vdare--2020-12-21--Patrick J. Buchanan: Can Democracy Hold Us Together?

If America were a company and not a country, we would have long ago dissolved the corporation, split the blanket, and gone our separate ways.
What still holds this disputatious and divided people together?
Consider. In announcing the $900 billion stimulus bill to deal with the pandemic, Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not mention that the gifts for her distressed countrymen and women at Christmas would have been twice as large had she taken President Trump's offer of $1.8 trillion in October.
Why did the speaker slap that offer away?
"The President only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up," she told House Democrats.
Rather than let Donald Trump take credit, Pelosi stiffed millions of Americans.
Sunday, however, the speaker took time for a statement to hail the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue from Statuary Hall. "Welcome news," said the speaker. "Congress will continue our work to rid the Capitol of homages to hate."
Lee had stood in a place of honor in the Capitol for decades. When exactly did the statue of the general become a homage to hate?
Both episodes point up an unpleasant truth.
Our dysfunctional American family agrees upon less and less.
By mid-November, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 52% of Republicans thought Donald Trump had "rightfully won." Sixty-eight percent of Republicans thought the election was "rigged." A third of independents, and even 10% of Democrats, agreed.
This month, a Fox poll found that a third of all registered voters believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, with 78% of those who voted for Trump expressing that view.
In the long term, not only is the election of 2020 going to be suspect. Also, belief in one of the sacraments of secular democracy, universal suffrage, is going to suffer.
Moreover, the issues that divide us now go increasingly to the faith of what defines us as a nation and a people.
A slice of our intellectual elite emphatically agrees with the New York Times' Project 1619, which decrees that the real birth date of this nation was neither 1776 nor 1789, but the year that the first slave ship arrived in Virginia.
To this influential cohort, enslavement of Black people brought from Africa and dispossession and destruction of the indigenous tribes that European settlers found here are the defining events of our history.
And all who participated in these crimes against humanity or refused to condemn them are undeserving of exaltation.
Not only Lee, but Columbus and Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, TR and Wilson are all racist white men whose disgraceful and even criminal conduct disqualifies them from a place of honor in the American pantheon of 2020. All statues of such men need to come down to cleanse us of the stain of having honored them.
Pelosi says that such statues are "homages to hate."
She may not have thought so five or 10 years ago, but she believes that now.
What has taken place is a mass conversion.
Yet, there is another America that still cherishes the nation these men created. And, as did their fathers, grandfathers and ancestors, these Americans have shown a willingness to fight and die in her defense.
Thus do we Americans disagree on the most fundamental of issues.
Was America, is America, with all its sins and virtues and all its achievements, a country to be cherished, loved and defended? Or is America a country of whose history we should all be ashamed?
Part of America also believes that discovery in the Constitution of a woman's right to an abortion and a right of homosexuals to marry were major milestones of progress toward a more moral America.
Others see these as long strides away from the Christian country we used to be, a social and moral decline toward the same quiet death that has come to other civilizations and nations that went before us.
In short, we Americans disagree on whether our country is a good and great nation worth defending, or a place that needs a deep cultural cleansing of its sins.
And we have no common code of morality. One side is rooted in modernism and secularism and the other in the teachings of the Old and New Testament, Christian tradition and a natural law written on the human heart that is superior to man-made law.
People who disagree upon such basic beliefs naturally drift apart, as we Americans are doing today.
Political questions arise out of these fundamental differences, and they are not insignificant.
Can a republic as fractured and splintered as ours is—racially, ethnically, politically, culturally, morally—with a population who do not share the same belief about whether their nation is good and great or failed and evil, endure? And for how long?
What successful models from history do we see of nations that took the kind of risks we are taking with our republic?
COPYRIGHT 2020 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--2020-12-21--An Old Stock American Says The MAYFLOWER Was A Beachhead For The Faithful

For any questions or to donate by phone , please call Lydia at the VDARE.com office 860-361-6231 .
To make @ @ @ @ @ , click here for a printer friendly form .
To download address labels for Avery @ @ @ @ @ please click here .
In the event VDARE.com goes down please contact us at vdare @ @ @ @ @ protonmail.com .

Re: Tell Us Your Stories! We Are Not A Nation Of Immigrants. Honoring 400 Years Of The Mayflower Compact
From: Jonathan in Pennsylvania [Email him]
Most of 2020 has been dominated by self-defeating views that belie both truth and common sense—the “anti-racist” movement and belief in the infallibility of the Covid Churchstate being the worst of these.
But in the past, Americans were a proud and fearless people, partly because we appreciated our ancestors’ accomplishments and held up our founding fathers and other leaders as our common ancestors, in a way. We understood that respect for them was appropriate.
Several of my ancestors fought with the Patriots (including two named Jonathan). To tell this rant I’ve got to go a lot farther back to their ancestors, none of whom came here on the Mayflower. But one, William Harvey, was here in 1630, He was one of the many English Christians who took advantage of a greater chance at freedom and opportunity by settling in what became Massachusetts during the Great Puritan Migration of 1620-1642, when upwards of 21,000 or so of these folk came here.
How’s it all tie in with the Mayflower folk? America never happens, without them. They were the beachhead—the first gutsy, God-fearing group to make it happen in this new world. Jamestown had been repeatedly wiped out, and besides, was not comprised of the same sorts of religious educated people and families as were the Plymouth residents.
Think of it: before the Great Puritan Migration, there were just a few hundred white people in North America. Then, civilization.
It happened because of those sometimes bumbling, always Providence-expecting Pilgrims and their faith-inspired journey to a new land to worship as they chose. They came here and many of them had several children, as did the Puritans who followed them—a pattern I see repeated in my family over and again through the generations. One of my ancestors who fought with the Patriots had eight children, and I also came from a large brood.
I came from a religious family—we not only attended our church weekly, but read and recited the KJV Bible at home, daily. So I take this notion of worshiping as you choose as a Christian rather personally, and find it maddening how many people are accepting lock stock and barrel all of the propaganda and government overreaching engendered by the Wuhan Flu (not to mention the mandates of the Woke Church, too).
I've strayed some from the faith, only making it to a service or two per year in recent years. But the lessons learned from the Bible and my Christian upbringing are hard to shake, especially when life teaches you through hard knocks that these rules often work to prevent you from harming yourself and others. That is, if you follow those rules.
My first American ancestor led to many fruits of true faith, as evidenced in the actions of his descendants, including one who enlisted with the Union Army when he was not yet 16. Those and many other actions taken by descendants of that first American ancestor showed their faith and its ethos of love. That faith also was shown in the actions of my parents, who I don’t believe knew of this first American ancestor, but nonetheless followed in a pattern of free religiosity and belief in Jesus Christ and traditional values that always informed the United States and the American Colonies.
The Mayflower folk set the tone for that moral perspective, and the legal and legislative framework that enabled this nation to be born. Without them, there is no United States of America—it cannot happen, without these English Christian “Fundamentalists,” if I may use a tritely inaccurate modern word to describe them.
We live in a fearful and judgmental age. People who believe in no overarching morality have platforms and claim to know what’s what, maligning our English Christian founders as the worst sort of people—racists who were greedy more than anything else and deserve to have their statues toppled and their memories besmirched. These modern fakers make such outrageous accusations, calling America corrupt at its core, while also laying claim to whatever good things the USA is still credited with having done.
But to paraphrase the Biblical passage: Can both foul water and fresh water come from the same spring?
The writer is an American journalist.


vdare--2020-12-22--America Needs A Race-Denier Reckoning: I’m Vindicated (Again) By Race-Biased WuFlu Vaccine Distribut

America Needs A Race-Denier Reckoning: I’m Vindicated (Again) By Race-Biased WuFlu Vaccine Distribution Policies

Earlier by Lance Welton: Covid-19 and Race: I Am Completely Vindicated By U.S. Govt. Report
As I have reported before, most Leftists are hypocrites who, deep down, do not believe in “equality” as they so loudly claim. This is why they treat black people as though they are less intelligent than white people. They are also less able to think in a coherent and rational way than conservatives, because they are highly anxious and need to deal with this by convincing themselves that they are morally superior. They have Narcissistic traits, meaning they will say—and even feel they believe—anything that will evoke admiration. But, on some level, they know that it’s not true. So, it’s always best to judge Leftists’ real views by their actions rather than by their words. And their plans for Covid-19 vaccine distribution tell us something quite clear: race is biological and there are race differences in how likely you are to catch, and more importantly die of, Covid-19.
This, of course, struck me as obvious as soon as I heard of the existence of Covid-19. There had previously been clear ethnic differences in mortality from other flu pandemics—such as the Spanish Flu of 1918—and these existed independent of socioeconomic factors. And naturally there should be such differences, because “race” and “ethnicity” are matter of long-term evolution to different environments, meaning they involve differences in gene frequencies. Some ecologies will cause you to be more adapted to fighting off flu than others. So how could there not be race differences in Covid incidence?
For example, Covid would be likely to impact heavily Native Americans in the U.S., because they never developed agriculture, meaning they were less exposed to viruses which jumped the species barrier, including flu.
And so now, what is the state of New Mexico doing—despite the fact that race is a “social construct” and biological race differences are “trivial”? It is prioritizing the vaccine for Native Americans. .[ Vaccines reach COVID-ravaged Indigenous communities, by Morgan Lee and Carla K. Johnson, December 17, 2020]
Why? Because the “social construct” of “race” almost perfectly maps on to a biological reality and the genetic differences involved have life-and-death consequences.
Judge Leftists by what they do, not by what they say. And judge them by what they fail to do. Covering up race differences in Covid for ideological reasons will undoubtedly have cost Native American lives, because Native Americans should have been told from the beginning just how dangerous this might be for them.
In other words, I was completely right in the mantra that I began to attach to my VDARE.com articles on Covid and race:
If Covid-19 is not an Equal Opportunity disease, that means our race-denying Ruling Class is frightening most people too much—and not warning some people enough. This will not merely cause unnecessary chaos—it will cost lives.
And CNN’s showcased Indian medical talking head Sanjay Gupta was completely wrong, and criminally irresponsible, to assert dogmatically that Covid “doesn’t discriminate based on race”— the more so because this sort of political pressure stampeded governments and the Main Stream Media to suppress facts about the disease’s racial incidence that were desperately needed.
Now many other states, such as New Jersey and California, have announced that minorities, such as blacks, will be given priority access to the vaccine over whites. [REVEALED: Every single US state is being advised to consider ethnic minorities as critical groups for vaccination with HALF prioritizing black and Hispanic residents over white, Daily Mail, December 19, 2020]
This makes some sense, of course, because it has been shown that even when controlling for socioeconomic factors, dark-skinned people are more likely to die of Covid-19. (Whether it makes sense to prioritize young blacks over older at-risk whites, or for that matter not to prioritize at-risk males over women, does not seem to have occurred to the authorities),
The reason for minority prioritization is simple: They are in an “evolutionary mismatch” and this causes them to be unhealthy. With dark skin, they are evolved to a hot, sunny ecology in which the dark skin protects them from skin cancer. However, they have moved to an environment with cold, dark winters where, once you develop agriculture and so focus on one crop, light skin becomes useful because it allows to absorb UV rays from the sun and to synthesise this into Vitamin D. But if you have dark skin, you can’t do this very well. So you become Vitamin D deficient and this deficiency is central to dying of Covid-19.
Which is why, in Sweden, the mortality rate of Somalis has been substantial; Somalis who must take double the Vitamin D supplement that Swedes take in order not to be Vitamin D deficient.
Think of all the “Black Lives” sacrificed on the ideological altar of proclaiming that “race is a social construct” and biological race differences are only on “trivial” things such as skin color—which is literally far from “trivial.” But if you’re a white Leftist, then “Black Lives Don’t Matter.” Appearing morally superior—that’s all that matters.
Fascinatingly, black people are reportedly strongly resistant to having the vaccine which, for genetic reasons, they so desperately need. They are inclined to believe in so-called “conspiracy theories” about it—far more so than whites. Almost half of blacks believe that Covid is a conspiracy, meaning they are likely to be sceptical of the vaccine . [COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories Abound, As Fallout from the Virus Exposes Inequalities, by Nigel Roberts, BKReader.com April 24, 2020]
Anyone who takes race differences seriously will be unsurprised by this. Blacks have lower intelligence than whites and lower altruism, because these factors were selected less in their historically easy and unstable ecology. The result: they are lower in trust. They are also higher than whites the scale at one extreme of which sits schizophrenia—discussed in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, by VDARE.com contributor J. Philippe Rushton. Schizophrenia is associated with believing in conspiracy theories [The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories, By Brielle Marino, Psychology Today, September 14, 2020]. So blacks are going to be resistant to the very thing that may save their lives, meaning it makes sense to prioritize them, target and disproportionately reach out to them.
Throughout the West, Christmas is basically cancelled. 2020 has been a write off.
But perhaps the single positive is that Covid-19 has smashed the world in the face with “race”—in the form both of race riots and the simple and undeniable fact that biological race differences are not “trivial.”
They are very real and ignoring them can lead to people unnecessarily dying.
There will be families this Christmas staring at empty chairs because Leftists needed to deny “race” so that they could feel “superior” to other whites.
Implicitly admitting the reality of race by prioritising black vaccines—and even then dishonestly framing it in terms of “equity”—is too little and too late for all the deaths than white Leftist have, essentially, caused.
Americans hear a lot about the “Racial Reckoning.” But what they need is a "Race Denier Reckoning”
Lance Welton [email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.


vdare--2020-12-21--TThree Men" Who Fired Off Assault Rifle When  A Strip Club Required Masks Are Hispanic

Above: Edgar Nava-Ayala, Daniel Juvenal Ocampo, and Juan Jose Acosta-Soto
Earlier: Three Blacks Charged With Murdering Black Family Dollar Security Guard, After He Asked Black Customer To Wear A Mask
It is an MSM stereotype that "anti-maskers" are right-wing white lunatics, and another that people who shoot off assault rifles are right-wing and white. It's true that an elderly white man can "go viral" after "ranting" about masks, but violence over masks is more of minority thing...without going viral, of course. (See here and here.)
The same is true about the MSM stereotype about white gunmen. If whites engage in "open carry" of rifles, or self-defense, it's the worst thing ever. When a member of a minority group gets his hands on an assault rifle, much worse things happen, but it's forgotten the next day.
So when you see three guys who weren't allowed into a strip club because they weren't wearing masks, and then came back with an assault rifle, you need to know that this isn't a MAGA phenomenon, nor yet a Gun Culture 2.0 phenomenon, it's a Hispanic criminal subculture of Orange County, CA phenomenon.
Three men were charged for their role in a drive-by shooting that left four people wounded inside an Anaheim strip club on Halloween, officials announced Monday. The men, all residents of Anaheim, were at the Sahara Theatre strip club, located at 1210 State College Blvd., in the early hours of Oct. 31, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. After being physically removed from the club for failing to wear face masks, they shot at the strip club with an AK-47 assault rifle, authorities said. Edgar Nava-Ayala, Daniel Juvenal Ocampo, and Juan Jose Acosta-Soto — who all pleaded not guilty — are accused of driving back to the club after they were removed, with a loaded AK-47. Nava-Ayala is accused of shooting at least 15 rounds into the business, injuring two employees and a customer. There were about 30 people inside the club at the time, police said. The three victims sustained gunshot wounds to the upper body. One of them had to undergo surgery and another suffered a shattered left scapula, prosecutors said. Although the DA’s office says three people were shot, Anaheim police investigators said four people suffered wounds ranging from minor to moderate in severity. 3 men charged for shooting at Anaheim strip club after they were removed for failure to wear masks: OCDA, by Sareen Habeshian, KTLA, December 21, 2020
The Sahara Theatre strip club has, apparently no license to serve drinks, and not a particularly savory reputation in the first place. They have "lap dances" , and that means it's more like a "massage parlor" than a night-club
The Google reviews, many by people with Spanish names and some actually in Spanish, say things like:
It was probably one of the worst bars of that type that I have been to in 25 years.
This place is terrible. I have been to numerous gentlemen’s clubs and this is by far the worst. Atmosphere reminds me of my aunts basement. Please do not waste your money ($20 admission) by coming here. They don’t sell alcohol here. It would help the dancers look better.
This place is terrible. I have been to numerous gentlemen’s clubs and this is by far the worst. Atmosphere reminds me of my aunts basement. Please do not waste your money ($20 admission) by coming here. They don’t sell alcohol here. It would help the dancers look better. Force you to buy a drink which is fine but ten dollars for a damn soda? There's maybe 2 girls that are remotely attractive there, bar tender asks you to buy drink for the stripper who's giving you a lap dance. I'm already giving you guys my money haha. Have some decency about it. There's better strip clubs. Will be sticking to imperial girls lol . Sahara thanks but no thanks
Really bad at it is is sex and drugs. Very dirty and rude staff
(Translated by Google) She's not very good at ladies and they are very gross
(Original) No está muy buen de damas y son muy brutas
So can we definitely not blame this one on Trump, and the "right-wing"? These guys are what he ran against in 2016.


vdare--2020-12-23--A Christmas Miracle—President Trump Commutes Steve Stockman's Sentence

Only $ 1,685 left to go to meet our matching challenge of $ 5,000 !
A message to readers from our generous matching challenger : '' ...
I saw the core issue is demographic ; how mass immigration has been diluting historic Americans like me to the point where we are becoming outsiders without a say in our own country .
Immigration is a perfectly reasonable public policy debate that you can ’ t mention in polite company—unless you want to be labeled a racist , hating , uncaring , bigot .
I speak up anyway .
As a father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So does VDARE .
Despite the slander , deplatforming , cancellations , harassment and facing overwhelming odds , VDARE keeps going .
... For most of the time , VDARE has been the lone , sober voice on immigration .
And the message is getting out—immigration patriotism is breaking through .
It is finally getting broadly talked about and when immigration policy finds its way onto a ballot , it wins .
...
I chose to speak up and I appreciate that VDARE continues to amplify and broadcast the message that we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a donation today !
Thank you for your support .

[See Also: Flynn Just The Start—Trump Can Hit Back At The Ruling Class By Pardoning Stockman, Snowden, And Assange, December 4, 2020]
Joyous news to report. Among those whom President Trump pardoned or commuted is American patriot and former Congressman Steve Stockman. Congressman Stockman was the victim of a politically motivated persecution. While prisoners around the country were being released because of COVID-19, the justice system was content to let this man rot. He was essentially sentenced to death.
Richard Viguerie, one of the most important figures in the history of the conservative movement, put it precisely in those terms
By the day if not by the hour, conservative movement champion former Congressman Steve Stockman’s situation grows perilously close to a death sentence. Steve is the only over-60 diabetic prisoner remaining at the Beaumont, Texas federal prison facility, which also has the highest per capita COVID-19 infection rate of any prison in the country. And he’s been told by prison officials he will not be leaving on orders “straight from the top” in Washington!!! It’s clear someone wants him dead. Someone in Washington is ordering that his life not be saved by being released to home detention. There needs to be investigations into who it is. [Who In Washington Wants Steve Stockman Dead? 'Someone at the Top,' ConservativeHQ, July 20, 2020]
The same ghouls who wail over the plight of murderers are furious that Congressman Stockman will presumably be home for Christmas, reunited with his wonderful wife. They wanted his blood, and President Trump saved him.
However, the struggle is not over. Congressman Stockman's sentence was merely commuted; he did not receive a full pardon.
Trump commuted the sentence of Steve Stockman on "humanitarian and compassionate grounds," as Stockman is 64 and has pre-existing health conditions that put him at risk for Covid-19. A former U.S. representative from Texas, Stockman served two years of a 10-year sentence after he was convicted of misuse of charitable funds. He will still have to pay $1,000,000 restitution. [President Trump grants several high-profile pardons, by Morgan Phillips, Fox News, December 23, 2020]
Patriots should continue to push for a full pardon. (What, after all, does President Trump have to lose? He has to know they are coming for him too, and will use the same tools they used against Congresssman Stockman.)
There is more to this story. The investigation into Congressman Stockman was initiated after he started asking too many questions about the Obama Administration, especially the IRS's practice of tageting conservative groups,
Supporters say Stockman is being punished for his zealous pursuit of Obama-era wrongdoings, and in particular, for going after former Internal Revenue Service nonprofit division official Lois Lerner for targeting conservative nonprofits. “It was a totally political attack,” said Art Harman, who was Stockman’s legislative director during his recent term in Congress. “The prosecution was initiated two weeks after he introduced a resolution calling for the arrest of Lois Lerner,” Harman told The Epoch Times in an interview. “Unfortunately, [former Attorney General Jeff] Sessions did not review and dismiss politically motivated prosecutions after President Trump was inaugurated,” he said. “There were three grand juries that found nothing on him, but they kept spending taxpayer dollars to get him on something,” he said, comparing Stockman’s plight to that of embattled Trump confidant Roger Stone and now-imprisoned campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was convicted of crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign. [Questions Raised About Conviction of Conservative Texas Ex-Congressman, by Matthew Vadum, Epoch Times, June 12, 2019]
While he didn't get a full pardon, at least this way Congressman Stockman will be free, and hopefully free to tell his story.
President Trump deserves gratitude for doing this. (I scared the hell out of my son by yelling with joy when I saw the report). I can't think of any other Republican president who would have done it, even purely on humanitarian grounds. And whatever else you can say about POTUS, he just saved Congressman Stockman's life. It's a rare example of conservatives standing up for their own.
Credit should also go to Richard Viguerie and other conservative leaders who fought for him. It's a rare example of movement conservatives retrieving their wounded on the battlefield and shows what can be accomplished when Republicans don't run in terror from liberal journos and Democratic political police.
Merry Christmas Steve!


vdare--2020-12-22--NEWSWEEK's War On Christmas Historiography Credits Peter Brimelow With Starting The War

Newsweek attempts to apply historical perspective to the War on Christmas, talking about Cromwellian suppression of Christmas in 1647, the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony who worked on Christmas Day, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which outlawed Christmas celebrations from 1659 to 1681, all of which, I've said before, is missing the point.
The Puritans, who were all Christians, banned the observance of Christmas for religious reasons, out of respect for Christianity and the Bible, rather than Christophobia.
Newsweek goes on:
All of this brings us to what we currently know as the "War on Christmas." According to the fact-checking website Snopes.com, the phrase entered popular usage thanks to conservative author Peter Brimelow, who launched the website VDARE.com (named after Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the Americas) in 1999. There, he frequently posted about the need to "save" Christmas from people pushing secularist "Happy Holidays" themes. A December 2000 post on his site contained what's believed to be the first instance of the words "War on Christmas." However, the concept of the "War on Christmas" really took off with conservative broadcaster Bill O'Reilly. Brimelow published annual lists of what he called attacks on the holiday, and O'Reilly followed his lead by citing similar examples during his Fox News broadcasts. [The 'War on Christmas': A History of the Holiday Season's Biggest Cultural Debate, by Jon Jackson, Newsweek, December 22, 2020]
Links and emphases added.
It's true that Snopes said this in 2017, but it's not necessarily true that it was the first time those words were uttered.
We've traced War on Christmas examples to 1906 which featured a walkout of 20,000 Jewish students to protest the singing of Christmas carols in New York schools,, and 1955, when National Review editorialized against waffling by the NY school board.
By unspoken agreement, an officer of the Board did tell us, such aggressive symbols of religious imperialism as the manger, lighted candles and the visitation of the Magi are banned. But Santa Claus is allowed, she said soothingly; also reindeer and stars. And, presumably, candy sticks and jingle bells. [Krismas, PDF, November 26, 1955]
Jordan Lorence, of Alliance Defending Freedom, has been fighting back against this stuff since 1987. None of this is done by Puritans who feel that mistletoe and plum pudding are the wrong way to honor Jesus Christ.
It's true that Peter Brimelow has been fighting this fight for years, since he was working at the pre-Purge National Review. (See here for John O'Sullivan's 1995 NR announcement of their War On Christmas competition in which O'Sullivan used the phrase "anti-Christmas Kulturkampf" rather than "War On Christmas".) It's also true that VDARE.com has been fighting the War On Christmas since its inception, and that is how I got my job here.
But what really makes Newsweek credit Peter Brimelow is that he's now more of a bogeyman than even Bill O'Reilly. It's an attempt to smear Christmas with guilt-by-association.


vdare--2020-12-22--The British Plan To Minimize Covid Deaths Via Vaccination

From the New Statesman:
How Covid-19 vaccines could rapidly reduce the UK’s death rate
There is a very real possibility of Britain largely eliminating the fatality risk of the virus by early spring.
BY HARRY LAMBERT
… As the graph below shows, vaccinating small portions of the population will have outsized effects: vaccinating the 2 per cent of Britons most at risk could, for instance, cut the risk of Covid-19 deaths by about 40 per cent. (I’ll explain why in more detail below.)
The first wave of 800,000 Pfizer doses will soon be supplemented by more waves of supply. A total of four million doses of the Pfizer vaccine are, according to UK health chiefs yesterday, due in the country by the end of this month – enough to vaccinate two million people.
Those two million vaccinations should almost halve the UK-wide risk of death. This is evident from the Office of National Statistics’ Covid-19 fatality data. As the data reveals, 42 per cent of coronavirus deaths in the UK have been among those aged 85 and over. There are about 1.65 million people in the UK of this age, or around 2 per cent of the population. The four million Pfizer doses due across the UK in the final weeks of 2020 will be enough to vaccinate them all. Assuming a 95 per cent effectiveness rate, that would cut the fatality risk of coronavirus by 40 per cent.
The next stage will be to vaccinate all those aged at least 75. There are 5.7 million Britons in this category (or 9 per cent of the population). Those aged 75 or over happen to account for 75 per cent of fatalities of Covid-19 so far. In other words, vaccinating everyone aged at least 75 could cut 71 per cent of the UK-wide risk, again assuming an efficacy of 95 per cent.
This level of vaccination will require 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine – or as little as 8.6 million doses of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, if its experimental 1.5x dose is approved by regulators.
There are two further key stages to keep in mind. First, vaccinating everyone aged at least 65 will further reduce the UK’s Covid-19 fatality risk, potentially resulting in an 86 per cent reduction in risk, as this age group and above has accounted for 90 per cent of deaths. This will require just under 25 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in total.
The UK has ordered 40 million doses of the vaccine, with the “bulk” of those expected to be available and administered in January and February. By that point, Covid-19’s fatality risk may have reached a level comparable to flu.
Finally, a further 25 million doses will take the cut in risk to 94 per cent, by vaccinating everyone aged at least 50, as well as those most at risk between 16 and 49 (accounting for 99 per cent of Covid-19 deaths so far) – this is the government’s plan.


vdare--2020-12-22--Michelle Malkin: The Abominable 'America Last' Porkulus Bill

This country is not governed by a "Republican Party" and a "Democratic Party." It is governed by an establishment "uniparty" that betrays our citizens at every turn. Exhibit A: The joint annual ritual of fiscal vulgarity known as the omnibus spending bill.
While Americans are distracted with the holidays, Beltway crapweasels stuff their legislative Christmas trees with multibillion-dollar goodies for every special interest except the American people. I've reported with depressing regularity over the past quarter-century on how these pork-laden monstrosities get rammed through Congress, unread, with little scrutiny or outrage. But finally, light bulbs are going off.
The juxtaposition of measly COVID-19 relief for U.S. citizens against the backdrop of lavish aid for illegal immigrants, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, overseas social justice warriors, nongovernmental organizations and foreign countries is just too brazen to ignore. Americans will receive $600 COVID-19 relief checks and $300 unemployment payments as part of the consolidated federal government funding package. The $900 billion in COVID-related aid is folded into the massive, 5,600-page legislation encompassing 12 fiscal 2021 spending bills worth $1.4 trillion.
The puny pandemic stimulus for we the people is a pittance compared with these giveaways buried in the abominable "America last" porkulus:
4 million illegal immigrant family members are now eligible for stimulus checks and can also now receive retroactive payments worth up to $1,800.
The amnesty program for thousands of Liberians who've lived and worked here unlawfully since 2014 has been extended for another year.
Untold numbers of illegal immigrants who claim to live with "unaccompanied minors" smuggled across the border will now enjoy a new shield from deportation.
While funding support for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been slashed by $431 million, open borders nonprofits are rejoicing over new funding for catch-and-release pilot programs that will keep deportable illegal immigrants out of federal custody.
$500 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama to "address key factors that contribute to the migration of unaccompanied, undocumented minors to the United States."
$461 million to Colombia for drug control and "human rights" programs.
$75 million to the "Caribbean Basin Security Initiative."
$33 million "for democracy programs for Venezuela.
$1.65 billion to Jordan for "foreign military financing" and other assistance.
$700 million in economic aid to Sudan for "global health" and "transition."
$40 million to Syria for economic support, drug control and law enforcement, and emergency medical and rescue response.
At least $25 million for "democracy" and "gender programs" in Pakistan.
"Not less than" $135 million for drug control and law enforcement assistance in Burma.
"Not less than" $85.5 million to Cambodia.
$130 million to Nepal for "development" and "democracy" programs.
$1.3 billion to Egypt for "economic support" and "higher education."
$453 million to Ukraine.
$241 million for Tunisia.
$15 million to refurbish a patrol boat in Sri Lanka.
$170 million to Vietnam, including $19 million to clean up dioxins.
$200 to Bangladesh, including $23.5 million to support Burmese refugees and $23.3 million for "democracy programs."
$132 million "for assistance for Georgia."
"Not less than" $1.5 billion for implementation of Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Asia Reassurance Initiative.
Then there's Israel, which raked in $500 million in military aid, plus $250 million to invest in "people to people" exchanges among Palestinians, Israelis and Americans, "$5 million for refugee resettlement, $2 million for cooperative COVID-19 health research, $2 million for "sustainability" research, $4 million for the U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in Energy and Water, $2 million for cooperative energy programs, $2 million for U.S.-Israel "border security" programs and $2 million for "strategic dialogue" among the U.S., Israel, Greece and Cyprus."
This half-billion-dollar gift to Israel, one of the world's wealthiest nations with universal health care and highly subsidized higher education, comes on top of the $3.8 billion in foreign aid already allocated to the country this month through the National Defense Authorization Act—which also included $3.3 billion for security assistance, $500 million for missile defense, $47.5 million for "anti-tunnel technology" and $25 million for anti-drone aerial systems thousands of miles away to protect them. Not us.
What about our borders? What about our domestic peace? What about our health? What about our sustainability? What about our schools? What about our small businesses? What about our human rights?
Americans who dare ask these questions are viciously attacked by the uniparty gatekeepers and globalist water-carriers as "xenophobic," "racist" and "anti-Semitic." We've had enough. A manufactured public health crisis, post-George Floyd anarchotyranny, and the wholesale hijacking of our election system are pushing citizens to the brink of revolt.
In such times, and at all times, any self-respecting sovereign nation must put its people first. If you don't demand leaders who represent your interests, you deserve the serial abusers you elect, embolden and empower.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
Michelle Malkin [Email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies, ,Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs, and Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers.
Malkin is author of the book, "Open Borders, Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction," available directly from VDARE.com in hardcover. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM


vdare--2020-12-22--National Statuary Hall: Down With Robert E. Lee And Up With Barbara Johns (Who?)

Earlier, by Patrick J. Buchanan: Culture War In VA—Statues Of Washington And Lee To Be Replaced With...Nat Turner?
Today, Virginia removed the statue of Robert E. Lee that represented the state in National Statuary Hall in Congress for more than 100 years. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said the general was “a symbol of Virginia’s racist and divisive history.” Nancy Pelosi called the statue an “homage to hate.” If Governor Northam has his way, a black woman—actually, a black girl—will represent the Old Dominion: Barbara Johns. Never heard of her? I hadn’t either until today, and the more you look into her, the more you understand why.
In 1951, Johns was a junior at Moton High School in Farmville, Virginia. According to her biography at the Moton Museum, she, along with some fellow students went on strike to protest the shabby facilities at their “separate but equal” school. They weren’t calling for integration, just better schools. Two days later, the NAACP agreed to help, but only if the students would demand integration, and a month later, the NAACP filed Davis v County School board of Prince Edward County. Johns was not even the named plaintiff; Dorothy Davis was a 14-year-old ninth grader. A three-judge panel dismissed the case, but the NAACP consolidated it with four other integration suits that it took to the US Supreme Court. This led to the famous Brown case that banned segregated schooling.
Barbara Johns (Credit Image: Sharon Wohlmuth)
Believe it or not, that is the extent of the accomplishments of a girl now being called a “civil rights icon.” As her biography notes, after her education she “went on to lead a quiet life:” She married a preacher and was a grade-school librarian in Philadelphia. She died in 1991. Just this month, however, she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame, along with four other women — all black — including Aretha Franklin.
When a “racist” white man is removed from a place of honor, no one ever tries to find a “non-racist” white man to take his place. Perhaps, there is no such thing, but such Virginians as James Madison or Patrick Henry or James Monroe or Lewis and Clark or Henry Clay, or Admiral Richard Byrd were never in the running. But if the rulers of Virginia were determined to find a black person—even a black woman—was this non-entity the best they could do? If I were black, I would be insulted.
If it had to be a black woman from Virginia, why not someone who accomplished something? Why not Ella Fitzgerald or Pearl Bailey? And if we could break free just a bit and choose a black man, why not Booker T. Washington, who was a genuinely admirable figure who dedicated his life to lifting up black people? No, it apparently had to be a black girl who did one thing on one day, but as Rosa Parks proved, that can be all it takes for black female stardom.
And who is the other Virginian who will share “eternal” glory in National Statuary Hall along with Barbara Johns? Just another dead white male: George Washington. I predict that before long those two will be considered far too mismatched to represent Virginia, and the slave-holding racist war-monger will have to go. Then, if our rulers can get over their sex-obsession and choose a man, I nominate that great Virginian, Nat Turner. When he decided to strike a blow for his people it wasn’t a sissy little school strike. He and 70 followers set out to “kill all the white people,” and managed to slaughter white men, women, and children.
I’d call him a far more impressive figure than a grade-school librarian.
Jared Taylor [Email him] is the editor of American Renaissance. You can follow him on Parler and Gab.
[Comment at Amren.com]


vdare--2020-12-22--This Day In VDARE.com History, 2017: Scandalous J20 Verdict: Sabotage by Judge Lynn Leibovitz Uphold

This Day In VDARE.com History, 2017: Scandalous J20 Verdict: Sabotage by Judge Lynn Leibovitz Upholds Left’s Right To Riot=Another Step On Road To Civil War

Originally published on this day in 2017.
See also:
After Inauguration Day, January 20, in “It Will Come To Blood”–Reflections On The Left’s Anti-Trump Inauguration Tantrum, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow wrote: “If the incoming Trump Administration is behind the federal prosecutor’s apparent intention to charge rioters with “felony rioting” i.e. go for exemplary sentencing, that all by itself justifies the 2016 election.” But in the first major trial of what are now called “J20” defendants, sabotage by Judge Lynn Leibovitz (PDF) has resulted in an acquittal on all charges, in effect reaffirming the Left’s right to riot. [6 Protesters Found Not Guilty in First Inauguration Riot Trial , NBC Washington, Thursday, December 21, 2017] In contrast, most of the Charlottesville Alt Right defendants, arrested after melees now confirmed to be a result of police malpractice, are still being held without bail—unlike their assailants. It is increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that America has a Cultural Marxist kritarchy—and that we are on the road to Civil War.
Leibovitz’ J20 malfeasance was a newfangled, stealth version of a directed verdict. Normally, all sides—jury, defense, and prosecution—rely on the judge to be an honest broker who preserves the process of a trial. “The court” must be fair-minded to all, in the interests of justice. But there are many ways in which a malevolent judge can corrupt the process. Thus in the many Knoxville Horror trials, judges variously corrupted the verdicts by shipping in extra black jurors, and by giving convicted perpetrators extra bites at the apple, resulting in reduced sentences.
Since the Inauguration riot trial was held in the District of Columbia, Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division of the Washington, D.C. Superior Court Leibovitz—a George W. Bush appointee, let the record show—did not need to ship in black (or Leftist) jurors. Her method for corrupting the verdict: muzzle prosecutors and witnesses from ever mentioning the terms “Antifa” and “Black Bloc,” calling them prejudicial—even though these are the terms that the movement itself uses [Inside The Trial That Could Determine The Future Of Free Speech In America’s Capital by Ryan J. Reilly, Huffington Post, December 10, 2017.]
Try making a persuasive argument—in or out of court—under rules in which you are not permitted to use the terms central to your argument.
During the trial, Judge Leibovitz threw out the felony riot charge. The AP operative who wrote the verdict story, one Ashraf Khalil, provided cover for her:
Even before the jury began its deliberations, Judge Lynn Leibovitz seriously damaged the government's case by throwing out the most serious charge against the six — a felony charge of inciting a riot. Leibovitz said there simply wasn't evidence to support the charge and the jury's verdict proved that prosecutors had failed to present convincing evidence to support even the remaining lesser charges. [Jury acquits all 6 defendants in first inauguration trial, Associated Press/Washington Post, December 21, 2017, 9:30 p.m.]
But the jury’s verdict proved only that Judge Leibovitz had successfully undermined the prosecution’s case.
Newsweek’s coverage of the acquittals could have been written by the rioters’ leaders, and unwittingly convicted them.
The first six of roughly 190 anti-Trump protesters facing felony charges were acquitted by a federal jury, and some experts believe other cases could end up being dropped—which amounts to a large win for the antifascist movement. “For the first time since January, the activists were happy and smiling and laughing,” Jude Ortiz, a representative for Defend #J20, a civil rights group supporting the protesters, including the six who were cleared, Jennifer Armento, Oliver Harris, Brittne Lawson, Michelle Macchio, Christina Simmons and Alexei Wood. Activists had said earlier that the trial, which followed skirmishes between some protesters and police, was an attempt to crack down on dissent. Many of the demonstrations were peaceful, witnesses said, and press coverage from January 20, 2017, confirm. But more than 200 people were arrested en masse by DC Metro Police that day. The trial of the protesters itself was controversial. Federal prosecutors employed video evidence captured by Project Veritas, a controversial group that runs right-wing video stings and even tried to trick The Washington Post into publishing a fake news story about Alabama Republican U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. Activists also accused DC police of political bias against them. Officers who testified against the protesters struggled to tell one suspect from another while testifying against them. A spokesperson for It’s Going Down, an antifascist website and news network that supports the protesters, told Newsweek, “None of the people were charged with doing anything but just being there.” "Antifa" is more of a protesting tactic than the name of a movement. Still, it has been blamed for a growing number of bizarre and demonstrably false conspiracies by right wing pundits in recent months… ['Antifa' Not Guilty: First of J20 Protesters Acquitted Nearly One Year After Trump's Inauguration by Michael Edison Hayden, [Email Him]Newsweek, December 22, 2017. Emphases added],
Remember that before the Inauguration, the Leftist magazine The Nation called for violence, only to suffer amnesia afterwards. And the AntiFa organizing website was DisruptJ20, set up with the sole purpose of conspiring to riot (note its NAME!!!)
The Totalitarian Left has defined its own violence as “dissent,” while redefining mere dissent by patriots as “violence.” Judge Leibovitz and the Main Stream Media clearly agree.
The “protesters,” including the ones just acquitted, made a conscious decision to dress in the uniform of the Black Bloc, all black with masks to hide their faces, and let them blend in with the active rioters, so as to make it impossible for the police to distinguish rioters from non-rioters, and they accompanied the rioters as human shields:
In their opening arguments, defense attorneys maintained that police indiscriminately rounded up peaceful demonstrators. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff countered that the defendants continued to walk with the rioters, after the latter had wreaked mayhem. If they were in disagreement with the rioters’ tactics, she argued, they were obligated to separate from them, the way other demonstrators did, who were not charged. Kerkhoff said there was video that showed the co-defendants changing out of their black clothes and removing their masks to avoid capture, an effort, she said, that proved they were connected with the rioting. [Inauguration protesters were “playing a role in the violence and destruction,” prosecutor says, by Keith L. Alexander and Paul Duggan, Washington Post, November 20 2017. Emphases added]
(My question: wearing a mask is a crime in the District of Columbia. Why weren’t these AntiFa at least charged with that? Or were they? The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia refuses to say).
At the same time, the riot organizers—who made clear the whole show was a riot—organized lodging for the rioters:
One member of the "D.C. counter-inaugural welcoming committee" commented anonymously that housing space for 1,000 visiting radicals, in both church halls and houses, had been organized by their group alone. New York anarchists are raising funds to rent whole buses to attend. And, as historic anti-fascist mass protest dictates, there are plans for a large black bloc—a spectacle both intentionally threatening and anonymizing…. [Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets by Natasha Lennard, The Nation, January 19, 2017]
If that isn’t a criminal conspiracy, I don’t know what is.
In its closing, the prosecution made the getaway car driver argument—the fact that if one doesn’t go into a bank with a gun during a robbery (while waiting in the getaway car), it doesn’t make one any less guilty of being a bank robber.
The D.C. jury responded, in so many words, “Robbery? What robbery?”
To appreciate the carnival logic-chopping atmosphere in Judge Leibowitz’s court, read Jury Acquits First Inauguration Protesters, But US Seems Determined to Try Again, by Rachel Kurzius, Washingtonian, December 21, 2017:
“The jurors believe criminal acts were committed” on the morning of Inauguration Day, Juror 16 said, but the government never showed that the six people charged were responsible for the destruction. “The prosecution helpfully acknowledged it had no knowledge that any defendants committed an act of violence or vandalism.” [Acquitted AntiFa Britne] Lawson asked if she could hug [Juror 16]. He suggested a handshake instead, and commended her work as a street medic. She’s one of two people, along with Macchio, who attended the protest with first aid kits, and Lawson was wearing a white helmet with a red cross taped on it. In closing arguments, [Prosecutor] Qureshi said that the gauze in Lawson’s fanny pack showed she “prepared for war.”
Emphases added. Of course Prosecutor Qureshi was right. What “peaceful protester” comes with paramedic equipment?
VDARE.com has long spoken of the need to impeach rogue judges. (I’m looking at you, Lynn Leibovitz.) The Left calls such perfectly lawful sanctions of black-clad rogues—the other Black Bloc—an attack on the “independence of the judiciary.” What a joke! These are the same people who threatened to impeach Chief Justice John Roberts, if he voted to repeal Obamacare.
If one cannot reform the judiciary, or any other institution, through peaceful means, including lawful elections and referenda, then the alternative becomes surrender—or civil war.
Conclusion: My VDARE Editor Peter Brimelow directs that I not close without some Christmas cheer. One hundred and eighty-eight J20 defendants still await trial and the feds do apparently intend to proceed. [Inauguration Day prosecutions to continue, despite acquittals, by Neal Augenstein, December 22, 2017). This imposes considerable costs on George Soros that absolutely would have not occurred under Obama.
And at least one AntiFa rioter has actually been appropriately punished. [Man who threw flare into cop car during May 1 protests to get 5 years, by Aimee Green, OregonLive.com, September 25, 2017]
Note that this puts Judge Lynn Leibovitz's failure to do justice in a withering perspective


vdare--2020-12-21--This Day In VDARE.com History, 2016: #BoycottDelta Hate Hoaxer, Adam Saleh, Tweeted In Support Of Bo

This Day In VDARE.com History, 2016: #BoycottDelta Hate Hoaxer, Adam Saleh, Tweeted In Support Of Boston Marathon Bomber

Originally published here on VDARE.com on this day in 2016.
See also, from December 21, 2016: How Many Fake News Hate Hoaxes Were Exposed Today Alone?
Adam Saleh, a YouTube celebrity, has a video of himself being "thrown off a plane for speaking Arabic," inspiring a #BoycottDelta hashtag on Twitter.
We got kicked out of a @Delta airplane because I spoke Arabic to my mom on the phone and with my friend slim... WTFFFFFFFF please spread pic.twitter.com/P5dQCE0qos — Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016
In fact, if you're flying for the holidays, you want to fly on an airline that's proactive about possible Arab hijackers [YouTube prankster Adam Saleh claims racism on Delta flight, CNN Wires, December 21, 2016].
It's pretty obvious that he deliberately scared the staff and passengers of this Delta plane in order to make this video, which is serious crime in and of itself.
The guy from the #boycottdelta video literally makes a career going on planes and throwing a scene. pic.twitter.com/9smBtljt8a — Ashley Rae (@Communism_Kills) December 21, 2016
[Note that Saleh's Hoax video is still up, while Ashley Rae, who exposed him, is banned from Twitter. The screenshot below is her work.]
You've seen this sign?
Saleh's behavior is the same kind of thing that got a Venezuelan doctor fined $90,000 for joking about a bomb—and he had no malicious intent. One guy on Twitter found an interesting Tweet.
The Muslim punk thrown off Delta Airlines today tweeted support for the Boston Bomber. Also long history of faking 'terrorist' pranks. https://t.co/oWxQNzQyj4 — Mark Dice (@MarkDice) December 21, 2016
When I went to look at it, it had been deleted. However, a combination of Google's cache and Archive.is is pretty good for deleted Tweets—see archive.is/uVFSD.
Of course, if Saleh is eager to apply the presumption of innocence to a mad Chechen bomber, that doesn't mean he actually approves of what the bomber did.
But maybe when looking at hate crimes, we could apply the same presumption of innocence to alleged white rapists.


vdare--2020-12-21--"I Chose To Speak Up": $5k Matching Challenge Starts Now!

Note from Lydia Brimelow: Today, I’m proud to announce the first of our next Donation Matching Challenge, from a donor who has become a close friend to VDARE.com over the years. This matching challenge was supposed to go live last week, but our plans were rudely interrupted by the news that our online donation processor wanted to ban us. We lawyered up and seem to have bought ourselves some time, but we don’t know how long this window of opportunity for online donations will last. Please give now if you want to do it by credit card because they could pull the plug at any moment.
I’ve decided to move forward with the Match Challenge despite this hanging threat because, frankly, the show must go on. We live in a censored world right now, but we can’t let it stop us from continuing the fight. And besides, this heroic donor has such wonderful things to say about VDARE.com I just can’t help but share it!
Dear Patriots,
I was introduced to VDARE by a patriot friend of mine from Connecticut. I’ve been a reader for nearly 20 years.
I was a National Review sort of conservative—advocating and donating to fight for lower taxes and get good government elected. Alas, when we’d win, nothing much would change, except how fast the progressive and PC ratchet tightened.
Eventually, I saw the core issue is demographic; how mass immigration has been diluting historic Americans like me to the point where we are becoming outsiders without a say in our own country. Immigration is a perfectly reasonable public policy debate that you can’t mention in polite company—unless you want to be labeled a racist, hating, uncaring, bigot.
I speak up anyway. As a father of four, I have to.
So does VDARE. Despite the slander, deplatforming, cancellations, harassment and facing overwhelming odds, VDARE keeps going. VDARE keeps producing editorial content that is well researched, insightful, fact-based, not-afraid and truthful. For most of the time, VDARE has been the lone, sober voice on immigration. And the message is getting out—immigration patriotism is breaking through. It is finally getting broadly talked about and when immigration policy finds its way onto a ballot, it wins.
I give every year because we need to spread the word and have a place where people can find others like them. Again, the forces lined up against immigration patriots are huge. But, to the disdain of many of our elite, there are still a lot of us prickly old Americans around.
I chose to speak up and I appreciate that VDARE continues to amplify and broadcast the message that we are not going away.
Onwards and upwards,
6 Year Donor From South Carolina
Every donation that comes in starting now, will be doubled in value up to $5,000 thanks to this hero!
Choose to speak up and be a part of the solution. Please give your most generous donation today!


vdare--2020-12-21--Trump Did Better In Immigrant Precincts, Worse In White Neighborhoods

As we’ve been instructed for decades, the key to Republicans doing better among immigrant voters is to let in more immigrants. Thus, Donald Trump in 2020, while he may have done better among whites because of their innate xenophobic racism, was swept away by the righteous wrath of immigrants.
Except … the opposite happened.
From the New York Times:
Immigrant Neighborhoods Shifted Red as the Country Chose Blue
By Weiyi Cai and Ford Fessenden Dec. 20, 2020 Across the United States, many areas with large populations of Latinos and residents of Asian descent, including ones with the highest numbers of immigrants, had something in common this election: a surge in turnout and a shift to the right, often a sizable one. The pattern was evident in big cities like Chicago and New York, in California and Florida, and along the Texas border with Mexico, according to a New York Times analysis of voting in 28,000 precincts in more than 20 cities. Joseph R. Biden Jr. beat President Trump in almost all of these places en route to his record popular vote victory. But the red shifts, along with a wave of blue shifts in Republican and white areas, have scrambled the conventional wisdom of American politics and could presage a new electoral calculus for the parties. Thousands of new voters across the country turned out in areas with significant numbers of Latinos and residents of Asian descent — populations whose participation in past elections has lagged. And over all, Mr. Trump, whose policies and remarks were widely expected to alienate immigrants and voters of color, won the lion’s share of the additional turnout.
It’s almost as if immigrants don’t tend to be the genteel, cultured NPR listeners of Stuff White People Like legend, but tend to be somewhat crass, materialistic, and on the make, like Trump himself.
Keep in mind that because Trump didn’t do well in 2016 in these neighborhoods, it was easier for Trump to show a bigger percentage gain than for Biden to show it.
Due to the huge McKinley vs. Bryan-level turnout of 2020, Biden’s vote totals were higher than Hillary’s in all of these cities except Miami, where he was down 6% in Latino/Asian neighborhoods, and Philadelphia, where Biden was down 17% in those neighborhoods (perhaps in part due to the big BLM riots the week before the election).
It’s important to keep in mind that Trump mostly got beat among Latinos and Asians in 2020, but slightly less so than in 2016.
Nate Silver makes the good point that a common mistake in election analysis is to assume a newly identified trend will always continue. If Trump did better among immigrants in 2020 than in 2016, then by 2032, the GOP candidate will do great among them. Well, perhaps. Perhaps not, though. It’s especially dangerous for Republicans to conclude that this one election trend proves that Republicans should bring in a lot more immigrants, because Real Soon Now they’ll be voting majority Republican.
For one thing, Trump is, to say the least, a unique personality. A more generic Republican candidate might lack the appeal of Trump.
With only a few exceptions, all of these areas continued to be Democratic strongholds, giving more votes to Mr. Biden by substantial margins. But in a divided American electorate, any shift can be consequential. Already the shift appears to have changed outcomes in a number of congressional races. Here’s Cook County, home to Chicago. Mr. Biden won it by 50 percentage points over Mr. Trump. But these red arrows on the map show precincts that have shifted right since 2016 — there are 2,158 of them, compared with the 1,508 that have shifted left. In particular, Chicago precincts with a lot of immigrants saw more people turning out than in 2016, and many shifted to Mr. Trump.
In this map of Cook County, highly immigrant neighborhoods are shown in yellow. Red arrows pointing to the right say the precinct swung more toward Trump from 2016 to 2020. This does not say Trump won, just that he did better. Blue arrows pointing to left indicate Biden did better than Hillary. (In non-immigrant precincts, the arrows are faded out but still visible. Trump 2020 did better than Trump 2016 in much of the city, but got killed even worse among Lakefront Liberals.)
Almost all of the precincts with a majority Latino population showed an increase in enthusiasm for the president … … including ones with tens of thousands of residents of Mexican descent. Mr. Trump received 45 percent more votes in these areas than four years ago. Mr. Biden still won, but the number of people who voted Democratic did not increase over 2016. It was not just Latino areas. In a belt of suburbs north of Chicago — precincts that are home to South Asian, Arab and Eastern European immigrants — there was also higher turnout, and a shift to Mr. Trump. In Chinatown, Mr. Trump’s vote increased by 34 percent over 2016, while Mr. Biden received 6 percent fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Mr. Biden still won in precincts with a majority of residents of Asian descent, but the Democratic margin of victory fell 12 percentage points.
Chicago’s showcase downtown shopping areas were sacked twice this year by BLM mostly peaceful protesters. Immigrants didn’t seem to appreciate that.
Meanwhile, areas with more modest red shifts tended to be predominantly Black, with few immigrants. Mr. Biden received fewer votes than Mrs. Clinton in these areas while Mr. Trump’s vote increased slightly. The Times analysis also shows that in urban and suburban precincts with the highest proportion of white voters, turnout also rose steeply, but Mr. Trump’s margin declined in those places, compared with 2016. It also fell in Republican precincts: In 3,600 of the 5,000 precincts where he beat Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s margin in 2020 was lower than it was in 2016. But even as Mr. Trump lost ground in white and Republican areas in and around cities — ultimately leading to his election loss — he gained new votes in immigrant neighborhoods.
Here’s NYC:
Areas where Dalton School students live shifted even more Democratic, and Staten Island went slightly more Democratic, but the nonwhite parts of NYC voted a little more Republican.
Trump in 2020 was the Stuff White People Don’t Like candidate.
Indeed, in Maricopa County in Arizona, home to Phoenix, the overall turnout even in Latino precincts that shifted right was so large that it added far more votes to Mr. Biden’s totals than Mr. Trump’s, and was instrumental in turning the state blue, in spite of the shift. …
Why did Trump do worse among suburban whites and better among urban immigrants?
Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said he worried before the election that Democrats’ focus on racial justice issues came at the expense of outreach about easing the lives of hard-pressed workers. “In general, it suggests that Democrats’ theory of the case — that their electoral problems were all about race rather than class — was incorrect,” he said.
Probably immigrants were hit harder by Democratic-backed lockdowns, since many don’t have Work From Home jobs.


vdare--2020-12-20--CDC: Maybe Our Vaccine Priority Philosophy Of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity You Trailertrash [or DIE YT

CDC: Maybe Our Vaccine Priority Philosophy Of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity You Trailertrash [or DIE YT for Short] Needs A Bit Of A Rethink

From the New York Times news section:
Frontline Workers and People Over 74 Should Get Shots Next, C.D.C. Panel Says The recommendation was a compromise aimed at getting the coronavirus vaccine to the most vulnerable of two high-risk groups. By Abby Goodnough and Jan Hoffman
Dec. 20, 2020 Striking a compromise between two high-risk population groups, a panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted Sunday to recommend that people age 75 and older be next in line to receive the coronavirus vaccine in the United States, along with about 30 million “frontline essential workers,” such as emergency responders, teachers and grocery store employees. … The panel of doctors and public health experts had previously indicated it would recommend a much broader group of Americans defined as essential workers — about 90 million people with jobs designated by a division of the Department of Homeland Security as critical to keeping society functioning — as the next priority population, and that older people who live independently should come later. But in hours of discussion on Sunday, conducted remotely, the committee members concluded that given the limited initial supply of vaccine and the higher Covid-19 death rate among older Americans, it made more sense to allow the oldest among them to go next, along with workers whose jobs put them “at substantially higher risk of exposure” to the virus. “I feel very strongly we do need to have that balance of saving lives and keeping our infrastructure in place,” said Dr. Helen Talbot, a member of the panel and an infectious-disease specialist at Vanderbilt University. Other types of essential workers, such as construction and restaurant workers, would qualify for a third wave of prioritization under the panel’s recommendations. … Together, the two groups the committee recommended be vaccinated next number about 51 million people. Federal health officials have estimated that there could be enough vaccine supply to inoculate 100 million people before the end of February, including the nation’s 21 million health care workers and three million residents of long-term care facilities. The C.D.C. reported on Sunday that more than 556,000 people had received an initial shot over the last week; both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require a second dose several weeks later.
At a rate of 556k inoculations per week of a double dose vaccine, we should zoom through the first 100 million people in only … uh, 360 weeks. By November 2027, we should be ready to figure out who is next in priority.
Is that going to be sped up?
The director of the C.D.C., Dr. Robert Redfield, will now review the panel’s latest recommendation and decide, likely by Monday, whether to embrace it as the agency’s official guidance to states. After the committee suggested last month that it would recommend that essential workers get vaccinated ahead of older people, Dr. Redfield urged its members in a statement to “demonstrate that we as a nation also prioritize the elderly.” A working group of the committee suggested that in addition to teachers, firefighters and police, “frontline essential workers” should include school support staff, day care employees, corrections personnel, public transit, grocery store and postal workers, and those in working in food production and manufacturing…. When the committee signaled last month that essential workers should precede adults 65 and older, many members supported that view, expressing alarm that these workers, who are often low-wage people of color, were being hit disproportionately hard by the virus and were additionally disadvantaged because of their limited access to good health care. … But when word of that proposal emerged, the public reaction was frequently harsh because many people felt that the elderly deserved protection first, as they, too, are dying at disproportionately high rates and overwhelming health care facilities. In addition, the committee faced a flood of often vicious accusations that it was prioritizing other racial groups over white people.
Vicious, I tell you, vicious. Anybody who questions the federal government valuing Black Lives over all lives is a vicious dog of a racist. They are barely human, if that. They need to be taught the true meaning of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity.
In a strongly worded statement before the panel’s vote on Sunday, its chairman, Dr. Romero, pushed back. “Our attempt has been always to achieve equitable ethical and fair distribution of that resource. We have never targeted a specific ethnic nor racial group for receipt of the vaccine,” he said.
Uh, sure.
The position the committee ultimately endorsed was intended to mediate between competing and compelling concerns. The latest recommendation now trims back essential workers to a smaller category and narrows the eligible older population by a decade. The full committee also voted to recommend a third priority group to get the vaccine after people who are older than 75 and those who are “frontline” essential workers: people ages 65 to 74 (roughly 32 million); people ages 16 to 64 with high-risk medical conditions (more than 110 million); and all other essential workers, including those with jobs in restaurants, construction, law, transportation other than public transit and water treatment. Dr. Grace M. Lee, a committee member who is a professor of pediatrics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, noted that while the C.D.C. currently lists 11 “high-risk” conditions that make people more vulnerable to a life-threatening case of Covid-19, such as severe obesity, sickle cell disease or Type 2 diabetes, the list needs to be constantly updated as clinicians learn about more conditions that can leave patients exposed. … Some on the committee called for refining priorities further within each large group, if only to help states and local governments make difficult decisions in the coming weeks. For example, one asked, shouldn’t older frontline essential workers go before younger ones?
But older workers tend to be whiter, so that would be racist.
The committee members said that the overarching consideration should be for those who could not do their jobs without social distancing or who did not have ready access to personal protective equipment. Those who can work remotely and otherwise don’t fall into a higher priority group, they said, should wait. But the group also suggested that the categories would be fluid, and that states could move from one phase to the next if supply increased, if data suggested that most people in a group had gotten vaccinated,
How about asking people if they have had Covid and not giving the vaccine right now to people who say, “Yes”?


vdare--2020-12-23--David Reich: Ancient DNA Shows That Columbus's Arrival Didn't Kill as Many Caribbean Indians as Long

David Reich: Ancient DNA Shows That Columbus's Arrival Didn't Kill as Many Caribbean Indians as Long Thought

From Lydia Brimelow : I ’ m delighted to share that we met the Matching Challenge from “ 6 Year Donor From South Carolina ” in just a day and a half – and not only that , but several more individuals were so moved by his patriotic statements that they have stepped up to offer further challenges !
The next patriot Matching Challenger has offered $ 1,500 all the way from Switzerland .
VDARE.com ’ s mission regarding the National Question , while centered on immigration policy in the United States , is important for any country experiencing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fighting the same fight , and Switzerland has a number of enlightened policies that we could all afford to adopt : • Switzerland does NOT have Birthright Citizenship .
• Switzerland allows towns to approve or disapprove foreigners who apply for Swiss citizenship .
• Citizenship is voted on by the residents of town where the alien lives , because the locals know the applicant as a neighbor more intimately than a bureaucracy ever can .
There are cases of applications being denied because the immigrants are annoying , disrespectful of traditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or simply because the town is full .
• Part of the reason the Swiss are able to defend their country arises from an elegantly simple technique : Non-Swiss make up 20 % of the population , some reportedly third generation residents .
This is actually a much higher proportion than in the U.S. but they can ’ t vote .
It ’ s an inspiration !
Or , as John Derbyshire once put it , why isn ’ t everywhere Switzerland ?
Every donation that comes in starting now , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,500 thanks to our Swiss friend , who has been donating since 2013 !
$ 5 from you means $ 10 for America First Journalism $ 25 from you means $ 50 for the voice of the Historic American Nation $ 50 from you mean $ 100 for informing the fight to keep America American $ 100 from you means $ 200 for the VDARE Foundation , and all that we do to push back against the globalist agenda attempting to flood the United States with foreigners , disregard our culture and heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donate today and help VDARE.com make the United States a little more like Switzerland , at least when it comes to immigration policy !

Up through 2000 or so, it was assumed by scientists that the entire Amerindian population of most Caribbean Islands, such as Hispaniola (modern Haiti and Dominican Republic), but not of the mainland of the New World, had gone extinct after Columbus introduced Old World diseases to the New World. Modern Caribbean peoples were assumed to be wholly a mixture of imported blacks and whites.
But there was some evidence that this sad assumption wasn’t completely true. For example, in the 1997 biopic of the Mexican-American singer Selena, Puerto Rican-American Jennifer Lopez was credibly cast as the mestizo star.
As DNA analysis improved in this century, however, it was discovered that single or low double digit percentages of Amerindian ancestry survived among Puerto Ricans and the like.
From the New York Times opinion section:
Ancient DNA Is Changing How We Think About the Caribbean New research delivers surprising findings about Indigenous people in the region before contact with Europeans. By David Reich and Orlando Patterson Dr. Reich is a geneticist at Harvard who specializes in the study of ancient DNA. Dr. Patterson is a sociologist at Harvard with expertise in the Caribbean.
Patterson is a Jamaican-American mulatto, whose Jamaicanness presumably is assumed to empower him to comment on the fate of the indigenous populations of Jamaica, despite not showing his DNA test results proving he is descended from some Amerindians. Anyway, it’s a good strategy for Reich to recruit senior Harvard professors like Patterson of more or less the appropriate ancestry to co-write his mainstream essays with him.
Dec. 23, 2020, 11:00 a.m. ET In 1492, Christopher Columbus touched land for the first time in the Americas, reaching the Bahamas, Hispaniola (present-day Dominican Republic and Haiti) and eastern Cuba. After he returned to Spain he reported that he had encountered islands rich in gold. A few years later his brother Bartholomew, who also traveled to the Americas, reported that Hispaniola had a large population whose labor and land could be put to the advantage of the Spanish crown. He estimated the population at 1.1 million people.
The current population of Hispaniola is around 22 million, plus its emigrants.
Was this figure accurate? It soon was a matter of dispute. Bartolomé de las Casas, a Spanish monk and colonist who became the first chronicler of the human disaster that unfolded in the Americas after the arrival of Europeans, estimated a far larger number: three million to four million.
Bishop De las Casas was perhaps history’s first human rights activist for another race. He spent decades championing the indigenous people of the New World, arguing their case in front of the King of Spain and winning some reforms.
The population size of “pre-contact” Hispaniola would continue to be a contested issue until the present day, not least because of its profound emotional and moral resonance in light of the destruction of that world. Modern scholars have generally estimated the population at 250,000 to a million people. Some of the arguments for large population numbers in the pre-contact Americas have been motivated by an attempt to counter a myth, perpetuated by apologists for colonialism like the philosopher John Locke, that the Americas were a vast “vacuum domicilium,” or empty dwelling, populated by a handful of Indigenous groups whose displacement could be readily justified. In a similar vein, some of the arguments for large population sizes have been motivated by a desire to underscore how disastrous the arrival of Europeans was for Indigenous people. By any measure, the arrival of Europeans was catastrophic for Indigenous Americans.
This op-ed doesn’t mention that the primary reason for the catastrophe was not the evil evilness of Europeans per se, but the unwitting spread of novel diseases, such as smallpox, hundred of years before the creation of Germ Theory, even though that would be timely. But making it sound like a proto-Holocaust, rather than a huge accident, is also timely.
This is true whether the numbers of people were in the hundreds of thousands or millions — or for that matter, the tens of thousands. It is questionable to pin our judgments of human atrocities to a specific number. To learn from the past, it is crucial to be willing to accept new and compelling data when they become available. In the case of the pre-contact population of Hispaniola, such data have arrived. By analyzing the DNA of ancient Indigenous Caribbean people, a study published in Nature on Wednesday by one of us (Professor Reich) makes clear that the population of Hispaniola was no more than a few tens of thousands of people. Almost all prior estimates have been at least tenfold too large.
I have a theory about the population densities of New World regions in 1491 based on tourist attractions: Mexico and Guatemala have a lot of pre-Columbian tourist attractions, as does Peru. Presumably, a whole lot of people lived in those parts in 1491 if they had surplus labor to build big stuff. North America less so (mounds in the Mississippi watershed mostly along with some apartment buildings in the Southwest). And I’ve never heard of any pre-Columbian ruins on Caribbean islands.
So, I’m not too surprised.
One question is why Amerindians didn’t fill up Hispaniola they way they filled up, say, the Valley of Mexico? Were the food resources insufficient? Did corn (maize) not get there? Did they kill each other in large numbers?
This research involved sequencing genetic material taken from skeletal remains. Together with another study of ancient Caribbean DNA published recently by a different lab, scientists now have data concerning the entire genomes of more than 260 people of the ancient Caribbean. (This work was done in collaboration with Caribbean scholars, with permission from Caribbean governments and institutions and in consultation with Caribbean people of Indigenous descent.)
We have better DNA studies of Caribbean and Canadian Indians than of American Indians because federal law gives American Indian tribes all sorts of weapons to block scientific research into their origins.
In recent years, researchers studying ancient DNA have accumulated more than 5,000 ancient human genomes (up from none a decade ago), making it possible to use this methodology to ask and answer questions about how past people related to one another and to people living today. The Caribbean is now the first place in the Americas where we have this kind of high-resolution data set for understanding the past, previously available only in Western Eurasia. The finding about the pre-contact population size in Hispaniola was made possible by a new scientific advance: We are now able to detect “DNA cousins” in ancient genomes — taking two people and determining whether they share large segments of DNA inherited from a recent ancestor. This is similar to what personal ancestry companies like 23andMe and Ancestry do with living people. … The rate of close relationships that the Reich team found is what would be expected for about 3,000 people — at most 8,000 people — in their childbearing years in Hispaniola. The true numbers of people could have been threefold to tenfold larger because at any given time only a fraction of a population is in its childbearing years. Still, we can confidently conclude that the pre-contact population size of Hispaniola was no more than a few tens of thousands of people. … Whatever the starting population, what happened to Indigenous Americans after Europeans arrived amounted to genocide: the systematic obliteration not just of individuals but also of their culture and community — what the philosopher Claudia Card called the “social death” at “the center of genocide.”
The importation of black slaves, like Professor Paterson’s ancestors, likely overwhelmed the culture of Amerindians who happened to survive. In contrast, in upper altitude Mexico and Peru, where sub-Saharans’ genetic and personal advantages against tropical diseases didn’t give them a survival advantage, lots of indigenous communities survived. Blacks probably brought both tropical diseases and simply overwhelmed surviving indigenous communities by sheer numbers.
… Another surprising finding, for instance, is that the genetic legacy of pre-contact Caribbean people did not disappear: They contributed an estimated 14 percent of the DNA of living people from Puerto Rico, 6 percent of that in the Dominican Republic and 4 percent of that in Cuba.
Thus, Jennifer Lopez as Selena.
Would she be allowed to play Selena in 2020 out of pan-Hispanic racialist ideology?
Hard to say.
In the current Netflix series “Selena: The Series,” the doomed singer is played by Christian (a girl) Serratos who has a Mexican mother and an Italian father.
Interestingly, the Caribbean Amerindians of 1491, known as the Ceramic Age people, appear to have exterminated a previous group of Amerindians (known as the Archaic Age people) by 500 AD or so. From the NYT science news section on this new study:


vdare--2020-12-23--Trump Declares Victory In War On Christmas, WAPO Denies War Exists, Babbles About 1600s

Earlier: Yes, Virginia (Dare), There Is A War On Christmas—Here’s Twenty Years Of Proof!
In the Washington Post, Gillian Brockell [Email her] writes
It’s that time of year again. No, not Christmas. The War on Christmas. And the war on the claim that the War on Christmas even exists. President Trump invoked the alleged war yet again this week after signing an executive order giving federal employees the day off for Christmas Eve. “This is a HUGE victory in the Democrats’ pathetic WAR ON CHRISTMAS, and I want YOU to be a part of it,” Trump announced in a fundraising letter. Well, Mr. President, there was a real war on Christmas. It was in the 1600s, and it was waged by Christians — specifically Puritans — who hated the Dec. 25 observance of Jesus’ birth so much that they made it illegal in the Massachusetts colony for decades. There really was a war on Christmas, Mr. President. It was waged by Christians, December 23, 2020
Ms. Brockell goes on to say that in the 17th century, working men in England and America tended to treat Christmas as an excuse for a "drunken riot" and like Newsweek, recently, she is treating that Puritan War on drunkeness, et cetera, as equivalent to the modern War On Christmas.
The Puritans, who were all Christians, banned the observance of Christmas with drunken revelry for religious reasons, out of respect for Christianity and the Bible, rather than Christophobia.
The modern War On Christmas is not about banning Yuletide partying in the name of Jesus, it's about banning the name of Jesus in the name of secular humanism and religious "diversity".
In 1955, the pre-purge National Review contacted the New York School Board about their ban on Christian symbols:
By unspoken agreement, an officer of the Board did tell us, such aggressive symbols of religious imperialism as the manger, lighted candles and the visitation of the Magi are banned. But Santa Claus is allowed, she said soothingly; also reindeer and stars.And, presumably, candy sticks and jingle bells. [Krismas, PDF, November 26, 1955]
By 1995, John O'Sullivan reported, candy canes were banned, too.
Finally, in the Scarsdale public schools, there was an entire "holiday blackout," affecting both Christmas and Hannukah (but not the New Class holiday of Kwanzaa). The ban included not just Santa Claus and Christmas trees, but also "Jingle Bells," "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," and even . . . candy canes. (They represent the staff of Christ, apparently.)
It's nonsense to think that candy canes are a Christian symbol, but it's widely believed by Christophobes: see War On Christmas: Candy Canes Banned Because They're Shaped Like A "J" As In "Jesus"
What Ms. Brockell is doing is what Steve Sailer calls "antiquarianism" —blaming modern problems on the attitudes of 1910, 1963, or 1620. It has nothing to do with 2020.


vdare--2020-12-23--Patrick J. Buchanan: Are 'Never Trumpers' the Future of the GOP?

Denouncing the $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill as a parsimonious "disgrace" and hinting at an Alamo-style finish on Jan. 6, when Congress votes to declare Joe Biden the next president, Donald Trump is not going to go quietly.
The anti-Trumpers and "Never Trumpers" celebrating at Christmas 2020, in this "dark winter" of Joe Biden's depiction, are assuring each other that Trumpism and Trump are dead and gone for good in four weeks.
The future of the GOP, they suggest, belongs to the Republicans who resisted and renounced Trump through the last five years of his candidacy and presidency.
As for those cowards and collaborators who stood by Trump and refused to repudiate him, they will, in turn, be repudiated by history and the American electorate alike.
The wish, here, is very much the father to the thought.
For if the past is any guide, not only are the reports of the death of Trumpism premature, the probability is that Trumpism has put down roots in our national politics that are not soon, if ever, going to be pulled up.
For those of us of a certain age, a comparable situation arose at Christmas 1964. Barry Goldwater had just been crushed in a 44-state landslide, winning the votes of only 27 million Americans. The senator had carried only five states of the Deep South and his home state of Arizona.
The establishment saw in the crushing of Goldwater the defeat and rout of the "extremist" movement that had produced him. "The Party That Lost Its Head" was the title of a widely hailed post-election book by two Ripon Society Republicans.
The establishment consensus was that Govs. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, William Scranton of Pennsylvania and George Romney of Michigan were the future of the party, if it was to have a future.
What followed?
Richard Nixon, who had stood by Goldwater when the party's liberal elite abandoned him, would lead the GOP to recapture 47 House seats in 1966, take the presidency in 1968, and run up a 49 state landslide in 1972.
Thus began a period of GOP presidential ascendancy, with Nixon, Reagan and Bush I winning five of six elections from 1968 to 1988, until the first baby boomer president, Bill Clinton, arrived on the scene.
And while there are differences between now and then, there are many similarities.
Do the anti-Trumpers or "Never Trumpers" represent the future of the GOP? If so, where is the postwar precedent for this? No Republican who turned his back on Goldwater was ever nominated for president or vice president following Goldwater's defeat.
When President Gerald Ford put Rockefeller on his ticket after taking over from President Nixon, the Kansas City convention of 1976 demanded Rockefeller's removal as the price of party unity.
Rockefeller was sacrificed, as the right had demanded.
Four years after Ford's defeat, Mr. Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater's most effective surrogate in 1964, was nominated and won successive landslides in 1980 and 1984.
Other factors and forces point to the probability that Trumpism has a major role in the party's future.
Where Presidents Truman, Nixon, and George W. Bush left office with approval ratings in the 20s, Trump's approval rating is still in the 40s, where it has been for the duration of his presidency.
Second, the issues that propelled Trump to the nomination and the Oval Office still resonate with the American people.
Among them are mass migration, insecure borders and dependency upon foreign imports for the necessities of our national life.
Moreover, there is shrinking support for a foreign policy that has us tied down militarily in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East, to fight if need be, in the defense of scores of nations, few of which have a direct bearing on the national security of the United States.
Another issue Trump elevated and exploited that is more acute now than in 2016, is a distrust of the media, the "deep state" and the political, cultural and academic establishments that have alienated the 74 million who voted for Trump.
And if the past is prologue, the Republican Party will make a major comeback in 2022.
Consider. Two years after his smashing victory over Goldwater, LBJ and his party lost 47 House seats. Ronald Reagan, after his landslide in 1980, lost 26 House seats in 1982. After routing Bush I in 1992, Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats and the Senate. Two years after winning the presidency, Barack Obama lost both the House and Senate in 2014.
Is it likely Joe Biden will be celebrating his 80th birthday after making history by leading his party to control of Congress in 2022?
For Republicans, the nomination of 2024 is a prize to be sought.
However, if one has spent the last four years trashing Trump, it may be as out of reach as it was for Rocky.
COPYRIGHT 2020 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.