the encroachments of the state, particularly when many of the strangers are Third World immigrants who don’t mind the encroachments, and in fact invite them because they come with free money.
Vaccine skeptics get it. And they are, helpfully, a highly effective grassroots army, just like the immigration patriots who continually pressure their representatives with well-informed faxes, phone calls, and district office visits [Genial Force Behind Bitter Immigration Overhaul, by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, New York Times, December 3, 2014].
Thus the vaccine skeptics have won impressive victories in Leftist strongholds like New Jersey and Massachusetts simply because they understand the power of an organized citizenry speaking with one voice [Strict Vaccine Law Stumbles in N.J. Legislature, by Sharon Otterman and Tracey Tully, New York Times, December 16, 2019].
Donald Trump directly appealed to this constituency in 2016 and even promised to investigate vaccine safety after the election. But he has yet to deliver [Bill Gates convinced Trump to drop his anti-vaccine commission, by Stephen Neidenbach, Medium, May 18, 2018].
Immigration patriots and vaccine skeptics, then, aren’t the proverbial strange bedfellows one would think. In some sense, we’re sailing into battle against a common enemy—the Ruling Class elites who want to deny parents their traditional rights, and concomitantly flood the country to replace the Historic American Nation.
We are, as a practical matter, in the same boat. We must all grab an oar and start rowing together if we are to defeat our common enemy.
Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.


vdare--2020-02-06--Patrick J. Buchanan: Are The Bells Tolling For Amy, Liz & Joe?

By the end of February , the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men .
Two are well into their 70s , and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated .
The third is a 38-year-old gay in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever .
How is it possible , if not probable , that Bernie Sanders , Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing ?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced—after the Democrats figured out how to count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both the first and second ballots .
As of Thursday , with 547 state delegates , he was only three shy of Buttigieg 's total .
And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country .
By week 's end , Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa .
And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night , Sanders raised $ 25 million in January and is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by any rival , save billionaire Bloomberg , wins the Granite State , he becomes the progressives ' champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention .
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete .
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa , he declared his campaign `` victorious '' and left for New Hampshire .
By Wednesday , after two-thirds of the ballots had been counted , he appeared to have won the battle for delegates .
By Thursday , in the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaulted into second place .
As of now , it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday , with the big losers from Iowa—Warren , Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar—the big losers again .
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend , former Vice President Joe Biden appears headed for another `` gut punch '' like the one he says he suffered in Iowa .
And Biden may not get up off the canvas after this one .
Thursday , the Boston Globe/Suffolk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden like a drum , better than two-to-one .
Moreover , Biden 's fundraising has fallen off , and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire .
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising .
He has surged to second place , just six points and 10 points behind Sanders in the two latest New Hampshire polls , while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator from Minnesota , she was expected to do well , indeed , her personal best , in the neighboring state of Iowa .
She ran fifth .
And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire , the Union-Leader , she , too , is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one .
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa and third , fourth or fifth in New Hampshire , in what state does she win her first primary ?
And as her fundraising has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday , now just three weeks off ?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire , behind Sanders and Buttigieg , but right alongside Biden and Warren .
A third- , fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all .
As for Warren , in her battle with Sanders to emerge as the champion of the progressive wing of the party , her third-place finish in Iowa , and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle that issue for this election .
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa , raised far more money in January than she did , and is now beating her two-and-three-to one in the New Hampshire polls .
So , again , the same question is raised .
Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival ?
There are two more lingering questions .
If Biden is thrashed in New Hampshire on Tuesday , as he was in Iowa , does he remain viable in South Carolina , where he was so strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be `` the most electable '' Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and by Buttigieg , and ca n't seem to win within his own party ?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even more true today : '' If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary states in February , the last remaining roadblock on Bernie 's path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg 's billions . ''
Patrick J.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; his books State of Emergency : The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America , and Suicide of a Superpower : Will America Survive to 2025 ?
are available from Amazon.com .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ The Greatest Comeback : How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .
His latest book , published May , 2018 , is “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
” See Peter Brimelow ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —Pat Buchanan ’ s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump .

By the end of February, the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men.
Two are well into their 70s, and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. The third is a 38-year-old gay in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever.
How is it possible, if not probable, that Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced—after the Democrats figured out how to count votes.
Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and second ballots. As of Thursday, with 547 state delegates, he was only three shy of Buttigieg's total. And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country.
By week's end, Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa. And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night, Sanders raised $25 million in January and is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls.
If Sanders, with cash on hand unmatched by any rival, save billionaire Bloomberg, wins the Granite State, he becomes the progressives' champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention.
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete.
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa, he declared his campaign "victorious" and left for New Hampshire. By Wednesday, after two-thirds of the ballots had been counted, he appeared to have won the battle for delegates.
By Thursday, in the latest polls of New Hampshire, Buttigieg had vaulted into second place. As of now, it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday, with the big losers from Iowa—Warren, Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar—the big losers again.
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend, former Vice President Joe Biden appears headed for another "gut punch" like the one he says he suffered in Iowa.
And Biden may not get up off the canvas after this one.
Thursday, the Boston Globe/Suffolk and WHDH/Emerson polls both showed Sanders beating Biden like a drum, better than two-to-one.
Moreover, Biden's fundraising has fallen off, and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire.
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising. He has surged to second place, just six points and 10 points behind Sanders in the two latest New Hampshire polls, while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders.
Now, consider Klobuchar. As a senator from Minnesota, she was expected to do well, indeed, her personal best, in the neighboring state of Iowa. She ran fifth. And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire, the Union-Leader, she, too, is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one.
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa and third, fourth or fifth in New Hampshire, in what state does she win her first primary? And as her fundraising has never matched that of the front-runners, where does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday, now just three weeks off?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire, behind Sanders and Buttigieg, but right alongside Biden and Warren. A third-, fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all.
As for Warren, in her battle with Sanders to emerge as the champion of the progressive wing of the party, her third-place finish in Iowa, and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire, at best, would seem to settle that issue for this election.
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa, raised far more money in January than she did, and is now beating her two-and-three-to one in the New Hampshire polls.
So, again, the same question is raised. Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival?
There are two more lingering questions.
If Biden is thrashed in New Hampshire on Tuesday, as he was in Iowa, does he remain viable in South Carolina, where he was so strong before the New Year?
Will African American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be "the most electable" Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and by Buttigieg, and can't seem to win within his own party?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even more true today:
"If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary states in February, the last remaining roadblock on Bernie's path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg's billions."
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
His latest book, published May, 2018, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump.


vdare--2020-02-06--MS-13 Witness-Murdering On Long Island: Why No Death Penalty?

Earlier by Steve Sailer : `` Snitches Get Stitches '' —Witness-Murdering Stops Cops From Clearing Black Homicides From the New York Post : Man who was supposed to testify against MS-13 gang members found dead By Israel Salas-Rodriguez and Kenneth Garger February 5 , 2020 Long Island authorities on Wednesday implied that a man set to testify against MS-13 gang members was killed as a result of criminal-justice reforms requiring prosecutors share witnesses ’ identities with defendants .
Nassau County officials , including the police commissioner and county executive , announced the death of 36-year-old Wilmer Maldonado on Wednesday — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took effect Jan. 1. , , , Maldonado was discovered bludgeoned to death behind an abandoned home in New Cassel on Sunday , according to Nassau County police .
He was allegedly attacked by nine MS-13 members in October 2018 after intervening when the group threatened two boys .
The suspects allegedly beat all three victims , stabbing Maldonado several times and knocking him in the head with a bat , officials said .
Prosecutors last December revealed Maldonado ’ s identity to an arrested suspect ’ s defense team as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state to turn over the names of witnesses in criminal cases .

Earlier by Steve Sailer: "Snitches Get Stitches"—Witness-Murdering Stops Cops From Clearing Black Homicides
From the New York Post:
Man who was supposed to testify against MS-13 gang members found dead
By Israel Salas-Rodriguez and Kenneth Garger February 5, 2020
Long Island authorities on Wednesday implied that a man set to testify against MS-13 gang members was killed as a result of criminal-justice reforms requiring prosecutors share witnesses’ identities with defendants.
Nassau County officials, including the police commissioner and county executive, announced the death of 36-year-old Wilmer Maldonado on Wednesday — while also decrying the discovery laws that took effect Jan. 1. ,,,
Maldonado was discovered bludgeoned to death behind an abandoned home in New Cassel on Sunday, according to Nassau County police.
He was allegedly attacked by nine MS-13 members in October 2018 after intervening when the group threatened two boys.
The suspects allegedly beat all three victims, stabbing Maldonado several times and knocking him in the head with a bat, officials said.
Prosecutors last December revealed Maldonado’s identity to an arrested suspect’s defense team as a result of the recently enacted laws compelling the state to turn over the names of witnesses in criminal cases.


vdare--2020-02-07--“New Way Forward Act” Threatens America Safety And Destroys Sovereignty

On Thursday , Tucker Carlson talked about crime committed by illegal aliens , starting with the story of a New York man who was murdered by the bloodthirsty MS-13 gang because he planned on testifying against the thugs .
The gangsters learned the man ’ s identity because of the new state law which now releases witness names to the defense attorney , thereby endangering them in some cases .
This is the effect of having Democrats writing legislation—public safety goes down the toilet .
Speaking of public safety and legislation , the headliner topic in Tucker ’ s opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would award a raft of rights to illegal aliens , including violent criminals .
It ’ s called the New Way Forward Act , aka HB-5383 and is posted on the Congressional website where you can read it for yourself .
The bill is a horror show of protecting foreign criminals while endangering citizens and is sponsored by 44 House Democrats .
If the Mexican drug cartels could write a bill , this would be the one .
It makes you wonder about some of the lobbyists in Washington , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edited part of the segment into text , starting at around 4:30 in the video above where the bill is described : Tucker Carlson : Criminals would be protected from deportation under bill AOC and other House Democrats back , Fox News , February 6 , 2020 At this moment there is a bill pending in Congress called the New Way Forward Act .
It ’ s received almost no publicity , which is unfortunate as well as revealing .
The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats , including Reps. Ilhan Omar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York .
At roughly 4,400 words , it ’ s almost exactly as long as the U.S. Constitution .
Like the Constitution , this legislation is designed to create a whole new country .
The bill would entirely remake our immigration system , with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here , and settle here permanently , with impunity .
You may think we ’ re exaggerating for effect .
We ’ re not – not even a little .
The New Way Forward act is the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen proposed in this country .
It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo .
A document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says : “ Convictions … should not lead to deportation.
” Keep in mind , we ’ re not talking about convictions for double parking .
The bill targets felony convictions – serious crimes that send you to prison for years .
A press release from Rep. Jesus Garcia , D-Ill. , is explicit about this .
Garcia brags that the bill will break the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill do that ?
Under current U.S. law , legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit an “ aggravated felony ” or a “ crime of moral turpitude ” – that is , a vile , depraved act , like molesting a child .
Under the New Way Forward Act , “ crimes of moral turpitude ” are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation .
And the category of “ aggravated felony ” gets circumscribed too .
What does that mean ?
Consider this : Under current law , immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robbery , fraud , or child sexual abuse – must be deported , regardless of the sentence they receive .
Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence .
But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president , there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation .
None .
And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation , no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we no longer care about fake government documents .
If you just renewed your driver ’ s license to comply with the Real ID Act , you must feel like an idiot .
Under the proposed legislation , the minimum prison sentence for crimes that still require deportation would rise from one year to five .
We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics .
According to federal data , crimes like car theft , fraud , and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are people who commit rape , child abuse and even manslaughter and receive sentences of fewer than five years .
Lots of them .
If the New Way Forward Act becomes law , immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in the country .
They ’ ll all be eligible for citizenship one day , too .
But even that is understating the law ’ s effect .
Even a five-year prison sentence won ’ t necessarily be enough to secure deportation .
The bill would grant sweeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to nullify a deportation order .
The only requirement is that “ the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes , to assure family unity , or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
” In other words , anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders .
No vote required .
Sound shocking to you ?
We ’ re just getting started .
Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it ?
This bill would eliminate that statute .
Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad , or any “ crimes involving moral turpitude , ” are ineligible to immigrate here .
The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute .
A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison , then freely come to America immediately .
And if he wants , he could come here illegally , and it wouldn ’ t be a crime – because , and you were waiting for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into America , even by those previously deported .
According to a document promoting the bill , criminalizing illegal entry into America is “ white supremacist.
” By this point , you ’ re beginning to wonder if we ’ re making this up .
We ’ re not .
In fact , we ’ re barely halfway through the bill .
The legislation doesn ’ t just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes .
It doesn ’ t just make it easier for criminals to legally move here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all existing enforcement against illegal immigration .
To detain illegal immigrants , Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) would have to prove in court that the illegal immigrants are dangerous or a flight risk .
But of course , ICE wouldn ’ t be allowed to use a detainee ’ s prior criminal behavior as proof he or she is dangerous .
That ’ s banned .
ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgender , under 21 , or can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t immediately available .
In other words , it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien than it is to arrest you .
They ’ re the protected class here .
You ’ re just some loser who ’ s paying for it all .
But believe it or not , we saved the nuttiest part for last .
What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law , specifically to allow rapists , child molesters , and drug dealers to stay in America ?
How about this : Using taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
That ’ s right .
This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your own country , but it invents a new right in return : the “ right to come home.
” The bill orders the government to create a “ pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States , ” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law .
The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Who will be eligible for these free flights ?
Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes .
Sexual abuse .
Robbery .
Assault .
Drug trafficking , weapons trafficking , human trafficking .
From 2002 to 2018 , 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America .
And under this bill , you ’ d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back .
The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying for these criminals ’ free health care , too .
Which they plan to .
The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about America .
Under this legislation , the criminals are the victims .
Law enforcement is illegitimate .
It ’ s racist , just like the country you live in , and the only solution is to get rid of both .
America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world ’ s worst predators and parasites .
This is a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe any American would put these ideas on paper , much less pass them into law .
Yet , remarkably , the press has ignored it .
Scores of Democrats have backed it , but the bill hasn ’ t been mentioned in The New York Times , or on CNN , or even in self-described conservative outlets like National Review .
If a lone Republican state legislator from Minot , N.D. , had proposed a bill this extreme , that would remake America this completely , the president himself would be expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand the president “ disavow , ” even if he knew nothing about it .
But when one-fifth of the Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you pay to import illegal alien felons , it ’ s a non-event in American media .
They don ’ t think you should know about it .
That ’ s dangerous .
Whether the press cares or not , these are the stakes of the 2020 election .
A growing wing of the Democratic Party views America as essentially illegitimate – a rogue state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remade : our laws , our institutions , our freedoms , our history and our values .
That ’ s the point of all this , of course .
An entirely new country , in which resistance is crushed , and they ’ re in charge forever .
Adapted from Tucker Carlson ’ s monologue on “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” on Feb. 6 , 2020 .

On Thursday, Tucker Carlson talked about crime committed by illegal aliens, starting with the story of a New York man who was murdered by the bloodthirsty MS-13 gang because he planned on testifying against the thugs. The gangsters learned the man’s identity because of the new state law which now releases witness names to the defense attorney, thereby endangering them in some cases.
This is the effect of having Democrats writing legislation—public safety goes down the toilet.
Speaking of public safety and legislation, the headliner topic in Tucker’s opening monologue was the bill in the Congress that would award a raft of rights to illegal aliens, including violent criminals. It’s called the New Way Forward Act, aka HB-5383 and is posted on the Congressional website, where you can read it for yourself.
The bill is a horror show of protecting foreign criminals while endangering citizens and is sponsored by 44 House Democrats. If the Mexican drug cartels could write a bill, this would be the one. It makes you wonder about some of the lobbyists in Washington, as well as the Dem lawmakers.
Fox News edited part of the segment into text, starting at around 4:30 in the video above where the bill is described:
Tucker Carlson: Criminals would be protected from deportation under bill AOC and other House Democrats back, Fox News, February 6, 2020
At this moment there is a bill pending in Congress called the New Way Forward Act. It’s received almost no publicity, which is unfortunate as well as revealing.
The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. At roughly 4,400 words, it’s almost exactly as long as the U.S. Constitution.
Like the Constitution, this legislation is designed to create a whole new country. The bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.
You may think we’re exaggerating for effect. We’re not – not even a little.
The New Way Forward act is the most radical single piece of legislation we’ve seen proposed in this country. It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.
A document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says: “Convictions … should not lead to deportation.”
Keep in mind, we’re not talking about convictions for double parking. The bill targets felony convictions – serious crimes that send you to prison for years. A press release from Rep. Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., is explicit about this.
Garcia brags that the bill will break the “prison-to-deportation pipeline.” How does the bill do that? Under current U.S. law, legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit an “aggravated felony” or a “crime of moral turpitude” – that is, a vile, depraved act, like molesting a child.
Under the New Way Forward Act, “crimes of moral turpitude” are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation. And the category of “aggravated felony” gets circumscribed too.
What does that mean?
Consider this: Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery, fraud, or child sexual abuse – must be deported, regardless of the sentence they receive. Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence.
But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation. None.
And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation, no matter what. Because apparently 9/11 never happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents.
If you just renewed your driver’s license to comply with the Real ID Act, you must feel like an idiot. Under the proposed legislation, the minimum prison sentence for crimes that still require deportation would rise from one year to five.
We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud, and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that’s just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse and even manslaughter and receive sentences of fewer than five years. Lots of them.
If the New Way Forward Act becomes law, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in the country. They’ll all be eligible for citizenship one day, too.
But even that is understating the law’s effect. Even a five-year prison sentence won’t necessarily be enough to secure deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges, allowing them to nullify a deportation order.
The only requirement is that “the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In other words, anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders. No vote required.
Sound shocking to you? We’re just getting started. Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation, because why wouldn’t it? This bill would eliminate that statute.
Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad, or any “crimes involving moral turpitude,” are ineligible to immigrate here. The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute.
A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime – because, and you were waiting for this, the bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America, even by those previously deported.
According to a document promoting the bill, criminalizing illegal entry into America is “white supremacist.”
By this point, you’re beginning to wonder if we’re making this up. We’re not. In fact, we’re barely halfway through the bill.
The legislation doesn’t just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn’t just make it easier for criminals to legally move here. The bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration.
To detain illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have to prove in court that the illegal immigrants are dangerous or a flight risk. But of course, ICE wouldn’t be allowed to use a detainee’s prior criminal behavior as proof he or she is dangerous. That’s banned.
ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgender, under 21, or can’t speak English and an interpreter isn’t immediately available.
In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien than it is to arrest you. They’re the protected class here. You’re just some loser who’s paying for it all.
But believe it or not, we saved the nuttiest part for last. What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law, specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this: Using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America.
That’s right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your own country, but it invents a new right in return: the “right to come home.”
The bill orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States,” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law.
The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States. Who will be eligible for these free flights? Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes. Sexual abuse. Robbery. Assault. Drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking.
From 2002 to 2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back. The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals’ free health care, too. Which they plan to.
The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about America. Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.
This is a big deal. It’s hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less pass them into law. Yet, remarkably, the press has ignored it. Scores of Democrats have backed it, but the bill hasn’t been mentioned in The New York Times, or on CNN, or even in self-described conservative outlets like National Review.
If a lone Republican state legislator from Minot, N.D., had proposed a bill this extreme, that would remake America this completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it.
CNN would demand the president “disavow,” even if he knew nothing about it. But when one-fifth of the Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you pay to import illegal alien felons, it’s a non-event in American media. They don’t think you should know about it. That’s dangerous.
Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the 2020 election. A growing wing of the Democratic Party views America as essentially illegitimate – a rogue state, in which everything must be destroyed and remade: our laws, our institutions, our freedoms, our history and our values. That’s the point of all this, of course. An entirely new country, in which resistance is crushed, and they’re in charge forever.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Feb. 6, 2020.


vdare--2020-02-07--An Australian Reader Reports Aboriginal (And Woke White) Hate For "Australia Day"

On 26th January 1788 , the British First Fleet landed at Sydney Cove , bringing Governor Arthur Philip and white , European civilization to an Australia which had been occupied for some 60,000 years solely by Australia ’ s Aborigines , a stone-age people .
January 26th is the national birthday of modern Australia and has long been celebrated as Australia ’ s national day .
It is both Australia ’ s equivalent of America ’ s July 4th and the political , culture-war equivalent of America ’ s Columbus Day .
The Aboriginal Grievance Industry , and their woke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a demand to “ Change the Date ” by ( 1 ) picking a new day for Australia ’ s national day , ( 2 ) renaming Australia Day to “ Invasion Day ” and ( 3 ) guilt-tripping white Australians into paying 250 years ’ back rent to Aborigines for living on “ stolen land ” [ 'Pay the rent ' : Invasion Day rallies around Australia protest against 26 January celebrations , by Luke Henriques-Gomes , Guardian , January 27 , 2020 ] The culture war over Australia Day is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A survey of voters in two federal electorates ( Australia Day survey ) has found that ( 1 ) 84 % of Australians do not support changing Australia ’ s national day from “ January 26th to some other date ” , ( 2 ) 87 % of Australians are “ proud to celebrate Australia Day on 26th January ” , and ( 3 ) only 9 % of Australians regard 26th January as ” Invasion Day , a day to be ashamed of ” .
The center-left Australian Labor Party had pandered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national referendum on the issue of “ Changing the Date ” but the results of this new survey ( the two electorates surveyed are held narrowly by Labor ) have convinced the Labor Party to join with the governing conservative Liberal Party to keep January 26th as Australia Day .
It is a tradition in Australian sport that when the ( trailing ) opposition ’ s on-field sledging ( what Americans call `` trash talk '' ) and histrionics get too annoying , the ( leading ) team simply “ points to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be said about who ’ s in front .
Well , the scoreboard for the annual clash over Australia Day ( as with many other woke issues ) says it all—the Great Unwoked are winning , the activist Woke irritants are losing .

From: Phil Shannon [Email him]
On 26th January 1788, the British First Fleet landed at Sydney Cove, bringing Governor Arthur Philip and white, European civilization to an Australia which had been occupied for some 60,000 years solely by Australia’s Aborigines, a stone-age people. January 26th is the national birthday of modern Australia and has long been celebrated as Australia’s national day. It is both Australia’s equivalent of America’s July 4th and the political, culture-war equivalent of America’s Columbus Day.
The Aboriginal Grievance Industry, and their woke white auxiliaries, however, mobilize around a demand to “Change the Date” by (1) picking a new day for Australia’s national day, (2) renaming Australia Day to “Invasion Day” and (3) guilt-tripping white Australians into paying 250 years’ back rent to Aborigines for living on “stolen land” ['Pay the rent': Invasion Day rallies around Australia protest against 26 January celebrations, by Luke Henriques-Gomes, Guardian, January 27, 2020]
The culture war over Australia Day is, however, a genuine minority affair. A survey of voters in two federal electorates (Australia Day survey) has found that (1) 84% of Australians do not support changing Australia’s national day from “January 26th to some other date”, (2) 87% of Australians are “proud to celebrate Australia Day on 26th January”, and (3) only 9% of Australians regard 26th January as ”Invasion Day, a day to be ashamed of”.
The center-left Australian Labor Party had pandered to its woke constituency by proposing a national referendum on the issue of “Changing the Date” but the results of this new survey (the two electorates surveyed are held narrowly by Labor) have convinced the Labor Party to join with the governing conservative Liberal Party to keep January 26th as Australia Day.
It is a tradition in Australian sport that when the (trailing) opposition’s on-field sledging (what Americans call "trash talk") and histrionics get too annoying, the (leading) team simply “points to the scoreboard” which says all that needs to be said about who’s in front. Well, the scoreboard for the annual clash over Australia Day (as with many other woke issues) says it all—the Great Unwoked are winning, the activist Woke irritants are losing.
Phil Shannon is a veteran working class socialist and VDARE.com supporter


vdare--2020-02-07--Better Dead Than Rude: Only A Slim Majority Favors Banning Those ALREADY INFECTED With Coronavirus f

Better Dead Than Rude: Only A Slim Majority Favors Banning Those ALREADY INFECTED With Coronavirus from Entering US

Better dead than possibly perceived as racist .
The following graph shows the percentages of people , by selected demographics , who think the US government should deny entry into the country to any foreigner who has coronavirus .
“ Not sure ” responses , constituting 17 % of the total , are excluded , so the residuals represent percentages opposed to a ban among the opinionated .
Not the y-axis begins at 20 % on account of the author ’ s preference for symmetry : This is not a question about whether or not people from infected countries ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into America , it ’ s about whether or not people already infected with coronavirus should be allowed in !
It ’ s a big country , so maybe this is NIMBYism in the extreme .
Or maybe it is an issue with reading comprehension , though the question is rather simple and straightforward .
Whatever the case , it ’ s another example of what an unserious country this is .
The official number of confirmed cases globally is around 31,000 .
There are over 7,500,000,000 people in the world who reside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected , then , is to temporarily restrict entry into the US of 0.00004 % of the global population .
Not forever , mind you–for just a few more weeks or months until the virus has run its course .
And yet little over half of Democrats and only two-in-three Republicans are in favor of doing so .
In total , 51 % of the country supports banning the infected , while 32 % oppose and 17 % are not sure .
When the next real super bug pandemic comes , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid being thought of as rude .
Parenthetically , you ’ ll notice how relatively narrow the ranges across demographic categories are .
People don ’ t know what the ‘ correct ’ answer for their group is yet , because this cultural issue is a relatively novel one , at least in recent years .
People have had time to figure out where their team stands on guns or abortion , but when it comes to what constitutes ideological rectitude with regard to mitigating global pandemics , there is still a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .

Better dead than possibly perceived as racist. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographics, who think the US government should deny entry into the country to any foreigner who has coronavirus. “Not sure” responses, constituting 17% of the total, are excluded, so the residuals represent percentages opposed to a ban among the opinionated. Note that the y-axis begins at 20% on account of the author’s preference for symmetry:
Hispanic Republican zoomer hygiene, I guess.
This is not a question about whether or not people from infected countries (China) should be allowed to travel into America, it’s about whether or not people already infected with coronavirus should be allowed in! It’s a big country, so maybe this is NIMBYism in the extreme. Or maybe it is an issue with reading comprehension, though the question is rather simple and straightforward.
Whatever the case, it’s another example of what an unserious country this is. The official number of confirmed cases globally is around 31,000. There are over 7,500,000,000 people in the world who reside outside the US. To exclude the infected, then, is to temporarily restrict entry into the US of 0.00004% of the global population. Not forever, mind you–for just a few more weeks or months until the virus has run its course. And yet little over half of Democrats and only two-in-three Republicans are in favor of doing so. In total, 51% of the country supports banning the infected, while 32% oppose and 17% are not sure.
When the next real super bug pandemic comes, a lot of people will die in order to avoid being thought of as rude.
Parenthetically, you’ll notice how relatively narrow the ranges across demographic categories are. People don’t know what the ‘correct’ answer for their group is yet, because this cultural issue is a relatively novel one, at least in recent years. People have had time to figure out where their team stands on guns or abortion, but when it comes to what constitutes ideological rectitude with regard to mitigating global pandemics, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the air (heh).
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-02-07--VOX: Here's a Cool New Racist Way to Demean White Women—Call Them Karens!

Karen : The anti-vaxxer soccer mom with speak-to-the-manager hair , explained How the name “ Karen ” became an insult — and a meme .
If your name is Karen , Becky , or Chad , you may have noticed a growing trend of people using your name as an insult .
Increasingly , “ Karen ” in particular has emerged as the frontrunner for the average “ basic white person name ” — a pejorative catchall label for a wide range of behaviors thought to have connections to white privilege .
Where a similar insult like “ OK Boomer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone a “ Karen ” draws on associations people have built around extremely common names .
But the stereotype the name conjures — at least in the US — is limited mainly to white women in their mid-30s or 40s .
The archetypal “ Karen ” is blonde , has multiple young kids , and is usually an anti-vaxxer .
Karen has a “ can I speak to the manager ” haircut and a controlling , superior attitude to go along with it : “ It ’ s a little bit of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … “ Karen ” isn ’ t alone in receiving this treatment .
We ’ ve increasingly seen a lot of “ basic white names ” — commonly associated , rightly or wrongly , with Middle American white Protestants — being used in mocking memes that portray them as archetypes rather than individuals .
… This trend might have also gotten a boost from social media , according to Dr. I.M .
Nick , a nomenclature scholar and former president of the American Name Society .
Okay , well , it turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an expert on names .
She has recently published a book about names and Hitler .
Oxford Karen told me she ’ d seen the meme applied to other names like “ Susan ” and “ Zach ” — what she describes as “ basic white people names.
” … “ From a scientific point of view , there is nothing intrinsic about a personal name that makes it ‘ black ’ or ‘ white , ’ ” Dr. Nick told me in an email .
“ What I think is brilliant about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it underscores the fact that personal names are often used to help create and reinforce discriminatory and injurious power differentials within societies.
” In other words , names have always played a key role in reinforcing existing societal rules , including power imbalances .
The “ Karen ” meme , in fact , is part of a long tradition — and a pejorative one at that .
Cleve Evans is a professor at Bellevue University in Nebraska who studies onomastics — the history and etymology of proper names .
“ There are myriad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he told me in an email , including as racial or ethnic slurs .
Names like “ Paddy ” and “ Mick ” functioned as anti-Irish slurs in the 19th century , while “ Guido ” was a common slur for Italians .
Evans said the takeaway wasn ’ t that “ Karen ” is an insult now , but rather that names have always been fodder for this kind of use .
“ They are just another linguistic item that ’ s possible to be associated with a particular group because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common among that group , ” he said .
It ’ s almost as if it ’ s fashionable to racistly insult whites for being white these days .
Sexist is still bad .
Racist , it goes without saying , is good , as long as it ’ s anti-white racism .
The current use of the “ Karen ” meme is almost always to call out the perceived entitlement and rude behavior of white women .
But it ’ s easy to see each of these variants coming back to bite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Karen ” meme itself is just a form of blanket misogyny .
… And sure enough , Karen Han , who writes for Vox sister site Polygon , told me that “ sometimes people on Twitter do assume I ’ m white and respond to tweets that they disagree with that ‘ Karen ’ meme.
” … “ It ’ s definitely annoying to see , as a Karen who doesn ’ t think of herself as that kind of ‘ can I speak to the manager ’ attitude nor haircut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s usually defaulted to a middle-aged white woman ) , ” Han said .
… It ’ s tempting to ask what a Karen — or a Chad , Stacey , Susan , Becky , or Kyle — can do to ward off this memetic derision ; if , for example , there are ways you can work around or minimize the fallout related to your Basic White Person name .
But Dr. Nick told me she felt that question was missing the point .
“ As a society , we often expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid becoming a victim , ” she said .
The better course , she proposed , would be to “ work against the source of the name discrimination and protect those who are harmed by it.
” In this case , because the “ Karen ” meme doubles as a callout method to highlight white privilege , working against the source of the meme also means not only dismantling systems of privilege but becoming more of your individual entitlement .

From Vox:
Karen: The anti-vaxxer soccer mom with speak-to-the-manager hair, explained
How the name “Karen” became an insult — and a meme. Feb 5, 2020, If your name is Karen, Becky, or Chad, you may have noticed a growing trend of people using your name as an insult. Increasingly, “Karen” in particular has emerged as the frontrunner for the average “basic white person name” — a pejorative catchall label for a wide range of behaviors thought to have connections to white privilege. Where a similar insult like “OK Boomer” stereotypes a specific generation, calling someone a “Karen” draws on associations people have built around extremely common names. But the stereotype the name conjures — at least in the US — is limited mainly to white women in their mid-30s or 40s. The archetypal “Karen” is blonde, has multiple young kids, and is usually an anti-vaxxer. Karen has a “can I speak to the manager” haircut and a controlling, superior attitude to go along with it: “It’s a little bit of a commentary on white privilege, perhaps.” … “Karen” isn’t alone in receiving this treatment. We’ve increasingly seen a lot of “basic white names” — commonly associated, rightly or wrongly, with Middle American white Protestants — being used in mocking memes that portray them as archetypes rather than individuals. … This trend might have also gotten a boost from social media, according to Dr. I.M. Nick, a nomenclature scholar and former president of the American Name Society.
Okay, well, it turns out that Dr. I.M. Nick really is an expert on names. She has recently published a book about names and Hitler.
But still …
Oxford Karen told me she’d seen the meme applied to other names like “Susan” and “Zach”— what she describes as “basic white people names.” … “From a scientific point of view, there is nothing intrinsic about a personal name that makes it ‘black’ or ‘white,’” Dr. Nick told me in an email. “What I think is brilliant about the Key & Peele sketch is that it underscores the fact that personal names are often used to help create and reinforce discriminatory and injurious power differentials within societies.”
Dr. Nick:
In other words, names have always played a key role in reinforcing existing societal rules, including power imbalances. The “Karen” meme, in fact, is part of a long tradition — and a pejorative one at that. Cleve Evans is a professor at Bellevue University in Nebraska who studies onomastics — the history and etymology of proper names. “There are myriad examples of words derived from names,” he told me in an email, including as racial or ethnic slurs. Names like “Paddy” and “Mick” functioned as anti-Irish slurs in the 19th century, while “Guido” was a common slur for Italians. Evans said the takeaway wasn’t that “Karen” is an insult now, but rather that names have always been fodder for this kind of use. “They are just another linguistic item that’s possible to be associated with a particular group because of the perception that it’s common among that group,” he said.
It’s almost as if it’s fashionable to racistly insult whites for being white these days.
Isn’t this all really sexist?
Sexist is still bad. Racist, it goes without saying, is good, as long as it’s anti-white racism.