vdare--2020-07-16--Black Murder Of White Cop: Just Local Crime Blotter News

From the Seattle Times , some distinctly non-national news Suspect in fatal shooting of Bothell police officer ordered held without bail A judge found probable cause Wednesday to hold a 37-year-old man on investigation of first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Bothell police Officer Jonathan Shoop on Monday night .
King County District Court Judge Joe Campagna also found probable cause to hold Henry E. Washington on investigation of first-degree assault for allegedly shooting and injuring a second officer ; vehicular assault for allegedly hitting a man on a scooter with his vehicle ; and attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paragraph : A witness shot video that shows Washington outside his car as the patrol vehicle approached the intersection and stopped , the statement says .
Other witnesses later told police the driver yelled , “ Come on , pigs , ” as he quickly moved around the front of the patrol car and fired two shots into the police SUV through the driver ’ s-side window , according to the statement .
… Police say Washington claimed he shot the officers in self-defense to keep them from taking his vehicle , marijuana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What does BLM want ?
In the minds of many of its most excitable supporters , a growing assumption appears to be : Black Impunity .
To avoid arrest , excuse me Blacks should have a right to kill cops .
As somebody on Twitter pointed out to me , a certain percentage of black martyrs ( e.g.
, Michael Brown , Rayshard Brooks ) assume that life is like the Grand Theft Auto game in which if a policeman stops you , you can steal his weapon and try to shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and lie low for a days until the cops forget all about it .
Or , at minimum , BLM advocates increasingly believe that blacks should simply be let go if they don ’ t feel like cooperating with arresting officers .
For example : The BLM movement wants impunity for black lawbreakers , punity for white speakers .

From the Seattle Times, some distinctly non-national news
Suspect in fatal shooting of Bothell police officer ordered held without bail July 15, 2020 at 4:39 pm Updated July 15, 2020 at 6:49 pm By Sara Jean Green
Seattle Times staff reporter A judge found probable cause Wednesday to hold a 37-year-old man on investigation of first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Bothell police Officer Jonathan Shoop on Monday night. King County District Court Judge Joe Campagna also found probable cause to hold Henry E. Washington on investigation of first-degree assault for allegedly shooting and injuring a second officer; vehicular assault for allegedly hitting a man on a scooter with his vehicle; and attempting to elude police.
Then in the 8th paragraph:
A witness shot video that shows Washington outside his car as the patrol vehicle approached the intersection and stopped, the statement says. Other witnesses later told police the driver yelled, “Come on, pigs,” as he quickly moved around the front of the patrol car and fired two shots into the police SUV through the driver’s-side window, according to the statement. … Police say Washington claimed he shot the officers in self-defense to keep them from taking his vehicle, marijuana and gun, according to the statement.
What does BLM want? In the minds of many of its most excitable supporters, a growing assumption appears to be: Black Impunity. To avoid arrest, blacks excuse me Blacks should have a right to kill cops.
As somebody on Twitter pointed out to me, a certain percentage of black martyrs (e.g., Michael Brown, Rayshard Brooks) assume that life is like the Grand Theft Auto game in which if a policeman stops you, you can steal his weapon and try to shoot him with it, then just go home and lie low for a few days until the cops forget all about it.
Or, at minimum, BLM advocates increasingly believe that blacks should simply be let go if they don’t feel like cooperating with arresting officers. For example:
Watch the show folks pic.twitter.com/9BL1Gvj0cQ — I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) July 16, 2020
The BLM movement wants impunity for black lawbreakers, punity for white speakers.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-07-16--College Basketball Coaches Demand Even Dumber Basketball Players

College Basketball Coaches Call for End to ACT , SAT Requirement Leaders say the tests hurt poor and minority students @ @ @ @ @ ‘ immediate decision ’ By Rachel Bachman July 16 , 2020 1:20 pm ET The @ @ @ @ @ ’ s college basketball coaches ’ association has called the SAT and ACT “ longstanding @ @ @ @ @ and wants them eliminated from use in determining athletes ’ eligibility .
The National Association @ @ @ @ @ move three days after naming its first-ever Black executive director , the former Division I @ @ @ @

From the Wall Street Journal:
College Basketball Coaches Call for End to ACT, SAT Requirement
Leaders say the tests hurt poor and minority students, ask NCAA to make ‘immediate decision’
By Rachel Bachman
July 16, 2020 1:20 pm ET
The nation’s leading men’s college basketball coaches’ association has called the SAT and ACT “longstanding forces of institutional racism” and wants them eliminated from use in determining athletes’ eligibility.
The National Association of Basketball Coaches made the move three days after naming its first-ever Black executive director, the former Division I coach Craig Robinson.


vdare--2020-07-16--Patrick J. Buchanan: Is America Up for a Naval War with China?

Earlier by Patrick J. Buchanan : Can We Coexist with Asia 's Communists ?
Is the U.S. , preoccupied with a pandemic and a depression that medical crisis created , prepared for a collision with China over Beijing 's claims to the rocks , reefs and resources of the South China Sea ?
For that is what Mike Pompeo appeared to threaten this week .
`` The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire , '' thundered the secretary of state .
`` America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources ... and ( we ) reject any push to impose 'might makes right ' in the South China Sea . ''
[ U.S .
Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea , July 13 , 2020 ] Thus did Pompeo put Beijing on notice that the U.S. does not recognize its claim to 90 % of the South China Sea or to any exclusive Chinese right to its fishing grounds or oil and gas resources .
Rather , in a policy shift , the U.S. now recognizes the rival claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brunei and the Philippines .
To signal the seriousness of Pompeo 's stand , the U.S. sent the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier battle groups through the South China Sea .
And , this week , the guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed close by the Spratly Islands .
But what do Mike Pompeo 's tough words truly mean ?
While we have recognized the claims of the other littoral states of the South China Sea , does Pompeo mean America will use its naval power to defend their claims should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those five nations ?
Does it mean that if Manila , our lone treaty ally in these disputes , uses force to reclaim what we see as its lawful rights in the South China Sea , the U.S. Navy will fight the Chinese navy to validate Manila 's claims ?
Has Pompeo drawn a red line , which Beijing has been told not to cross at risk of war with the United States ?
If so , does anyone in Washington think the Chinese are going to give up their claims to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasserting those claims because the U.S. now rejects them ?
Consider what happened to the people of Hong Kong when they thought they had the world 's democracies at their back .
For a year , they marched and protested for greater political freedom with some believing they might win independence .
But when Beijing had had enough , it trashed the Basic Law under which Hong Kong had been ceded back to China and began a crackdown .
The democracies protested and imposed economic sanctions .
But the bottom line is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enlarge the sphere of freedom they had , but also they are losing much of what they had .
The Americans , seeing Hong Kong being absorbed into China , are now canceling the special economic privileges we had accorded the city , as the British offer millions of visas to Hong Kong 's dissidents who fear what Beijing has in store for them .
In June , Pompeo also charged Beijing with human rights atrocities in Xinjiang : `` The world received disturbing reports today that the Chinese Communist Party is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and coercive family planning against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang , as part of a continuing campaign of repression . ''
These reports , said Pompeo , `` are sadly consistent with decades of CCP practices that demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and basic human dignity . ''
China has rejected U.S. protests of its treatment of Uighurs and Kazakhs and of its handling of Hong Kong as interference in its internal affairs and none of America 's business .
As for the South China Sea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be `` throwing its weight around in every sea of the world . ''
These American warnings , and Beijing 's response , call to mind the darker days of the Cold War .
So , again , the question : Is America prepared for a naval clash in the South China Sea if Beijing continues to occupy and fortify islets and reefs she claims as her own ?
Are we prepared for a Cold War II—with China ?
While China lacks the strategic arsenal the USSR had in the latter years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technologically and industrially , China is a far greater power than Soviet Russia ever was .
And China 's population is four times as large .
Can we , should we , begin to assemble a system of alliances similar to what we had during the Cold War—with NATO in Europe and Asian security pacts with Japan , South Korea , the Philippines , Taiwan , Australia and New Zealand ?
Should we adopt a policy of containment of Communist China , which , says Pompeo , is an expansionist and `` imperialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war guarantees to China 's neighbors ?
Should we start putting down red lines China will not be allowed to cross ?
Before we plunged into our half dozen Middle East wars , we did n't think through where those would end .
Have we considered where all our belated bellicosity toward Beijing must invariably lead , and how this all ends ?
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Earlier by Patrick J. Buchanan: Can We Coexist with Asia's Communists?
Is the U.S., preoccupied with a pandemic and a depression that medical crisis created, prepared for a collision with China over Beijing's claims to the rocks, reefs and resources of the South China Sea?
For that is what Mike Pompeo appeared to threaten this week.
"The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire," thundered the secretary of state.
"America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources ... and (we) reject any push to impose 'might makes right' in the South China Sea." [ U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea, July 13, 2020]
Thus did Pompeo put Beijing on notice that the U.S. does not recognize its claim to 90% of the South China Sea or to any exclusive Chinese right to its fishing grounds or oil and gas resources.
Rather, in a policy shift, the U.S. now recognizes the rival claims of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
To signal the seriousness of Pompeo's stand, the U.S. sent the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier battle groups through the South China Sea. And, this week, the guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed close by the Spratly Islands.
But what do Mike Pompeo's tough words truly mean?
While we have recognized the claims of the other littoral states of the South China Sea, does Pompeo mean America will use its naval power to defend their claims should China use force against the vessels of those five nations?
Does it mean that if Manila, our lone treaty ally in these disputes, uses force to reclaim what we see as its lawful rights in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy will fight the Chinese navy to validate Manila's claims?
Has Pompeo drawn a red line, which Beijing has been told not to cross at risk of war with the United States?
If so, does anyone in Washington think the Chinese are going to give up their claims to the entire South China Sea or retreat from reasserting those claims because the U.S. now rejects them?
Consider what happened to the people of Hong Kong when they thought they had the world's democracies at their back.
For a year, they marched and protested for greater political freedom with some believing they might win independence.
But when Beijing had had enough, it trashed the Basic Law under which Hong Kong had been ceded back to China and began a crackdown.
The democracies protested and imposed economic sanctions. But the bottom line is that Hong Kong's people not only failed to enlarge the sphere of freedom they had, but also they are losing much of what they had.
The Americans, seeing Hong Kong being absorbed into China, are now canceling the special economic privileges we had accorded the city, as the British offer millions of visas to Hong Kong's dissidents who fear what Beijing has in store for them.
In June, Pompeo also charged Beijing with human rights atrocities in Xinjiang: "The world received disturbing reports today that the Chinese Communist Party is using forced sterilization, forced abortion, and coercive family planning against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, as part of a continuing campaign of repression."
These reports, said Pompeo, "are sadly consistent with decades of CCP practices that demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and basic human dignity."
China has rejected U.S. protests of its treatment of Uighurs and Kazakhs and of its handling of Hong Kong as interference in its internal affairs and none of America's business.
As for the South China Sea, China dismissively replied, the U.S. seems to be "throwing its weight around in every sea of the world."
These American warnings, and Beijing's response, call to mind the darker days of the Cold War.
So, again, the question: Is America prepared for a naval clash in the South China Sea if Beijing continues to occupy and fortify islets and reefs she claims as her own? Are we prepared for a Cold War II—with China?
While China lacks the strategic arsenal the USSR had in the latter years of the Cold War, economically, technologically and industrially, China is a far greater power than Soviet Russia ever was. And China's population is four times as large.
Can we, should we, begin to assemble a system of alliances similar to what we had during the Cold War—with NATO in Europe and Asian security pacts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand? Should we adopt a policy of containment of Communist China, which, says Pompeo, is an expansionist and "imperialist" power?
Should we start issuing war guarantees to China's neighbors? Should we start putting down red lines China will not be allowed to cross?
Before we plunged into our half dozen Middle East wars, we didn't think through where those would end. Have we considered where all our belated bellicosity toward Beijing must invariably lead, and how this all ends?
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--2020-07-16--MSM Claims License To Lie, Wants You Dead—BRIMELOW vs. NEW YORK TIMES Moves Forward

Please give to VDARE.com Legal Defense Fund here—earmark your gift to our New York Times litigation !
See also : The Sin Of SULLIVAN : Why Donald Trump , Tulsi Gabbard and I Are Suing For Libel It ’ s been just over four months since I published my detailed explanation of why I , as Editor of tiny VDARE.com , am taking the fraught step of suing the mighty New York Times for libel .
In the interim , the world has gone mad—and the New York Times even madder .
This , in my humble opinion , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important .
For example , in a truly weird development , the New York Times management capitulated to a crazed staff revolt over its publication of an Op-Ed by a sitting U.S .
Senator , discussing the entirely legitimate possibility that President Donald J. Trump might exercise his legal option to invoke the Insurrection Act against Black Lives Matter rioters .
And it threw its Editorial Page Editor James Bennet , a certified liberal Bigfoot and himself the brother of a U.S .
Senator and the son of a Holocaust survivor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BREAKING : even weirder , Bari Weiss , right , an NYT Op-Ed editor and columnist , just posted on her website [ July 15 , 2020 ] a scathing letter of resignation from the NYT , saying Weis even alleged that , although she ’ s a Jewish bisexual , It really looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum at the New York Times .
So it might seem the NYT has more important problems than the fact that it violated its own guidelines by refusing to acknowledge it stealth-edited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smear that I am an “ open white nationalist , ” or that it has subsequently escalated its libels of me—incredibly , even after being warned we proposed legal action—to include anti-Semitism and white supremacism .
But in fact it has no more important problems .
Precisely because the NYT , like the rest of the Main Stream Media , have increasingly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s disastrous 1964 Sullivan decision as a license to lie , and not just about apparently powerless Politically Incorrect groups like my VDARE.com , political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any consideration of truth and increasingly spun out of control .
The ironic result : the New York Times itself , and the Establishment Left in general , are now being consumed by Woke golems and dybbuks that they themselves have enabled .
As the poet W.B .
Yeats put it , reproaching himself for the savagery of the Irish Civil War : We had fed the heart on fantasies The heart ’ s grown brutal from the fare .
On May 26 , we filed our final amended complaint .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 the New York Times , asked U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla to dismiss the case .
You can read its motion here .
We must respond by July 21—next Tuesday .
The New York Times gets to reply , by August 4 .
Judge Failla will then rule sometime after that .
I invite comments from readers on these arguments , especially our lawyer readers .
( Email me here , our lawyer Frederick C. Kelly here . )
In the past , such comments have proved very useful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
VDARE.com does not , to put it mildly , have the resources of the New York Times .
But the miracle of the internet makes patriotic Open Source litigation possible—for as long as we can stay online ( see below ) .
Our amended complaint adds the New York Times ’ latest smear—on May 5 it published an article ( Facebook Says It Dismantles Disinformation Network Tied to Iran 's State Media , Reuters , May 5 , 2020 , archived on archive.org May 10 , now disappeared from the NYT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VDARE.com by describing us as “ white supremacist.
” As I said in my earlier Sin Of Sullivan article , it was hammered into me throughout my 40 years in the Main Stream Media that continuing an editorial campaign against someone who has already warned you of a pending libel action—let alone intensifying the campaign—could be considered evidence of “ malice.
” Evidently this is not a lesson now inculcated in the New York Times ’ Woke newsroom .
But , needless to say , the added part in our final complaint that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which I had earlier modestly failed to bring to our lawyer ’ s attention ) that in 1995 the New York Times had , not once but twice , respectfully reviewed my book Alien Nation : Common Sense About America ’ s Immigration Disaster , from which my website VDARE.com is directly descended .
Our lawyer writes : “ Mr .
Brimelow 's personality also comes through , and it is entirely engaging '' !
To quote Winnie the Pooh— “ that sort of bear ” !
What has changed since 1995 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at that point dormant for some thirty years , has since come back to life with a vengeance .
And the American Left—which emphatically includes the New York Times— has bet everything on repressing this debate until the post-1965 immigration disaster succeeds in Electing A New People .
That , and only that , is the reason I ’ m no longer considered “ entirely engaging.
” We will comment on the New York Times ’ Motion To Dismiss when we file our full response .
( I will say , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license to lie ” argument mentioned above and discussed below in the context of OAN ’ s suit against Rachel Maddow ) .
Other developments since my April 3 announcement of our suit against the New York Times have further proved our contention in our brief that allegations of “ white nationalism , ” “ white supremacy , ” etc .
etc .
are not mere harmless joshing , but in today ’ s Woke world have devastating real-world consequences .
• On May 5 , Facebook terminated , without warning or explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal account ( which I had barely used for a couple years because I got bored with Facebook ’ s flagrant shadow-banning ) .
More importantly to us , Facebook also terminated my wife Lydia ’ s personal account , which she began when she was a student at Loyola University in Chicago and which was completely non-political , containing graduation pictures , wedding pictures , baby pictures , baby vignettes and conversations with personal friends dating back to grade school—exactly the kinds of things Facebook wants on their platform .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a picture of our daughter Victoria Beauregard : The caption was this quote from Bo : `` Old people are the fanciest , because their hair gets all sparkly and they have ruffles on their skin ! ''
Facebook was a moderately effective way for VDARE.com to exercise our First Amendment rights to communicate with our fellow citizens .
But I will not disguise the fact that it is the destruction of Lydia ’ s personal data that has caused us the most personal distress .
The hope of retrieving her data has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or from taking legal action while other , informal , approaches appeared practicable .
For the record , Lydia wrote a personal appeal to an appropriate Facebook contact point on May 4 .
She received no reply .
Facebook ’ s refusal to respond to a young mother ’ s anguished appeal strikes me as irrefutable proof that these people want us in Gulags .
In other words , the Alt Right comedian Sam Hyde ( now effectively purged from the internet ) was right to say Facebook ’ s stated reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were operating a “ botfarm ” —posting automatically to several satellite accounts , something Facebook calls “ Co-ordinated Inauthentic Behavior.
” This is simply a lie .
VDARE.com had no satellite accounts .
We posted to nothing automatically .
And it can be seen to be a lie because , even if we had operated a bot farm , this does not explain why Facebook now prevents readers who , subsequently and quite independently , have found articles on our website that they want to share with their Facebook friends , from doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : flagrant political censorship .
Facebook announced last year that it was no longer going to make basic logical distinctions between “ white nationalism , ” “ white separatism ” and “ white supremacy ” ( which was already banned ) [ Standing Against Hate , About.fb.com , March 27 , 2019 ] .
The New York Times ’ wild use of these terms in regard to us gave Facebook an excuse .
Facebook ’ s management , like the rest of our Ruling Class including the New York Times , simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left has succeeded in Electing A New People .
• On June 15 , Network Solutions , our domain registrar since we launched VDARE.com nearly 20 years ago , abruptly decreed that they were terminating our relationship .
This disgraceful development is , of course , an order of magnitude more serious than Woke corporations like Amazon , PayPal , Constant Contact etc .
discriminating against us by refusing to sell us their services .
It means that Cultural Marxism has invaded the basic architecture of the internet .
Basically , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let us have a phone number , or the U.S. Mail refused to deliver letters .
It shows that America is moving rapidly into an era of Chinese Communist-style Social Credit Scores .
VDARE.com has now migrated to a new domain registrar .
But the threat to our internet presence continues ( and we urge you to prepare for it ) .
Network Solutions has not , of course , deigned to explain exactly why it has done this to us .
However , the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group headed by Kristin Clarke , a black lady lawyer , is reportedly claiming credit for our banning .
Among other things , it instanced our daring to discuss an article in Haaretz , a leftist Israeli newspaper , about Israeli rules of engagement on their own border , which permit using trained snipers to shoot illegal border crossers in the leg .
Surprisingly , however , the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is not attempting to extirpate Haaretz from the internet .
All of which is further proof of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Meanwhile , there have been developments in some of the parallel libel actions challenging the Main Stream Media ’ s license to lie and , by implication , the Sullivan decision : • One America News libel action against MSNBC show host Rachel Maddow was dismissed by S. District Court Cynthia Ann Bashant , an Obama appointee .
The cable network , to its great credit , promptly appealed , vowing “ to take this case to the United States Supreme Court if necessary ” [ One America News Elevates $ 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSNBC To Ninth Circuit , Herring Networks Inc. , July 3 , 2020 ] The ludicrous issue at stake here is well stated by OAN lawyer Amnon Siegel : As I said in The Sin Of Sullivan , it ’ s not generally realized that defendants in libel actions brought by “ public figures ” now habitually make no effort to defend the truth of what they ’ ve said .
They just assert it ’ s an expression of their opinion—i.e .
that they have a license to lie .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did in this case .
Of course , this claim has devastating implications for the credibility of her show .
As Mike Cernovitch commented mordantly : “ Maddow ’ s win is America ’ s gain .
No one can credibly claim that Maddow ’ s show is real news ” [ Maddow ’ s “ I ’ m Not a Real Journalist ” Defense Prevails in Court , Cernovitch.com , May 25 , 2020 ] .
But of course Maddow ’ s concession is indeed “ taken lightly ” —because , outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point was barely reported .
Over time , dawning realization that this sort of thing is going on certainly has contributed to the growing public disenchantment with the Main Stream Media .
[ Americans ' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41 % by Megan Brenan , Gallup , September 26 , 2019 ] But in the short run , MSM arrogance and aggression has become utterly unrestrained .
• Former Democratic Presidential contender dropped her action against fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton for describing her as a “ Russian asset ” [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton , by Nicholas Wu , USA TODAY , May 27 , 2020 ] Personally , I was very sorry to see the winsome Gabbard withdraw .
It struck me that she might be the sort of “ sympathetic litigant ” that lawyers prefer to front a difficult legal argument—such as persuading the courts to revisit the Sullivan disaster unquestionably must be .
But Gabbard has no personal wealth , forfeited her Congressional seat to make her presidential run and may be hoping to rebuild her relationship with the Democratic Establishment .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointed some supporters by endorsing Joe Biden rather Sanders , despite having endorsed Sanders in 2016 ) .
Her folding is hardly surprising .
Typically , however , the Clinton camp greeted Gabbard ’ s withdrawal with graceless vindictive gloating .
Clinton ’ s lawyer even added `` good riddance '' in Russian—i.e .
he compounded the original libel , further illustrating how Sullivan has severed political debate from any consideration of decency , let alone truth .
In conclusion , I ’ m going to quote again from the powerful article that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve never met , wrote on our case when it was first reported : Of course , I just don ’ t know if Brimelow vs. New York Times will be the case that breaks through and reverses the Sullivan disaster .
But I do know that someone will eventually prevail .
The current regime of unbridled lies is too unstable .
People still too often believe what they read and passions get too inflamed .
It will come to blood—indeed , it is already coming to blood This road will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice .
However , as evidence that the gravity of this situation is finally being recognized even in the most complacent and conventional quarters , I find to my amazement that I can actually now quote from National Review : Of course , this road will not just be long and hard—it will also be expensive .
We are entirely dependent on you , our readers , to sustain this fight .
Please give generously .
( Click the “ earmark ” box to give specifically to our New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom for all Americans , but to help ensure that the cause of immigration patriotism is not driven entirely out of public debate .
I and my family will be most grateful—and so , I sincerely believe , will be those who the Founders referred to in the Preamble to The Constitution , as “ ourselves and our posterity.
” Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com .
His best-selling book , Alien Nation : Common Sense About America ’ s Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle @ @

Please give to VDARE.com Legal Defense Fund here—earmark your gift to our New York Times litigation!
See also: The Sin Of SULLIVAN: Why Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and I Are Suing For Libel
It’s been just over four months since I published my detailed explanation of why I, as Editor of tiny VDARE.com, am taking the fraught step of suing the mighty New York Times for libel. In the interim, the world has gone mad—and the New York Times even madder. This, in my humble opinion, has made Brimelow vs. New York Times even more important.
For example, in a truly weird development, the New York Times management capitulated to a crazed staff revolt over its publication of an Op-Ed by a sitting U.S. Senator, discussing the entirely legitimate possibility that President Donald J. Trump might exercise his legal option to invoke the Insurrection Act against Black Lives Matter rioters.
And it threw its Editorial Page Editor James Bennet, a certified liberal Bigfoot and himself the brother of a U.S. Senator and the son of a Holocaust survivor, under the 8th Avenue subway car.
BREAKING: even weirder, Bari Weiss, right, an NYT Op-Ed editor and columnist, just posted on her website [July 15, 2020] a scathing letter of resignation from the NYT, saying
…the lessons that ought to have followed the [2016] election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Weiss even alleged that, although she’s a Jewish bisexual,
[m]y own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist
It really looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum at the New York Times.
So it might seem the NYT has more important problems than the fact that it violated its own guidelines by refusing to acknowledge it stealth-edited a reference to me to remove its smear that I am an “open white nationalist,” or that it has subsequently escalated its libels of me—incredibly, even after being warned we proposed legal action—to include anti-Semitism and white supremacism.
But in fact it has no more important problems. Precisely because the NYT, like the rest of the Main Stream Media, have increasingly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous 1964 Sullivan decision as a license to lie, and not just about apparently powerless Politically Incorrect groups like my VDARE.com, political debate in the U.S. has come unmoored from any consideration of truth and increasingly spun out of control. The ironic result: the New York Times itself, and the Establishment Left in general, are now being consumed by Woke golems and dybbuks that they themselves have enabled.
As the poet W.B. Yeats put it, reproaching himself for the savagery of the Irish Civil War:
We had fed the heart on fantasies
The heart’s grown brutal from the fare.
On May 26, we filed our final amended complaint. You can read it here. On June 18 the New York Times, asked U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla to dismiss the case. You can read its motion here. We must respond by July 21—next Tuesday. [UPDATE: Extended to July 28, the week after. ] The New York Times gets to reply, by August 4. Judge Failla will then rule sometime after that.
I invite comments from readers on these arguments, especially our lawyer readers.(Email me here, our lawyer Frederick C. Kelly here.) In the past, such comments have proved very useful and we’ve been very grateful for them.
VDARE.com does not, to put it mildly, have the resources of the New York Times. But the miracle of the internet makes patriotic Open Source litigation possible—for as long as we can stay online (see below).
Our amended complaint adds the New York Times’ latest smear—on May 5 it published an article (Facebook Says It Dismantles Disinformation Network Tied to Iran's State Media, Reuters, May 5, 2020, archived on archive.org May 10, now disappeared from the NYT site) blithely escalating its smears of VDARE.com by describing us as “white supremacist.”
As I said in my earlier Sin Of Sullivan article, it was hammered into me throughout my 40 years in the Main Stream Media that continuing an editorial campaign against someone who has already warned you of a pending libel action—let alone intensifying the campaign—could be considered evidence of “malice.”
Evidently this is not a lesson now inculcated in the New York Times’ Woke newsroom.
But, needless to say, the added part in our final complaint that personally delights me addresses the interesting fact (which I had earlier modestly failed to bring to our lawyer’s attention) that in 1995 the New York Times had, not once but twice, respectfully reviewed my book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, from which my website VDARE.com is directly descended. Our lawyer writes:
Plaintiff has had a long and distinguished career as a writer and journalist. He was a business writer and editor at the “Financial Post,” “Maclean's,” “Barron's,” “Fortune,” “Forbes” (where he attained the position of senior editor), and “National Review”; and his book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster was a bestseller. Indeed, Defendant had implicitly acknowledged the important contribution Brimelow had made to public debate in America with said Alien Nation when Defendant chose to review Alien Nation not once, but twice within the same week, a practice which Defendant usually reserves only for works it considers especially noteworthy. Specifically, Defendant reviewed Alien Nation not once, but twice within the same week, between April 16, 1995 and April 19, 1995: Nicholas Lemann, Too Many Foreigners, THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, April 16, 1995, at 3, section 7; and Richard Bernstein, The Immigration Wave: A Plea to Hold Back, NEW YORK TIMES, April 19, 1995, at 17, section C. Neither review detected any kind of race hatred or what the Defendant has lately claimed as "White Nationalism." However, the second review published by Defendant was especially complimentary. Mr. Brimelow's writing was declared "powerful and elegant.” Far from denigrating Alien Nation as "White Nationalist" and "Racist and Divisive," Defendant’s review was lavish in its praise of Brimelow's work, stating inter alia: "Mr. Brimelow's personality also comes through, and it is entirely engaging." "...Mr. Brimelow has made a highly cogent presentation of what is going to be the benchmark case against immigration as it is currently taking place. Those who think that the system needs no fixing cannot responsibly hold to that position any longer unless they take Mr. Brimelow's urgent appeal for change into account." "The strong racial element in current immigration has made it more than ever before a delicate subject. It is to Mr. Brimelow's credit that he attacks it head on, unapologetically." [Paragraph numbering omitted, emphasis and links added]
“Mr. Brimelow's personality also comes through, and it is entirely engaging"! To quote Winnie the Pooh— “that sort of bear”!
What has changed since 1995, of course: the immigration debate, at that point dormant for some thirty years, has since come back to life with a vengeance. And the American Left—which emphatically includes the New York Times— has bet everything on repressing this debate until the post-1965 immigration disaster succeeds in Electing A New People.
That, and only that, is the reason I’m no longer considered “entirely engaging.”
Sigh.
We will comment on the New York Times’ Motion To Dismiss when we file our full response. (I will say, however, that it relies on the “license to lie” argument mentioned above and discussed below in the context of OAN’s suit against Rachel Maddow).
Other developments since my April 3 announcement of our suit against the New York Times have further proved our contention in our brief that allegations of “white nationalism,” “white supremacy,” etc. etc. are not mere harmless joshing, but in today’s Woke world have devastating real-world consequences.
On May 5, Facebook terminated, without warning or explanation, VDARE.com’s account and my personal account (which I had barely used for a couple years because I got bored with Facebook’s flagrant shadow-banning).
More importantly to us, Facebook also terminated my wife Lydia’s personal account, which she began when she was a student at Loyola University in Chicago and which was completely non-political, containing graduation pictures, wedding pictures, baby pictures, baby vignettes and conversations with personal friends dating back to grade school—exactly the kinds of things Facebook wants on their platform.
This is the last-ever Facebook post Lydia made, a picture of our daughter Victoria Beauregard:
The caption was this quote from Bo: "Old people are the fanciest, because their hair gets all sparkly and they have ruffles on their skin!"
(Reassuring, actually).
Facebook was a moderately effective way for VDARE.com to exercise our First Amendment rights to communicate with our fellow citizens.
But I will not disguise the fact that it is the destruction of Lydia’s personal data that has caused us the most personal distress. The hope of retrieving her data has caused us to delay publicizing this atrocity, or from taking legal action while other, informal, approaches appeared practicable.
For the record, Lydia wrote a personal appeal to an appropriate Facebook contact point on May 4. She received no reply.
Facebook’s refusal to respond to a young mother’s anguished appeal strikes me as irrefutable proof that these people want us in Gulags.
In other words, the Alt Right comedian Sam Hyde (now effectively purged from the internet) was right to say
Facebook’s stated reason for destroying our Facebook accounts: we were operating a “botfarm”—posting automatically to several satellite accounts, something Facebook calls “Co-ordinated Inauthentic Behavior.”
This is simply a lie. VDARE.com had no satellite accounts. We posted to nothing automatically.
And it can be seen to be a lie because, even if we had operated a bot farm, this does not explain why Facebook now prevents readers who, subsequently and quite independently, have found articles on our website that they want to share with their Facebook friends, from doing so.
The only rational explanation for this: flagrant political censorship. Facebook announced last year that it was no longer going to make basic logical distinctions between “white nationalism,” “white separatism” and “white supremacy” (which was already banned) [Standing Against Hate, About.fb.com, March 27, 2019]. The New York Times’ wild use of these terms in regard to us gave Facebook an excuse. Facebook’s management, like the rest of our Ruling Class including the New York Times, simply wants to suppress the immigration debate—until the Left has succeeded in Electing A New People.
On June 15, Network Solutions, our domain registrar since we launched VDARE.com nearly 20 years ago, abruptly decreed that they were terminating our relationship.
This disgraceful development is, of course, an order of magnitude more serious than Woke corporations like Amazon, PayPal, Constant Contact etc. discriminating against us by refusing to sell us their services. It means that Cultural Marxism has invaded the basic architecture of the internet. Basically, it’s as if the phone company refused to let us have a phone number, or the U.S. Mail refused to deliver letters. It shows that America is moving rapidly into an era of Chinese Communist-style Social Credit Scores.
VDARE.com has now migrated to a new domain registrar. But the threat to our internet presence continues (and we urge you to prepare for it).
Network Solutions has not, of course, deigned to explain exactly why it has done this to us. However, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington D.C. Leftist vigilante group headed by Kristen Clarke, a black lady lawyer, is reportedly claiming credit for our banning. Among other things, it instanced our daring to discuss an article in Haaretz, a leftist Israeli newspaper, about Israeli rules of engagement on their own border, which permit using trained snipers to shoot illegal border crossers in the leg. Surprisingly, however, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is not attempting to extirpate Haaretz from the internet.
All of which is further proof of my contention in The Sin Of Sullivan:
Meanwhile, there have been developments in some of the parallel libel actions challenging the Main Stream Media’s license to lie and, by implication, the Sullivan decision:
The ludicrous issue at stake here is well stated by OAN lawyer Amnon Siegel:
The words– “that OAN is really literally paid Russian propaganda”— do not convey an opinion. This is a blatant defamatory falsehood.
As I said in The Sin Of Sullivan, it’s not generally realized that defendants in libel actions brought by “public figures” now habitually make no effort to defend the truth of what they’ve said. They just assert it’s an expression of their opinion—i.e. that they have a license to lie.
This is exactly what Rachel Maddow and her lawyers did in this case. Of course, this claim has devastating implications for the credibility of her show. As Mike Cernovich commented mordantly: “Maddow’s win is America’s gain. No one can credibly claim that Maddow’s show is real news” [Maddow’s “I’m Not a Real Journalist” Defense Prevails in Court, Cernovich.com, May 25, 2020].
And RedState.com’s Brad Slager wrote:
[I]n a manner OAN has won a victory. It managed to get Rachael Maddow to declare in court records that she is a fabulist whose reporting does not need to be taken as the least bit accurate. It is not to be taken lightly when a major name in the media universe has gone on the record to declare what she traffics in on the air is fake news. [A Judge Rules Rachel Maddow is a Fake News Fabulist and Not a Journalist, May 25, 2020].
But of course Maddow’s concession is indeed “taken lightly”—because, outside of the conservative catacomb, this subtle point was barely reported.
Over time, dawning realization that this sort of thing is going on certainly has contributed to the growing public disenchantment with the Main Stream Media [Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41% by Megan Brenan, Gallup, September 26, 2019]. But in the short run, MSM arrogance and aggression has become utterly unrestrained.
Former Democratic Presidential contender dropped her action against fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton for describing her as a “Russian asset” [Tulsi Gabbard withdraws defamation suit against Hillary Clinton, by Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY, May 27, 2020].
Personally, I was very sorry to see the winsome Gabbard withdraw. It struck me that she might be the sort of “sympathetic litigant” that lawyers prefer to front a difficult legal argument—such as persuading the courts to revisit the Sullivan disaster unquestionably must be.
But Gabbard has no personal wealth, forfeited her Congressional seat to make her presidential run and may be hoping to rebuild her relationship with the Democratic Establishment. (On leaving the Presidential race, she disappointed some supporters by endorsing Joe Biden rather Sanders, despite having endorsed Sanders in 2016). Her folding is hardly surprising.
Typically, however, the Clinton camp greeted Gabbard’s withdrawal with graceless vindictive gloating. Clinton’s lawyer even added "good riddance" in Russian—i.e. he compounded the original libel, further illustrating how Sullivan has severed political debate from any consideration of decency, let alone truth.
In conclusion, I’m going to quote again from the powerful article that Powerline’s John Hinderaker, whom I’ve never met, wrote on our case when it was first reported:
[L]awsuits like this one are an important contribution to freedom. Corrupt institutions like the New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center need to be attacked whenever possible, and popular support needs to be mobilized behind the idea that newspapers and partisan organizations should not be given carte blanche to lie with impunity about their political opponents. [Sue the New York Times? They deserve it, January 10, 2020. Emphasis added].
Of course, I just don’t know if Brimelow vs. New York Times will be the case that breaks through and reverses the Sullivan disaster.
But I do know that someone will eventually prevail. The current regime of unbridled lies is too unstable. People still too often believe what they read and passions get too inflamed.
It will come to blood—indeed, it is already coming to blood
This road will be long and hard. But we have no choice.
However, as evidence that the gravity of this situation is finally being recognized even in the most complacent and conventional quarters, I find to my amazement that I can actually now quote from National Review:
Conservatives in general, and Trump supporters in particular, are already being squeezed out of social media…But what if half the country begins to feel — with justice — that the other half is eager to deprive them of their rights, has set them beyond the pale, wants to see them crushed? What then? Abandoning Liberalism Will Destroy Social Peace, by Stanley Kurtz, June 11, 2020.
“What then?” indeed.
Of course, this road will not just be long and hard—it will also be expensive. We are entirely dependent on you, our readers, to sustain this fight.
Please give generously. (Click the “earmark” box to give specifically to our New York Times litigation).
Not just to defend freedom for all Americans, but to help ensure that the cause of immigration patriotism is not driven entirely out of public debate.
I and my family will be most grateful—and so, I sincerely believe, will be those who the Founders referred to in the Preamble to The Constitution, as “ourselves and our posterity.”
Sincerely,
Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.


vdare--2020-07-17--Defunding Cops Means Laying Off Nonwhite Cops. Lisa Herbold Has A Solution!

Seattle police chief fires back at suggestion to lay off officers ‘ out of order ’ SEATTLE — As the Seattle Police Department looks at the Seattle City Council ’ s demands to cut the department ’ s budget by 50 % , police Chief Carmen Best fired back at a suggestion from Councilmember Lisa Herbold to lay off officers out of order of seniority as a way to preserve the jobs of people of color .
“ We can not do layoffs based on race , ” Best said .
“ I would love for Councilmember Herbold to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making sure we have a viable number of officers.
” Currently , a majority of the City Council supports defunding the Seattle Police Department ’ s budget by 50 % in an effort to move some tasks away from the department and to fund community-led organizations .
… On Wednesday , SPD released a detailed diversity breakdown of current officers and recruits to show the impact of that proposed cut .
According to the policy , they would lay off the most recent hires first .
SPD said that would mean laying off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American officers , 56 Hispanic or Latino officers and 59 biracial or multiracial officers , among others , as well as 526 white officers .
Councilmember Lisa Herbold called a similar diversity breakdown of the proposed cuts “ a threat ” on Twitter .
She wrote that the “ Chief can request the Public Safety Civil Service Commission Executive Director to lay off out of order ” when doing so is in “ the interest of efficient operations of his or her department , ” citing the commission ’ s rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this means Chief doesn ’ t have to fire the newest hired first .
Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful and I agree .
I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD.
” “ It is illegal to make layoffs based on race , ” Best said .
“ I ’ m not sure where she ’ s getting her legal advice from , but the persons who are advising us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s illegal to do that .
”

From KIRO:
Seattle police chief fires back at suggestion to lay off officers ‘out of order’
By: Linzi Sheldon, KIRO 7 News
Updated: July 15, 2020 – 7:32 PM
SEATTLE — As the Seattle Police Department looks at the Seattle City Council’s demands to cut the department’s budget by 50%, police Chief Carmen Best fired back at a suggestion from Councilmember Lisa Herbold to lay off officers out of order of seniority as a way to preserve the jobs of people of color.
“We cannot do layoffs based on race,” Best said. “I would love for Councilmember Herbold to work with us and not against us, making sure we have a viable number of officers.”
Currently, a majority of the City Council supports defunding the Seattle Police Department’s budget by 50% in an effort to move some tasks away from the department and to fund community-led organizations. …
On Wednesday, SPD released a detailed diversity breakdown of current officers and recruits to show the impact of that proposed cut. According to the policy, they would lay off the most recent hires first.
SPD said that would mean laying off 46 Asian officers, 47 Black or African American officers, 56 Hispanic or Latino officers and 59 biracial or multiracial officers, among others, as well as 526 white officers.
Councilmember Lisa Herbold called a similar diversity breakdown of the proposed cuts “a threat” on Twitter.
She wrote that the “Chief can request the Public Safety Civil Service Commission Executive Director to lay off out of order” when doing so is in “the interest of efficient operations of his or her department,” citing the commission’s rules.
Herbold went on to tweet that “this means Chief doesn’t have to fire the newest hired first. Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful and I agree. I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD.”
“It is illegal to make layoffs based on race,” Best said. “I’m not sure where she’s getting her legal advice from, but the persons who are advising us are making sure we understand it’s illegal to do that.”


vdare--2020-07-17--A Blackpilled Reader Wonders If Our NYT Lawsuit Isn't Just Coming At Them In "The Same Old Way"—We S

A Blackpilled Reader Wonders If Our NYT Lawsuit Isn't Just Coming At Them In "The Same Old Way"—We Say It's Something New!

Re : Peter Brimelow ’ s article MSM Claims License To Lie , Wants You Dead—BRIMELOW vs. NEW YORK TIMES Moves Forward Reading articles in VDARE.com , American Renaissance , and other `` conservative '' outlets , I am reminded of Wellington 's comment after the Battle of Waterloo : `` They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way . ''
I can imagine the New York Times and the rest of the Leftist Establishment derisively saying the same about you .
It seems that our champions still believe that logic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , highlighting hypocrisy , etc.
, etc .
will eventually succeed .
Peter Brimelow wrote in his Libel Suit Update `` But I do know that someone will eventually prevail . ''
I doubt it .
Einstein said : `` Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . ''
I believe we are so far down the path that the time for reasoned debate is past .
As Thomas Sowell is supposed to have said `` It is usually futile to try to talk facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance '' .
And as Ann Coulter has pointed out [ Bastille Day : The Beginning Of Liberal Madness ] this is the new French Revolution .
The mob is in control and there is no reasoning with it .
The blood is in the water .
What is to be done ?
I honestly do n't know .
But I know what will not work and that is more of the same .
To use a current leftist buzzword , we have to `` re-imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will preserve some semblance of our Western Heritage .
I fear that will involve countering force with force , violence with violence , and power with power .
And yet I see no stomach for it in my brethren .
They have become too soft , too feminized .
We have lost the will to survive .
It is interesting to analyze the causes of that erosion but in the final analysis history and logic tell us that those who will not fight to survive wo n't .
Sorry for dropping such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I am frustrated and discouraged by seeing day after day us coming on in `` the same old way '' .
James Fulford writes : We think it 's something new—and there are cases of the MSM being sued successfully , by the late Richard Jewell , and Covington Catholic 's Nick Sandmann .
See Nick Sandmann Settlement With CNN—Litigation Works Because The MSM Fears `` Discovery '' .
Even if we do n't get a verdict and a settlement , it will force the NYT to admit that they 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maddow did .
[ Maddow ’ s “ I ’ m Not a Real Journalist ” Defense Prevails in Court , Cernovich.com , May 25 , 2020 ] Finally , I noted a while back that VDARE.com had outlasted the neocon journal The Weekly Standard , founded 1995 , folded 2018 .
With a little luck ( and support from our readers ) we may yet outlast the New York Times , the Washington Post , and National Review .

Re: Peter Brimelow’s article MSM Claims License To Lie, Wants You Dead—BRIMELOW vs. NEW YORK TIMES Moves Forward
From: A Blackpilled Reader [Email him]
Reading articles in VDARE.com, American Renaissance, and other "conservative" outlets, I am reminded of Wellington's comment after the Battle of Waterloo: "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way." I can imagine the New York Times and the rest of the Leftist Establishment derisively saying the same about you. It seems that our champions still believe that logic, civility, appeals to rule of law, highlighting hypocrisy, etc., etc. will eventually succeed. Peter Brimelow wrote in his Libel Suit Update "But I do know that someone will eventually prevail." I doubt it. Einstein said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
I believe we are so far down the path that the time for reasoned debate is past. As Thomas Sowell is supposed to have said "It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance". And as Ann Coulter has pointed out [Bastille Day: The Beginning Of Liberal Madness] this is the new French Revolution. The mob is in control and there is no reasoning with it. The blood is in the water.
What is to be done? I honestly don't know. But I know what will not work and that is more of the same. To use a current leftist buzzword, we have to "re-imagine" how, if at all, we will preserve some semblance of our Western Heritage. I fear that will involve countering force with force, violence with violence, and power with power. And yet I see no stomach for it in my brethren.
They have become too soft, too feminized. We have lost the will to survive. It is interesting to analyze the causes of that erosion but in the final analysis history and logic tell us that those who will not fight to survive won't.
Sorry for dropping such a "Black Pill" on you, but I am frustrated and discouraged by seeing day after day us coming on in "the same old way."
James Fulford writes: We think it's something new—and there are cases of the MSM being sued successfully, by the late Richard Jewell, and Covington Catholic's Nick Sandmann. See Nick Sandmann Settlement With CNN—Litigation Works Because The MSM Fears "Discovery".
Even if we don't get a verdict and a settlement, it will force the NYT to admit that they're just making stuff up, as Rachel Maddow did. [Maddow’s “I’m Not a Real Journalist” Defense Prevails in Court, Cernovich.com, May 25, 2020]
Finally, I noted a while back that VDARE.com had outlasted the neocon journal The Weekly Standard, founded 1995, folded 2018. With a little luck (and support from our readers) we may yet outlast the New York Times, the Washington Post, and National Review.


vdare--2020-07-17--Spirit Airlines, Etc.: Are as Many Blacks Behaving Badly as It Seems?

Has the rate of Blacks Behaving Badly gone up as sharply as it seems since May 24 , 2020 ?
@ @ @ @ @ tell for sure .
It could just be that in reaction to the prestige press @ @ @ @ @ of , say white women acting verbally pissy as if they were the crash of @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t normally all that interested in calling attention to the numerous videos every @ @ @ @ @ are striking back online .
But , on the other hand , all the statistics @ @ @ @ @ , such as mass shootings , have skyrocketed in Post-George Floyd Era , so it @ @ @ @ @ non-lethal violent self-indulgence like this really is becoming much more common .

But their ancestors weren't allowed to fly AT ALL 200 years ago https://t.co/72M6vULdLR — Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (@WingDynasty) July 17, 2020
Has the rate of Blacks Behaving Badly gone up as sharply as it seems since May 24, 2020?
It’s hard to tell for sure. It could just be that in reaction to the prestige press hyping so many trivial videos of, say white women acting verbally pissy as if they were the crash of the Hindenburg, people who aren’t normally all that interested in calling attention to the numerous videos every week of Blacks Behaving Badly are striking back online.
But, on the other hand, all the statistics of major misbehavior by blacks, such as mass shootings, have skyrocketed in Post-George Floyd Era, so it would hardly be surprising that non-lethal violent self-indulgence like this really is becoming much more common.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-07-17--Forbes 100: 35 of Top 100 U.S. Billionaires Are Jewish

There has been much talk recently about the curse of white privilege , as manifested in , for example , the greater wealth of whites than blacks in the United States .
For example , in March 2019 , Forbes reported that there were 4 black billionaires in the U.S. : American investor Robert F. Smith with $ 5 billion [ # 131 on the October 2019 Forbes 400 ] , American businessman David Steward with $ 3.5 billion [ # 239 ] , American media mogul Oprah Winfrey with a net worth of $ 2.7 billion [ # 319 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jordan with $ 2.1 billion [ not quite making the Forbes 400 ] .
So , only 0.75 % of the Forbes 400 are black .
There has , in contrast , been only a tiny amount of talk about Jewish privilege , as manifested in , for example , the greater wealth of Jews than white gentiles in the United States .
Yet , the two concepts—white privilege and Jewish privilege—would seem to be rather analogous : For example , if you are enraged about white privilege it would be logical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In contrast , if you find white privilege to be overblown , then Jewish privilege shouldn ’ t bother you much either .
Conversely , if you would prefer people not speak about the idea of Jewish privilege , it might make sense not to promote the idea of white privilege quite so assiduously .
We can take a crack at quantifying this by looking at the Forbes 400 , a popular ranking of the richest people in America .
Here ’ s the first 100 names listed on the last annual report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding of each billionaire ’ s ethnicity , based on Wikipedia , news reports , interviews and the like .
Everybody with a “ 1 ” under “ Jewish ?
” appears to be at least half Jewish by nature and nurture .
The “ % ” column sums up the percentage of Jewish ethnicity weighting nature and nurture equally .
( I ’ ll explain this below under my note for Larry Ellison of Oracle . )
These are not attempts to discern the personal religious views of these billionaires .
Nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judaism under which the maternal line is decisive in who is Jewish or not .
Instead , I ’ m simply following the pattern of Wikipedia that typically states something like “ [ Mark ] Zuckerberg was raised in a Reform Jewish household ” or , for Michael Bloomberg , “ His family is Jewish.
” Most of the time , this isn ’ t all that complicated .
Here are the 4 of the 35 in the top 100 who appear to be somewhat complicated in their Jewish ethnicity .
Larry Page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish mother .
His father , Carl Victor Page , a computer science professor at Michigan State died in his late 50s from complications from the polio he contracted as a child .
My impression is that Professor Page was of Old American stock , but I haven ’ t seen confirmation one way or another .
Larry Ellison , the founder of Oracle , is the biological son of an Italian-American military pilot and a Jewish mother .
As an infant , he was adopted by his mother ’ s Jewish aunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the arithmetic of this as Ellison being half Jewish by nature and all Jewish by nurture .
Because I assume that , generally speaking , nature and nurture about equally important , I put Ellison down as 75 % Jewish .
Admittedly , I ’ ve never heard of anybody else using this kind of arithmetic , but it strikes me as reasonable .
Many people are adamant about accounting solely based on either nature or nurture .
I can ’ t decide between their logic , so I just compromise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and current owner of the Los Angeles Clippers ( it ’ s a long story ) , has a Swiss gentile immigrant father and a Jewish-American mother .
Donald Bren , Orange County land baron , appears to have a Jewish father and a gentile mother : “ His father Milton was a naval officer , talent agent , and successful movie producer while his mother Marion was a prominent civic leader .
His mother was of partial Irish descent while his father was of Jewish descent.
” It ’ s perhaps interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top of the list .
That could be a fluke , or it could be that there is more information published about the super-billionaires like Ellison .
Perhaps somebody lower down on the list was also adopted but is just listed in Wikipedia as “ raised in a Jewish family.
” Real estate developer and sports team owner Stan Kroenke is often described as Jewish , but he is described in Wikipedia as “ He is of German descent and was raised Lutheran , ” which seems plausible : he grew up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good at making money , his life seems pretty thoroughly gentile : he owns huge ranches , he ’ s into hunting , and he married a Walmart heiress .
Note that I got tired of counting after 100 billionaires .
Places 100 through 106 are all tied with $ 6.3 billion , but I only counted the first of the seven with $ 6.3 billion .
So , 35 of the first 100 on the 2019 Forbes list are , more or less , Jewish .
If you sum up my weights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the Forbes 100 , or just about exactly 1/3 .
This appears to be about the same fraction as when I previously looked into the question in 2013 .
Jewish organizations usually report that Jews make up 2.2 % of the U.S. population , so being about 1/3rd of the Forbes 100 is impressive .

There has been much talk recently about the curse of white privilege, as manifested in, for example, the greater wealth of whites than blacks in the United States.
For example, in March 2019, Forbes reported that there were 4 black billionaires in the U.S.: American investor Robert F. Smith with $5 billion [#131 on the October 2019 Forbes 400], American businessman David Steward with $3.5 billion [#239], American media mogul Oprah Winfrey with a net worth of $2.7 billion [#319], … American sports executive Michael Jordan with $2.1 billion [not quite making the Forbes 400]. So, only 0.75% of the Forbes 400 are black.
There has, in contrast, been only a tiny amount of talk about Jewish privilege, as manifested in, for example, the greater wealth of Jews than white gentiles in the United States.
Yet, the two concepts—white privilege and Jewish privilege—would seem to be rather analogous: For example, if you are enraged about white privilege it would be logical to also be concerned about Jewish privilege. In contrast, if you find white privilege to be overblown, then Jewish privilege shouldn’t bother you much either.
Conversely, if you would prefer people not speak about the idea of Jewish privilege, it might make sense not to promote the idea of white privilege quite so assiduously.
We can take a crack at quantifying this by looking at the Forbes 400, a popular ranking of the richest people in America. Here’s the first 100 names listed on the last annual report from October 2019, along with my understanding of each billionaire’s ethnicity, based on Wikipedia, news reports, interviews and the like. Everybody with a “1” under “Jewish?” appears to be at least half Jewish by nature and nurture. The “%” column sums up the percentage of Jewish ethnicity weighting nature and nurture equally. (I’ll explain this below under my note for Larry Ellison of Oracle.)
2019 Forbes 100 Richest in US RANK NAME NET WORTH AGE JEWISH? % SOURCE 35 33.25 1 Jeff Bezos $114 B 55 Amazon 2 Bill Gates $106 B 64 Microsoft 3 Warren Buffett $80.8 B 89 Berkshire Hathaway 4 Mark Zuckerberg $69.6 B 35 1 100% Facebook 5 Larry Ellison $65 B 75 1 75% software 6 Larry Page $55.5 B 46 1 50% Google 7 Sergey Brin $53.5 B 46 1 100% Google 8 Michael Bloomberg $53.4 B 77 1 100% Bloomberg LP 9 Steve Ballmer $51.7 B 63 1 50% Microsoft 10 Jim Walton $51.6 B 71 Walmart 11 Alice Walton $51.4 B 70 Walmart 12 Rob Walton $51.3 B 75 Walmart 13 Charles Koch $41 B 83 Koch Industries 13 Julia Koch & family $41 B 57 Koch Industries 15 MacKenzie Bezos $36.1 B 49 Amazon.com 16 Phil Knight & family $35.9 B 81 Nike 17 Sheldon Adelson $34.5 B 86 1 100% casinos 18 Michael Dell $32.3 B 54 1 100% Dell computers 19 Jacqueline Mars $29.7 B 80 candy, pet food 19 John Mars $29.7 B 84 candy, pet food 21 Jim Simons $21.6 B 81 1 100% hedge funds 22 Laurene Powell Jobs & family $21.3 B 55 Apple, Disney 23 Elon Musk $19.9 B 48 Tesla Motors, SpaceX 24 Rupert Murdoch & family $19.1 B 88 newspapers, TV network 25 Leonard Lauder $18.8 B 82 1 100% Estee Lauder 26 Ray Dalio $18.7 B 70 hedge funds 27 Len Blavatnik $18.3 B 62 1 100% diversified 28 Lukas Walton $18.1 B 33 Walmart 29 Stephen Schwarzman $17.7 B 72 1 100% investments 30 Carl Icahn $17.6 B 83 1 100% investments 31 Thomas Peterffy $17.5 B 75 discount brokerage 32 Donald Bren $17 B 87 1 50% real estate 33 Eric Schmidt $14.2 B 64 Google 34 Abigail Johnson $14 B 57 money management 35 Steve Cohen $13.6 B 63 1 100% hedge funds 36 Pierre Omidyar $13.1 B 52 eBay, PayPal 37 Donald Newhouse $12.8 B 90 1 100% media 38 Ken Griffin $12.7 B 51 hedge funds 39 David Tepper $12 B 62 1 100% hedge funds 40 Dustin Moskovitz $11.6 B 35 1 100% Facebook 41 Philip Anschutz $11.5 B 79 investments 41 Thomas Frist, Jr. & family $11.5 B 81 hospitals 41 John Menard, Jr. $11.5 B 79 home improvement stores 44 Charles Ergen $10.8 B 66 satellite TV 45 David Duffield $10.7 B 79 business software 46 Gordon Moore $10.3 B 90 Intel 47 Jan Koum $10.1 B 43 1 100% WhatsApp 48 Andrew Beal $9.8 B 66 banks, real estate 49 Carl Cook $9.7 B 57 medical devices 49 Stanley Kroenke $9.7 B 72 sports, real estate 51 Jim Kennedy $9.6 B 71 media, automotive 51 Blair Parry-Okeden $9.6 B 69 media, automotive 53 Hank & Doug Meijer $9.5 B supermarkets 54 Stewart and Lynda Resnick $9 B 1 100% agriculture, water 55 Harold Hamm & family $8.8 B 73 oil & gas 56 Jerry Jones $8.6 B 77 Dallas Cowboys 56 George Soros $8.6 B 89 1 100% hedge funds 58 Christy Walton $8.5 B 70 Walmart 59 Micky Arison $8.1 B 70 1 100% Carnival Cruises 60 David Geffen $7.9 B 76 1 100% movies, record labels 61 Shahid Khan $7.8 B 69 auto parts 61 Tom & Judy Love $7.8 B 82 retail & gas stations 63 Leon Black $7.7 B 68 1 100% private equity 63 Ronald Perelman $7.7 B 76 1 100% leveraged buyouts 63 Charles Schwab $7.7 B 82 discount brokerage 66 Stephen Ross $7.6 B 79 1 100% real estate 67 John Doerr $7.5 B 68 venture capital 67 Richard Kinder $7.5 B 75 pipelines 67 Ann Walton Kroenke $7.5 B 70 Walmart 70 David Green & family $7.4 B 77 retail 70 Marijke Mars $7.4 B 55 candy, pet food 70 Pamela Mars $7.4 B 59 candy, pet food 70 Valerie Mars $7.4 B 60 candy, pet food 70 Victoria Mars $7.4 B 62 candy, pet food 75 John Malone $7.3 B 78 cable television 75 David Shaw $7.3 B 68 1 100% hedge funds 77 James Goodnight $7.2 B 76 software 77 Herbert Kohler, Jr. & family $7.2 B 80 plumbing fixtures 79 Diane Hendricks $7 B 72 roofing 79 Edward Johnson, III. $7 B 89 money management 79 George Kaiser $7 B 77 1 100% oil & gas, banking 82 Robert Kraft $6.9 B 78 1 100% New England Patriots 82 Steven Rales $6.9 B 68 1 100% manufacturing 84 Eli Broad $6.8 B 86 1 100% investments 85 Jim Davis & family $6.7 B 76 New Balance 85 Nancy Walton Laurie $6.7 B 68 Walmart 85 J. Christopher Reyes $6.7 B 65 food distribution 85 Jude Reyes $6.7 B 64 food distribution 85 John A. Sobrato & family $6.7 B 80 real estate 85 Patrick Soon-Shiong $6.7 B 67 pharmaceuticals 91 Israel Englander $6.6 B 71 1 100% hedge funds 91 Reinhold Schmieding $6.6 B 64 medical devices 93 Marc Benioff $6.5 B 55 1 100% business software 93 Daniel Gilbert $6.5 B 57 1 100% Quicken Loans 95 James Chambers $6.4 B 62 media, automotive 95 Bernard Marcus $6.4 B 90 1 100% Home Depot 95 Robert Pera $6.4 B 41 wireless networking gear 95 Katharine Rayner $6.4 B 74 media, automotive 95 Margaretta Taylor $6.4 B 77 media, automotive 100 Dannine Avara $6.3 B 55 pipelines
A few notes:
These are not attempts to discern the personal religious views of these billionaires. Nor do they reflect the logic of Rabbinical Judaism under which the maternal line is decisive in who is Jewish or not.
Instead, I’m simply following the pattern of Wikipedia that typically states something like “[Mark] Zuckerberg was raised in a Reform Jewish household” or, for Michael Bloomberg, “His family is Jewish.”
Most of the time, this isn’t all that complicated.
Here are the 4 of the 35 in the top 100 who appear to be somewhat complicated in their Jewish ethnicity.
Larry Page of Google is the son of a Jewish mother. His father, Carl Victor Page, a computer science professor at Michigan State died in his late 50s from complications from the polio he contracted as a child. My impression is that Professor Page was of Old American stock, but I haven’t seen confirmation one way or another.
Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, is the biological son of an Italian-American military pilot and a Jewish mother. As an infant, he was adopted by his mother’s Jewish aunt and uncle. So, I think of the arithmetic of this as Ellison being half Jewish by nature and all Jewish by nurture. Because I assume that, generally speaking, nature and nurture about equally important, I put Ellison down as 75% Jewish. Admittedly, I’ve never heard of anybody else using this kind of arithmetic, but it strikes me as reasonable. Many people are adamant about accounting solely based on either nature or nurture. I can’t decide between their logic, so I just compromise.
Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the Los Angeles Clippers (it’s a long story), has a Swiss gentile immigrant father and a Jewish-American mother.
Donald Bren, Orange County land baron, appears to have a Jewish father and a gentile mother: “His father Milton was a naval officer, talent agent, and successful movie producer while his mother Marion was a prominent civic leader. His mother was of partial Irish descent while his father was of Jewish descent.”
It’s perhaps interesting that the partial names are concentrated near the top of the list. That could be a fluke, or it could be that there is more information published about the super-billionaires like Ellison. Perhaps somebody lower down on the list was also adopted but is just listed in Wikipedia as “raised in a Jewish family.”
Real estate developer and sports team owner Stan Kroenke is often described as Jewish, but he is described in Wikipedia as “He is of German descent and was raised Lutheran,” which seems plausible: he grew up in rural Missouri. Other than being good at making money, his life seems pretty thoroughly gentile: He owns huge ranches, he’s into hunting, and he married a Walmart heiress.
Note that I got tired of counting after 100 billionaires. Places 100 through 106 are all tied with $6.3 billion, but I only counted the first of the seven with $6.3 billion.
So, 35 of the first 100 on the 2019 Forbes list are, more or less, Jewish. If you sum up my weights, the first 100 make up 33.25% of the Forbes 100, or just about exactly 1/3. This appears to be about the same fraction as when I previously looked into the question in 2013.
Jewish organizations usually report that Jews make up 2.2% of the U.S. population, so being about 1/3rd of the Forbes 100 is impressive.