VDare.com v. the New York Times — Yes, Virginia, the Nativists are restless 

Christopher Donovan 

February 4, 2009 

Immigration restriction website VDare.com is far and away the zippiest — and most prominent — publication to make room for white advocacy on the Internet. Through syndication or direct hire, it's got professional writers with impressive resumes, daily updates, raw reporting and a good design. 

Its top writer, Steve Sailer, is unmatched for penetrating intelligence delivered with a readable voice. (I can assure you he's read by many who'd deny reading VDare, and his ideas get picked up in the MSM.)  

VDare was once (though maybe no longer) quoted by the Washington Times in one of its roundup sections, and the almighty Pat Buchanan has cited it in his books (in addition to being a syndicated writer for it). Proprietor Peter Brimelow's smart and slightly long-haired English quirkiness instills confidence. 

In short, it's a force. 

And last Sunday, it went big time. 

The New York Times, for its top editorial, went after a National Press Club presentation by the American Cause, an anti-immigration group. The sin: having affiliates like Bay Buchanan, sister of Pat, and worse: Brimelow.  

Marcus Epstein, a half-Korean, half-Jewish writer and activist with a solid understanding of the issues facing whites (and the powerful protection of his own ethnicity), gets drubbed as a "white supremacist" in the editorial for this modest observation: 

Diversity can be good in moderation — if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don't mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers — as long as these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture. 

A real frothing-mouthed Klansman, eh? 

It's also fun to note that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has stepped in to bail out the Times, now suffering from financial difficulty. Was the editorial a thank-you present for Mr. Slim? 

VDare's own coverage is extensive enough that you should visit the site to see for yourself (and it seems to be vowing to move on from the issue, but what fun is that?) 

The editorial itself is absurd. 

During the presidential campaign, immigration dropped off the radar as an issue when the contest was narrowed to the Black Amnesty Grantor versus the White Amnesty Grantor, but the problem remains. And with this editorial, it's back. 

The editorial was a major tactical error by the Times. First, it's unleashed a huge blowback, including from some self-described non-white restrictionists. 

Immigration as an issue in Washington might have proceeded unnoticed under President Obama, but now has attention focused on it as if Tom Tancredo were back in the news.  

Not to mention that thousands of readers will now be checking out VDare, and probably concluding that it's not the "pathetic" collection of writings the Times describes. 

Channel surfing earlier this week, I stumbled onto Bill O'Reilly, who was firing back at the editorial (he was deemed a racist in it, as well, citing this link). He’s had two other mentionees on his show, James Pinkerton and Bay Buchanan. 

I realize that most white advocates don't think much of Bill O'Reilly, but he helped draw attention to the editorial. O'Reilly at one point flashed a mug of Times editorialist Andrew Rosenthal, though I wasn't clear if it was because he penned the editorial (I assumed so). 

As the dust settles on this spectacular episode, I'm encouraged. A well-written website that dares run such writers as Jared Taylor, Sam Francis and TOO's own Kevin MacDonald got the attention of the world, and defenders came forth. The Times surely wasn't expecting the degree of dissent it got, likely because of the MSM's typical confidence that it can't go wrong by attacking "white supremacists."  

The worst the Times, and the MSM, can do is to ignore our voices. When they highlight us even to denounce us, all hell breaks loose. Though with our voices rising, it does become harder to ignore us. 

It's a great dilemma for whites.