General

Where has the Joy gone?

/1 Comment/in /by

Where has the Joy gone?

Where has life’s sweetness fled?

Why do we feel so lost or abandoned when we have so much?

Going back in time, we find examples aplenty of joy-deprived folks,

Piles and piles of grieving souls from the dawn of humanity.

Joy was brief in olden days but stretched-out sadness was common.

The privileged few at the top of life’s pyramid savored pleasure of every sort,

The others down below had life but no joy.

Before the horrors of the Great Revolution over there, Marie-Antoinette, the Austrian princess, who had more than enough in every sense, said to the court,

“Let them eat cake,” or “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche,” about the starving Parisian masses.

Their Joy was taken by force and was never really given back by post-monarchical regimes for some time.

We should all be vigilant when politicizing our future dreams, right or left.  William Butler Yates warned us that “the centre will not hold,” that society’s core is soft under pressure from a disjointed populace.

Long after heads tumbled grotesquely at the Place de la Concorde because the people were joyless and murderous;

Like the sanguinary zealots at the birth of modern France,

Dangerous rebels fueled by rage without a plausible cause,

A tinder-box waiting for the match to strike,

To avoid this lurking uprising, we are advised to see a shrink or a mood lifter or

Take another pill that has just been FDA-approved so Big Pharma tells us in media ads

To bring sunshine to minds lacking the right hormonal balance.

 

Pundits, who say they know, offer us learned advice at every turn:

By all means, sleep better, go outside more, meet face to face with folks of a similar nature, run an extra mile,

Be affable when every fiber says turn inward to seek an answer.

 

At the corner store we can now buy mainline cannabis that will dull our senses: it’s only a few puffs away.

There are no super highs or lows to experience over time,

Weed or pot guarantees smooth sailing over choppy inner seas.

Only life’s middle ground or bland consciousness is there to feel.

The pain is mitigated but not resolved.  It crouches patiently somewhere within and waits for the next turmoil to raise its head.

 

Where has our Joy gone?  Somewhere else or maybe less far away than we think.

Having no one to talk to is bad, solitude is even worse.  The feeling of isolation is a disease that lacks a pharmaceutical cure.

We can talk to the counter clerk, but not about esoteric things.  We can chat with familiar faces but not about what really matters.

We can talk with or at people but it’s pretty unusual to have them listen. There are so many who go their way but don’t stop to look around or change their fixation on immediate things.

Age winnows our talk-buddies and that makes it hard to understand younger minds

Who talk with their thumbs in short bursts; no lengthy analyses, please.  Characters are limited and things that happened way back then are not cool.

____________________________________________________

Where has the Joy gone?  We need it back again because it has left us out of sync and lonesome as we try to find common ground with rising, impatient generations.

Blank faces in large crowds look past us and we are not there for them; we are invisible oldies who belong elsewhere.

We are elders, anonymous to hostile looks but not to ourselves, bodies on legs that move in the rivers of humanity up and down the urban canyons and wonder why we feel so bad at times.

Where has our Joy gone and why can’t we get it back?

Tick, tock, time is running out for all of us who once saw the glass half full some time ago.

Now we are afraid because we sense those crouching, hidden forces within will come to the surface and override cannabis and pills that make us stable.

For so many the morning sunlight is a warning signal, not the promise of a blessed, God-given day. If being in meetings or filling up the hours with minor tasks or even running some more won’t right the me-ship, then we go back to zero and try again?

Joy is there, somewhere, we just can’t find it right now.

Consciousness Raising for White Students

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Equal Training: An Analysis of Antiwhite Material and Language Manipulation Tactics Used in American Schools
Student X
Michael Michau, 2023

The simplest definition of education is the transmission of culture, so it is not surprising that schools are on the front lines of the present kulturkampf.  As usual, the Right is reacting to the dynamic cultural changes initiated by the Left whose goal is to replace Western civilization with a globalist multi-ethnic, multi-cultural “civilization.”

A very brief autobiography places author Student X in the belly of the beast. He is a young White man from a working-class family living in a predominately non-White community in Los Angeles County. While attending a local community college X became aware of the anti-White curriculum at his school where “some classes seemed to have more of a prosecutorial atmosphere, instead of an educational one” (8). Not one to suffer in silence while hoping others would challenge this anti-White bias, the author filed an official grievance citing a lack of objectivity and professional manner on the part of some of his instructors.

X received some schooling outside the classroom in his quest for redress. He got the bureaucratic runaround. He met with the president of the department of academic affairs who sent him to the dean of curriculum who referred him to the curriculum committee which met behind closed doors with no input from students or the public. The author also contacted the state’s curriculum committee and the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community College system. The latter entity claimed the issue was outside their authority because “they only have legal requirements to meet on behalf of minorities, not White students” (12).  Incidentally, the author does not like the use of colors White, Black, or Brown as designations for ethnic groups. More on that later.

Not easily discouraged, X realized that the educational bureaucracy was not the vehicle for change, at least not at present. Remedies would have to come at the student/classroom level. White students need to be taught to recognize anti-White bias in curriculum and learn how to counter it. Unfortunately, being aware of the likely consequences in terms of ostracism or worse, few students will have the pluck and determination displayed by the author. And while change may begin with a single person, for a cause to succeed there must be organized collective action. In any case awareness of the problem is a start.

A major message of Equal Training is the power of words and narrative. The Left is skilled in using language for ideological purposes. They know that “the wording of educational literature determines how students are trained to talk and structure their thoughts” (25). When it comes to terminology the Right remains largely tone deaf. For example: much of the Left identifies as progressive and liberal, and the Right obliges them by using their preferred terms. Yet there is very little classical liberalism or progressivism within the contemporary Left. In addition, both these terms have positive connotations outside of ideology. “Yes, we’re making progress on that issue.” “He was liberal with his largesse.” Leftists are globalists, cultural Marxists, maybe anarcho-communists or nihilists. If you need euphemisms: Jacobins or iconoclasts. Using ‘gay’ as a term for homosexuality should also be avoided.

The author believes that the goal of modern education is to subvert White cultural identity by rendering it invalid, eventually replacing it in favor of a globalist, multicultural identity. To resist this indoctrination, it is important for young Whites to establish a strong ethnic, cultural, and sexual identity. It is difficult even for sophisticated adults to navigate the minefield of American identity politics, so knowing who you are is paramount for White youth dealing with a hostile social environment.

A component of a positive ethnic identity is a knowledge of group history. This is why the Left is so keen on erasing and revising American history. One important topic today in American historiography is slavery. X points out that slavery is often taught within what he calls a “cropped narrative.” The institution is given no historical, social, or economic context – simply evil Whites oppressing hapless Blacks. Some students even come away with the impression that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. The Holocaust is another topic that lends itself to a cropped narrative.

For X there appears to be a two-step process involved in what might be described as scholastic social engineering. First, efface a positive White identity, then blame, shame, and guilt-trip White students for past transgressions as constructed by the left. War, slavery, oppression: “There’s not one thing you can blame White people for that Brown, Black, and Yellow peoples haven’t also done” (80).

The author points out that if the establishment really wanted to make a multiethnic society work, they would seek a racial reconciliation rather than a racial reckoning. Instead of stoking the flames of resentment they would emphasize a common past. But they will not take this course because much of the Left is more interested in debasing Western peoples and culture than in helping other peoples and cultures. In any case, suppression is the only effective method to govern a multiethnic, multicultural empire. A colorblind meritocracy will not work. Perhaps a strict racial quota system would be the fairest, most transparent way to handle things. X suggests this when he advocates for “proportionate access to all schools, staff positions, government agencies, social services, scholarships, grants, and other opportunities” (184). Of course, it is not our job to make this perverse system work. At the end of the day, race is such an essential human characteristic, both individually and collectively, that a multiracial society will always be problematic.

As mentioned above the author does not like the ethnic designation “White,” though he often uses the term himself. One problem is the way the US government, especially the census bureau, uses the term: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa, including Hispanic and Latino populations” (47).[1] X proposes using the term “White-Ethnics.” For many people this term would bring to mind so called hyphenated ethnics: Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. “Ethnic White” might be better, but the most useful and accurate designation would be European American.

If European Americans had sufficient racial consciousness, they would insist that Congress change the government’s definition of White. In the author’s words: “We need to demand formal subgroup recognition by the federal government” (60). For one thing having such recognition would “accurately measure our access to scholarships, jobs, and other opportunities” (64). A proper designation would exclude what X refers to as “part-time Whites.” He never explicitly identifies who this group includes, but they are characterized by identifying as White when it is to their advantage, but otherwise adopting a separate, often antagonistic identity, such as is common in Australia since Aboriginals were given benefits like government scholarships and affirmative action  based on their identity. If one stylistic criticism could be made for Equal Training, it is the tendency of the author to make general statements without offering specific examples.

There is a tremendous amount of alienation in our society, especially among White youth, leading to drug use, sexual confusion, and nihilism. This is largely a product of a weak sense of familial, ethnic, and cultural identity. When society’s highest values are diversity and inclusion, the ironic results are that no one feels included, there is little sense of belonging, little sense of ownership. The author believes that Whites have a birthright to their own society with their own institutions designed to serve their needs. In the past this was assumed—a near universal expectation. Today this view is condemned as racist. X notes that “the term racist [is used] to refer to anyone who resists any of the tactics used to dissolve their race” (165). Under this definition having a White family is racist.

X touches upon several other interesting topics including selective law enforcement which is most likely to impact young, heterosexual White men. He points out the need for “our own legal representation and dedicated legal network” (181), such as TOO contributor Glen Allen’s Free Expression Foundation.[2] The author notes the strange and toxic congruence between globalist billionaires and neo-Marxist street thugs—without mentioning the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the former. And X suggests White students major in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subjects where curricula are more objective.

I have a couple minor qualms about this work. First, why the title Equal Training. Something catchier and more descriptive might help to promote the book.  Second, while I salute X for having the brass to stand up and confront the educational establishment, that could be a difficult strategy for many students to follow. Even if a student is informed and articulate, instructors usually have arguments to obfuscate a classroom discussion. X concedes that verbally clever academics can deliberately deceive or mislead with a clear consciousness because “they believe their ends justify their means” (59). Then there is the issue of possible grade retaliation. Also, no matter how confident a student might be, a single person representing a position can appear weak and vulnerable. Much more effective in such situations is to have two or more students representing an organization. Of course, organizing is hard and explicitly White groups are prohibited on campuses. Plus, as the author warns, there are sketchy pro-White organizations out there led by people with a propensity for self-destruction. Proxy or surrogate organizations for White students could claim to be groups dedicated to traditional Western culture, either fine arts or folk culture, or they could shield themselves by claiming to be a politically conservative activist group.

I imagine Student X is a member of Gen Z, and Equal Training is aimed at increasing the racial consciousness among his cohort of White high school and college students. Most readers of this journal will be familiar with the issues the author raises. The value of this book for those older readers is that X cuts to the chase emphasizing the basics. For decades a psychological war of unsurpassed sophistication and pervasiveness has been waged against White youth. From pre-school television shows, through the K-12 public education, to academe, they have been subjected to intense propaganda.  To mount a defense in preparation for a counter offensive, students must develop a strong positive ethnic and cultural identity. And a prerequisite for such an identity is a firm grounding in history that will enable students to put past and present events into a historical context. If parents, grandparents, and youth mentors want to know where to begin, it is here.

[1] Actually the US Census Bureau states that Hispanics can be of any race making the term useless as a racial category.

[2] A contributor to The Occidental Observer website, Baltimore attorney Glen Allen, heads an organization, The Free Expression Foundation, which may be able to provide legal assistance to White dissidents.

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: From Victim to Predator by Dr. Alan Sabrosky

/in /by

Editor’s note: Readers of this site will likely be familiar with most of the material presented here, but it’s refreshing nonetheless to see such a frank and honest assessment of Jewish issues, from Unz.com.  And from someone who is half-Jewish (on his father’s side) himself. I have removed the material on historical Jewish writing like the Talmud and Schulchan Aruch to focus on the part most relevant to our current situation.

 

ALAN SABROSKY • MAY 30, 2023

The Rush to Radicalism

Over the centuries, Jews overall have acquired a well-deserved reputation for disruption, in addition to other more admirable qualities. Virtually every social disorder afflicting the West in general and especially he United States today, for example, appeared in the Weimar Republic of Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. Cities like San Francisco now mirror Hamburg from that era. Pick your extremism or perversion, they had it then as we have it today. Then as now, Jews figured conspicuously in all of those movements, as the litany of their involvement in our day and time depicts. Also then as now, social and economic disorder was seen by its Jewish architects as something to be exploited to their own advantage, impervious to its impact on the population as a whole.

Today, as before, the prevailing strains of Jewish political radicalism and societal perversion run strong and deep. Simply review the very long list of activities in which Jews have the lead and/or are principal financiers. Radical feminism; critical theory and its offshoot, “critical race theory” (CRT); the racist, destructive “Black Lives Matter” extortion scam; Antifa; and the promotion of gender dysphoria and pedophilia, are just a few of the entries on an appalling list of shame. Nor does the old affinity for communism give any evidence of waning. One wonders what a Hollywood dominated by (e.g.) Ukrainian expatriates from the 1930s on would say about “Uncle Joe” and his minions?

The Pursuit of Power

As in the early Soviet Union, the Jewish quest for economic power extended to political power and influence in the greater society of all Western countries. I’ll only look here at the United States, but the situation is much the same throughout all of Western Europe and much of Eastern Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, if it were not so destructive of everything whites had built over the centuries, one could almost admire the single-minded Jewish determination to dominate – a determination in which some innate consensus almost eclipses the need for conspiracy and cabal. (The operative word is “almost.”)

What Jews have done in America and in so much of the West is what they tried to do in Germany during the aforementioned Weimar Republic, but here they have been more patient and circumspect until very recently. In 20th century Germany, they openly identified with the communists, and advocated practices such as gender dysphoria and pedophilia (led by Magnus Hirshfeld) before they were in a position to stave off critics and attacks. (They ended up fleeing the country when Hitler and his party came to power in the early 1930s – theirs were the books that the National Socialists famously burned).

Not so here. Jews in the U.S. founded the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in 1909, and later took the lead in radical movements such as the “Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)” and the “Free Speech Movement” during the combined militancy of the antiwar and civil rights movements of the 1960s. But when their hoped-for revolution did not materialize, they went – well, not so much underground, but into a form of low-key radicalism, as I have discussed elsewhere. In this phase, they initially emphasized infiltration of universities. Once within the academic bastions, they staffed the critical professions: education and law first, then business along with the faculties of higher education themselves.

The end result was that they gained control of the mainstream media, much of academe, and prominence in many other areas. This, combined with the growing power of two Jewish-led organizations – the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – as arbiters of political acceptability, had the intended effect of ensuring that the American people rarely heard, read or saw anything critical of Israel, let alone Jewish power or Jewish supremacism. Interestingly enough, the ADL in particular is now openly joining the chorus of anti-white voices, and declaring that criticism of Antifa (recall its heritage) to be “hate speech.” Both ADL and SPLC have become much more adept at defaming and ruining critics of causes they support, then of defending the Jewish people themselves or others against slander and abuse. In the process, they’ve liberally enriched themselves and their leadership.

To those who might say I am exaggerating Jewish power, I would say (quoting an individual who will remain nameless for his own protection): “I’ll stop believing its the Jews when people can say its the Jews in public, without having their lives destroyed by powerful Jews.” I expect Kanye West and some others in the black community who dared mention something those “powerful Jews” did not appreciate could add to that.

But it was not simply power in the media, academe, finance and the courts. There was a significant growth in direct Jewish participation in the government, no matter which political party is in power, wholly different from the situation 60-odd years ago. For example, for decades, Jewish groups such as ADL and SPLC had increasingly vetted nominees for political appointments. They could not always get the ones they supported, but they had an effective veto over ones they did not support – I speak from personal experience.

At this point in time , no one in either party can be a serious contender for the presidency in the face of Zionist opposition (or Jewish, perhaps a distinction without a difference). And that includes DeSantis and Trump as well as Biden. No serious contender for any national office, with the partial and very occasional exception of the House of Representatives, dares criticize Israel or mention directly the Jewish role in everything bad that is happening – they talk around them, but few say the “I or “J” words critically. Not even former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (whom I generally and genuinely admire) or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They know what will happen if they do. And the same holds for governors like Kristi Noem (SD) and Greg Abbott (TX) , who understand full well the extent to which the power of organizations like ADL and SPLC and their cohorts extends into state governments – especially state legislatures.

As for the administrations themselves, for the last thirty years or so, they have been so heavily Jewish that one could relocate them to Tel Aviv and not notice the difference. Trump talked about “Making America Great Again,” but he was a far better president for Israel than he was in fact – if not in words – for the United States. A list of some of the principal things Trump did for Israel indicates as much. Like Trump’s administration before him, Biden’s administration is dominated by Jews [Figure 9 about here] . and there are many Jewish holdovers from the Trump era among those charged with overseeing the response (such as it was) to the Covid-19 plandemic.

It is amazing that the blue field and white stars on our flag have not been replaced with Israeli flag elements, considering that almost all of these officials – as well as most Jewish members of both houses of the Congress and many senior civil service officials – have dual Israeli citizenship. They speak openly of their “dual loyalty” – which in practice means loyalty to Israel first. Hence, the designation “Israel Firsters.”

Replacement and racism as Political Tools

There is another element to “new antisemitism” that did not exist before which implies very clearly that these Marxist Jews – whom I have called hyper-Zionists – are playing the end game now. This entails the deliberate replacement of white populations everywhere they have been a majority with a growing influx of migrants from Africa, Latin America and the Middle East – the so-called “Great Replacement.” The details and implications of this development, along with the unfolding of the Civil Rights movement (an essential failure, as far as blacks in America were concerned) can only be touched on briefly here, and are certain to be the subject of considerable contention and debate.

Suffice to say that illegal immigration coupled with civil rights frustrations provided fuel for the simmering fire that was, and is, black crime in America, capped by six months of urban upheaval in 2020 following the death in police hands of a black career criminal named George Floyd. A final autopsy showed Floyd died of a drug overdose, having enough fentanyl (among other drugs) in his body to kill three adult males – or two Stacey Abrams. The Democrats did nothing to check the riots, nor did President Trump.

Biden took office in the wake of a deeply flawed 2020 presidential election and an unarmed non-insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 (about which I will write a good deal more in a subsequent article). Afterwards, millions of illegals swarmed into the country, perhaps seven to ten million so far. Even worse, these illegals are often aided and recruited from places as far away as central Africa not only by left-wing organizations, but also by the very Department of Homeland Security whose supposed mission was to keep illegal immigration from happening. Just coincidentally, the Secretary of Homeland Security is Jewish.

It should be understand that Jewish leaders use blacks as both a foil and as a distraction from Jewish behavior as well as to attack whites and Asians so that they themselves are not in the forefront. They use accusations of racism and hateful fill-in-the-blank accusations against the critics of black misconduct – because the same people who criticize huge black crime rates, for example, are often the same people who condemn Jewish influence over our government.

The Jewish role in the campaigns against racism and “white supremacy” serves three purposes:

  1. it sets whites against blacks within the US;
  2. it elevates blacks at the expense of whites, who are seen as the principal obstacle to Jewish ambitions; and
  3. it further disrupts and diminishes American society and the largely white culture on which its success has been based.

Until very recently, Jews and Jewish groups in the US have not been quite as blatant as they are in Europe about the goal of racially mixing ethnic Europeans with people from Africa and the Middle East, until white majority countries simply do not exist. What has been called the “Kalergi Plan” for a “Pan-European Union” may well have provided a theoretical framework for some of this. One of many Jewish advocates of this policy went from America to Israel and then to Sweden – where she helped facilitate the social disaster afflicting that country. She speaks proudly of the Jewish role in which she sees multiculturalism as an essential transformation for Europe, and acknowledges that Jews may be hated for this. A refrain repeated endlessly by prominent Jews and Jewish-led organizations is their very accurate understanding of the end result of this practice of massive migration and eventual miscegenation.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/3CUuELMV3K4v/ Video Link

Yet given that the same type of people (Jewish globalists and Marxists) and many of the same organizations and movements are involved on all sides, it is reasonable to assume the worst in America. Biden has said – does he even know what he said? – that it will be a good thing when whites are no longer a majority in this country. He has also repeatedly said that “white supremacy” is the greatest threat facing the United States, and that those whites who object to his policies are “domestic terrorists,” and threatened to use F-16s against them at least twice in 2022 – assuredly a first for any American president, sentient or not.

His entire administration, including all of the armed services and all of the intelligence services, are pushing the “DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) initiative intended to minimize white participation and artificially maximize participation of almost all other groups. Again with the exception of East Asians, who apparently are considered “honorary whites” because of their “excessive” [s ic.] success rate. Teachers unions, most colleges and universities, many corporations, and Democrat-led everything mirror the DEI emphasis.

Biden’s growing senility is (or ought to be) self-evident by now. Yet it cannot be ignored that the current administration is pursuing domestic and immigration policies whose net effect is to demonize and demean whites and Asians. It will shift the demographic makeup of this country to a multiracial stew – and thus measurably less intelligent, less educated and more malleable. The policies are also meant to flip “red” (Republican) states to “blue” (Democrat) ones – assuming, of course, that elections still matter.

Coupled with these developments, there is a continual push from Jewish groups for whites to have fewer children. The five Western Jewish-owned advertising conglomerates (three in the U.S., one each in Britain and France) and the Jewish-dominated entertainment industry continually pump out messaging encouraging white females to mate with black and brown males to produce fewer white offspring and more racially mixed children. It is quite a witches’ brew, with a predictably ghastly outcome – for our culture. Our race and our country, if not for Jews.

And So?

Let’s see where we stand. Jewish-funded NGOs are pushing migrants into the US and Europe. Jews are prominent in the leadership of “woke” groups such as LGBTQ++ and radical feminists, as well as predominating in academe as “cultural Marxists” advocating CRT and child mutilation (sorry, “gender-affirming”) surgery. Several generations of graduates from the “re-education camps,” with radical values firmly inculcated, and have now infiltrated all of our institutions from corporations to nonprofits to art and entertainment – and to the armed forces, which get most of their officers from ROTC on campuses.

The Jewish-dominated media praise all of the above and suppress criticism of any of it, including reports of its abuses. The Jewish-dominated social media platforms likewise censor criticism of their efforts, as well as keeping gruesome accounts of what went very, very wrong out of the public eye. The Jewish-dominated entertainment media glorifies everything Jews are pushing, while belittling whites – especially straight white males. But noticing any of the foregoing constitutes “hate speech,” and even a whisper of criticism makes one a raging antisemite and a prime candidate for utter ruin.

The net effect is to paralyze opponents of the woke/radical agenda into inaction. Why? Because Jews do figure so noticeably in virtually all such groups, any criticism of the groups is immediately denounced by the Jewish-owned media and the Jewish-heavy academic establishment And ADL and SPLC as antisemitism. Virtually all of the critics then shut up rather than be demonized and penalized as antisemites, even when the abuse being criticized involves insane gender beliefs that can directly harm the biological health of men, women, boys and girls. It is an insidious strategy that almost always works. (I say “virtually” and “almost” because there may be a handful of exceptions.)

On the surface, many progressive secular black people, Jewish people, LGBTQ activists and feminists seem united in their hatred of white people – especially straight white men.Nut in reality, it’s basically a hatred of Western civilization that unites them, a civilization which was largely founded by white pagans in the Greco-Roman classical era, expanded later by white Christians during the Renaissance and the Reformation, and industriously shaped much of the modern world. Delete white achievements, and globally one is essentially back to what were medieval times in Europe.

That hatred, invoked and stoked by Jews and none other, compels these groups to try to destroy anything that white culture created, including patriarchy, Western civilization, and the United States of America. They are the barbarians within, and under predominately Jewish leadership. Make no mistake: They are well on their way to bringing this edifice down. The one-time victim – actual or assumed – has become a full-fledged predator, intent on making Deuteronomy reality. We must not let this happen. I will turn to how we do this in the future.

Author’s note: I wish to extend my great appreciation to my editorial associate and good friend Cat McGuire for her excellent assistance.

Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net

Gender, “identifying as” and identity

/1 Comment/in , /by

According to Helen Joyce, her bestseller Trans is about gender self-identification: the idea that “people should count as men or women according to how they feel and what they declare, instead of their biology”. But she doesn’t say what gender is.[1] When people have these feelings or make these declarations, what are they feeling and declaring? And what does it mean to identify as something? She points out that national laws, company policies, school curricula, medical protocols, academic research and media style guides are all being “rewritten to privilege self-declared gender identity over biological sex”, but she doesn’t say what a gender identity is, or, come to that, what an identity is.[2]

Let us look at these questions to see if we can gain some clarity. In a previous article I argued that the basic term of transgender ideology, namely “gender”, is only an obfuscating euphemism for sex. If it doesn’t mean sex itself but is taken to refer to clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other, these are simply clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other. To think of them as amounting to separate things called genders that we “have” in the way that we have a sex is mistaken.

A better way of looking at this is in terms of Carl Jung’s archetypes of the animus and anima, each of which, as I understand it, he thought were present in different degrees in both sexes. Moreover, they might co-exist in different degrees in two members of the same sex. So I imagine that he would have said that in a woman like Margaret Thatcher, who was a leader and a firm one, the animus was stronger than in most women while the anima was weaker, whereas someone like Theresa May, a subsequent British prime minister, was more womanish. What he would not have said is anything so trite as that Mrs. Thatcher had the “gender” of a man.

In my own case, as a boy I was never very interested in soccer or military history; I preferred art and cooking. I drew incessantly on the blackboard my father had fitted over an unused fireplace and baked my first loaf of bread at the age of about nine. No one suggested that I had the “gender” of a girl or saw my art or cooking as a problem. As it happened, I also enjoyed going on adventures with a home-made spear and coming back looking as if I had been dragged through a hedge backwards. The idea that people have a gender, unless by this is meant their sex, is a silly oversimplification of a reality that, although variegated, anyone can grasp, nor does the fact that one boy likes one thing while another likes another raise any question about their sex.

When we ask what it means to say that someone identifies as something, we confront a difference between American and British English, for in British English, properly spoken, one cannot say that someone identifies as something but must say that they identify themselves as something. In other words, in British English the verb “identify” is transitive. Since it is a little easier to explain the answer to our question in British English, I will use this to start with and switch to American English later.

What it means to say that someone identifies themselves as something is that they call themselves that thing or describe themselves that way. Thus a man approaching the scene of an accident might identify himself as a doctor. But it is not only oneself that one might identify as something; it could be anything. One might identify that woman over there as French, a bird as belonging to a certain species or a precious stone as an emerald. So we can say that in the sex context, a man who identifies himself as a woman calls himself one. Now, clearly identifications are not necessarily correct. The man who identifies himself as a doctor might not be one; the woman might not be French, and so on. A man who identifies himself as a woman mis-identifies himself.

Whereas what one identifies oneself as is what one calls oneself, one’s identity is what one is. It is an attribute one has. Everyone has many attributes, therefore everyone has many identities, three in the case of an actress with two children, for example, being those of actress, woman and mother. But in today’s political usage the word “identity” has a narrower meaning. Only a few political identities are available, which are defined by reference to a person’s politically salient features, such as their race or sex. Thus one might have the political identity of being Black or White or of being a man or a woman.

Any political identity contrasts with one or more other political identities, and in certain pairs people with one political identity are conventionally described as being oppressed by people with the other. Thus Black people are conventionally described as being oppressed by Whites, and women are conventionally described as being oppressed by men. This comes straight from cultural Marxism and has nothing to do with whether anyone is actually oppressed. It is just theory. But the theory is applied so that “oppressed” groups are favoured over their “oppressors”, making them feel entitled to social goods such as pity, power and preferential treatment. The struggle of favoured “identify groups” to obtain such goods at the expense of their opposite groups is known as identity politics.

Switching to American English now, the sort of people who say that they identify as something also tend to talk about their “identities”, and they generally conflate the two. Thus a man who says that he identifies as a woman will say that being a woman is his identity. It is “who he is”. But in saying this he adds one mistake to another. Not only does he call himself a woman when he is not one; he insists that he really is one. It is as though someone who calls himself Napoleon were to insist that he actually is Napoleon. Both mistakes must be undone before we can see that he is really just Fred Bloggs.

After gender, transgender ideology’s most important concept is that of gender identity, which it defines as a person’s deep, inner sense of their gender, meaning their deep, inner sense of their sex. A transgender person’s “gender identity” is not, however, their identity but a contradiction of it.[3] A man who calls himself a woman still has the identity of a man because he is still a man. Thus the term “gender identity” refers neither to a gender nor to an identity; it refers to a person’s idea of what sex they are. Thus when we hear that someone is “questioning their gender identity”, this is only someone who is wondering whether they are male or female.

As Helen Joyce points out, transgender ideology asserts that we all have a “gender identity”, which in most cases lines up with our sex but in the case of transgenders happens not to. But is it true to say that we all have a deep, inner sense of our sex? I suspect that most people no more have such a thing than they have a deep, inner sense of how many arms they have. For most people, their sex is such an obvious and familiar part of them that they never think about it, still less do they see it as the sort of thing about which they might have opinions. If this is correct, the only people who have “gender identities” are transgenders, whose deep, inner sense of their sex deceives them.

These people’s “gender identities” may be deep and inner, but if they identify as members of the opposite sex, this is something outer, for to call oneself something is an act that requires an audience. If they go so far as to present themselves as members of the opposite sex, in what transgender ideology calls their gender expression, this is a decidedly public act.

People who present themselves as members of the opposite sex run into trouble if they expect others to identify them as they identify themselves. Just as Fred Bloggs, presenting himself as Napoleon, is more likely to be seen as the deluded Fred Bloggs than as Napoleon, so a man presenting himself as a woman is more likely to be seen as a man presenting himself as a woman than as a woman, nor is he much more likely to be treated as a woman than is Fred Bloggs to be treated as an emperor. But whereas Fred Bloggs knows that he must put up with other people failing to endorse his idea of himself, this is more than transgenders can do. At least, it is more than they can do if they follow the example of their activists, who cannot tolerate anyone failing to endorse their self-descriptions.

Years ago, when transgender activists asked themselves what could be done about these unco-operative people, an idea came to them. Why not force them to endorse their self-descriptions? So they set about gaining influence over policy-makers and getting them to bring in rules banning references to anything they didn’t want mentioned. This would mean that when people saw a man presenting himself as a woman, they would have to call him a woman, or at least a “trans woman”. Note that they could not call him a “trans man”. As a term for a transgender man, the term would have been too descriptive. The idea was to conceal the fact that these were men, not disclose it. “Trans men” were therefore women, namely ones who presented themselves as men.

People would also have to refer to transgender men as “she”. If they wanted to refer specifically to such people’s sex, as when talking about their participation in women’s sports, they could not call them men but would have to come up with locutions such as Piers Morgan’s “people born to male biological bodies”. Why not require people to make fools of themselves and waste everyone’s time by using twelve syllables instead of one?

Come to that, why not get policy makers to stop people using the words “mum” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” as well, as Qantas told its cabin crew to stop doing in 2018?[4] Why not ban the term “expectant mother”, as the British Medical Association did the year before, requiring such women to be called pregnant people?[5] Why not ban the term “breast feeding” into the bargain? Why not get all references to sex, sex roles and family relationships expunged from the language on the grounds that they might “make groups of people invisible” (Qantas), or “offend transgender people” (BMA)? With no reference to basic natural facts permitted, people might eventually forget that they were basic natural facts.

Policy-makers thought that this was such an excellent idea that they couldn’t understand why they hadn’t thought of it themselves, and so it came about that in 2015 two Texan day-care workers could be fired for refusing to call a six-year-old girl “John” after her “two male parents” complained.[6] The fact that the women, as one of them explained, had been “concerned about confusing the little girl” was neither here nor there. In 2016 a British man was convicted of a hate crime for greeting a man he knew by sight with the words “All right, geezer?” after the latter, a veteran of Afghanistan, turned out to identify as a woman.[7] During the appeal hearing the following year the complainant reportedly sobbed as he told the court that he had found the greeting “very upsetting”. It had “denied his humanity”.[8]

In 2018 an American teacher lost his job when he called out to his class of seven-year-olds: “Don’t let her walk into the wall!”,[9] forgetting that the girl in question now called herself a boy. A woman representing the school district illustrated the mental calibre of those applying the rules when she stated: “That was in fact discriminatory because all the other students were being used pronouns and this student was not being used pronouns”.

We have all heard the stories. In 2018 a teacher in Indiana was forced to resign after refusing to go along with his school’s policy of addressing transgender children by their self-chosen first names.[10] At first the school let him use their surnames, then changed its mind without explanation. At the meeting where the new decision was conveyed to him, he found the school administration “very threatening and bullying”. The character of transgender activists seems to have a way of transmitting itself to their proxies. In 2021 a Canadian man was sent to prison for calling his fourteen-year-old daughter his daughter and referring to her as “her”.[11] He was in contempt of court, having already been told to stop doing this.

Just the other day, in Britain a teacher was banned from the profession for “misgendering” a pupil by saying “Well done girls!” His class contained a girl who identified as a boy. He was also alleged to have shown the class a video that referred to men taking responsibility. He denied that he had done this, but the allegation was enough.[12]

Showing that it is now unacceptable to refer to the sexes themselves and not merely to the qualities generally associated with them, on the same day it was reported that an American student was given zero marks for an assignment in which she had used the term “biological women”.[13] Her professor described her work as “solid” but deemed the “exclusionary” expression so offensive that her assignment could not be recognised as having any merit.

And so we see the logical continuation of bans on words like “chairman” and “fireman”, brought in at the behest of feminists decades ago. These were followed by such things as Cardiff Metropolitan University’s 2017 ban on expressions like “man-made”, “right-hand man” and “gentleman’s agreement”.[14] The words “forefathers” and “sportsmanship” were also ruled out. “Manpower” was not to be used, suggested alternatives being “staff” or “human resources”, meaning that students writing about the battle of Agincourt would have to say that the English won when the French ran out of staff or human resources. Many other universities have introduced similar rules.[15]

All this applies the theory behind George Orwell’s Newspeak, that if we lack the word we will lack the concept, and without the concept we will act as if the thing does not exist. The concept mainly slated for deletion is that of men, as in all the examples in the previous paragraph, but as we have seen, our linguistic engineers have it in for the concept of women too. What is really under attack is any awareness of the fact that there are two sexes. As in Newspeak, our vocabulary is constantly reduced so as to “diminish the range of thought”, and it is this most basic fact of life that we must not think about or, ideally, be able to think about.[16]

This takes us some way from the questions we started with, of what genders are, what identities are and what it means to identify as something, but to repeat the answers: gender as a property of a human being does not exist unless by this is just meant their sex; a person’s identity is something about them; and when someone identifies as something, they call themselves that thing, which they might very well not be.

We got from this to the unhappy situation of today by way of the megalomaniac urge of transgender activists, given in to we know not why by policy makers, to control the speech of others so that their delusions would be supported and never questioned. But it turned out that their agenda extended far beyond stopping anyone upsetting them to include reshaping the language so as to rule out any reference to the sexes or their roles in society or reproduction. Thus what Shulamith Firestone specified in 1970 as the end goal of feminist revolution, namely the elimination of the sex distinction itself, approaches fulfilment.[17]

[1] Helen Joyce, 2022 (2021), Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, London: Oneworld, p. 1.

[2] Ibid., p. 2.

[3] The present article uses the terms “transgender person” and “transgender” (as a noun) to denote someone who calls themselves a member of the opposite sex. To keep things simple, it does not consider people with other “gender identities”, such as those who call themselves members of both sexes or of neither.

[4] New Daily, March 5th 2018, “Qantas bans staff from using ‘gender-inappropriate’ words”, https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/travel/2018/03/05/qantas-ban-gender-inappropriate-words/.

[5] Telegraph, Jan. 29th 2017, “Don’t call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ as it might offend transgender people, BMA says”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/.

[6] WND, Nov. 6th 2015, “Daycare workers fired for refusing transgender demands”, http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/daycare-workers-fired-for-refusing-transgender-demands/.

[7] MailOnline, Feb. 4th 2017, “Entrepreneur hauled into court for hate crimes after saying ‘all right geezer’ to a transgender war veteran”, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4190064/Entrepreneur-hauled-court-hate-crimes.html.

[8] The conviction was overturned.

[9] Kevin’s Corner, Dec. 15th 2018, “Teacher fired 4 using wrong pronoun”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbjNPjizY0&t=0s.

[10] Conservative Daily Post, unknown date in 2018, “Teacher forced to resign after transgender demands ordered by school”, https://conservativedailypost.com/teacher-forced-to-resign-after-transgender-demands-ordered-by-school/ (page no longer there).

[11] Breitbart, March 18th 2021, “Canadian Man Jailed After ‘Misgendering’ His Daughter”, https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/18/canadian-man-jailed-after-misgendering-his-daughter/.

[12] Christian Concern, May 23rd 2023, “Heartbroken teacher banned from profession for ‘misgendering’ pupil”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm3dKtjN6SQ. The teacher was Joshua Sutcliffe, who said: “Well done girls!” in 2017. A bible study club he had started had already been closed down. The Teaching Regulation Agency backed the punishment (Christian Concern, May 26th 2023, “Teacher banned for ‘misgendering’ | Round The Table”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-53JYC1Pgg&t=130s). See also Telegraph, May 23rd 2023, “Joshua Sutcliffe interview: I was told ‘call her a him’. I couldn’t go along with it”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/23/teacher-sacked-misgendering-pupil/?utmsource=email.

[13] Anthony Brian Logan, May 23rd 2023, “College Student Gets ZERO On Project Over The Term Biological Women!”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I57tp_9JWQ.

[14] Independent, March 3rd 2017, “University bans phrases such as ‘mankind’ and ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in favour of gender-neutral terms”, https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-cardiff-metropolitan-bans-phrases-mankind-gentleman-s-agreement-genderneutral-terms-free-speech-a7609521.html.

[15] For other examples see BirminghamLive, July 7th 2022, “University bans terms ‘mankind’ and ‘manpower’ over fears of offending”, https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/university-bans-terms-mankind-manpower-24421851.

[16] George Orwell, 1989 (1949), Nineteen Eighty-Four, London: Penguin, p. 313 (from the Appendix: “The principles of Newspeak).

[17] Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution is quoted by Ryan T. Anderson, 2019 (2018), When Harry Became Sally, New York: Encounter Books, p. 151.

Back up and posting

/5 Comments/in /by

We couldn’t post new material for a few days. We’re back. Apparently, it was not sabotage, just your run-of-the-mill tech glitch.

Again, comments are now restricted to those who contribute at least $10/month.

VDARE Facing Mortal Threat

/5 Comments/in , /by
NY Attorney General Letitia James Mugs Us (As Well As Donald Trump, NRA etc.).
Print Friendly and PDF
President Donald J. Trump’s indictment by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (as with impeachment, it was always obvious that if emoting Democrats didn’t charge Trump with this, they’d charge him with that) had one great redeeming feature for us here at VDARE.com: as with the concurrent Douglass Mackey / Ricky Vaughn lynching, it brings home, to at least the half of America that voted for Trump, that what Anglosphere independent media phenom Mark Steyn has judiciously described in a recent interview with Conrad Black as “America’s Dirty Stinking Rotten Corrupt ‘Justice’ System” is now hopelessly politicized, weaponized, and increasingly subordinated, exactly like Soviet law, to a totalitarian ideological faction.

Which makes it easier for us to explain why VDARE.com’s advocacy of immigration patriotism is now facing the most serious threat in its 24-year existence.

And that’s saying a lot in this era, unparalleled in U.S. history, of intensifying shadow-banning, deplatforming, demonetization, doxing and ongoing Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services.

VDARE.com is the main project of our tax-exempt 501(c)(3) VDARE Foundation. And the VDARE Foundation has been mugged—targeted for lawfare by New York State Attorney General Letitia James , yet another of those childless female Black Supremacists who so much enrich our political life.

[New York AG Letitia James hosts ’Drag Story Hour’ for children: ’Celebration of love, joy and family fun,’ by Lindsay Kornick, Fox News, March 19, 2023]

It has become unmistakably clear that NYAG James aims to suppress our VDARE.com website, seize control of the VDARE Foundation and even expropriate our Berkeley Springs Castle, WV headquarters (which she probably intends to fill with Third World “asylum seekers”).

Of course, we share this badge of honor with more prominent targets of NYAG James—notably Trump, but also the National Rifle Association [New York AG sues to dissolve the NRA, alleging widespread fraud, Politico, August 6, 2020], Project Veritas [N.Y. attorney general warns Project Veritas its fundraising license is at risk, by Shawn Boburg, Washington Post, November 30, 2017] and other patriots unfortunate enough to be technically in reach of her lawless politically motivated rampage.

But President Trump and the NRA (five million members, total assets over $200 million) can, arguably, afford it.

VDARE.com, which is a tiny organization (revenues typically $600k-$800k range, no endowment), absolutely cannot.

Note also that NYAG Letitia James has not yet even accused us of any infraction—much less have we been convicted. We are merely being “investigated”—at deliberately destructive expense.

In other words, we are being battered to death by subpoena.

It really is true that as Mark Steyn has also said, “the process is the punishment.” This is the regulatory version of the prosecutorial abuse epidemic identified more than twenty years ago (to the great dismay of his allies in the naive law-and-order Reagan Era conservative movement) by my old friend Paul Craig Roberts.

It is only because of the extraordinary generosity of our donors that we have been able to finance our defense against NYAG Letitia James’ mugging thus far.

Most tiny organizations like ours would already have been forced to capitulate—which is probably what NYAG Letitia James was counting on.

I am sure she is astounded by our supporters’ loyalty.

But now this effort has brought us to financial crisis. Our general funds have been drained, and we are right at the point of being unable to pay our writers and our technical support staff, with no end in sight to this harassment.

Which is why I must beg you to help us—now.

Trump (Love Him Or Hate Him) Was Right About NYAG Letitia James

As single-issue immigration patriots, we at VDARE.com regarded presidential candidate Donald J. Trump’s historic August 15, 2015 immigration statement as a triumphant vindication of our long struggle to get the immigration issue into politics.

Since then, of course, we have occasionally voiced disappointment with President Trump’s achievements in office (although we did accurately anticipate that a Biden Regime would be infinitely worse).

Nevertheless, let the record show that, in an August 10, 2022 deposition in NYAG Letitia James ’s lawfare attack on Trump (quite separate from Manhattan DA Melvin Bragg’s lawfare attack—there are a lot of them), Trump opened with a statement that was a definitive takedown of her thuggery.

Trump described James as “a renegade and out-of-control prosecutor” engaged in “an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt.”

Bingo.

As Trump pointed out, James ran for New York State Attorney General in 2018 explicitly promising to sue him—before she could have known any of the actual facts. She did the same with the NRA. (Trump also noted that in her campaign she called him “an illegitimate president,” something which, if said about Joe Biden, is now apparently a hanging offense).

Trump then proceeded to refuse to answer any questions on Fifth Amendment grounds (at 12:12 below).

Quite right too.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/p26ZcSAAK3Q” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

(Transcript here.)

Subsequently, Trump wrote on his Truth Social outlet:

I don’t expect that President Trump will Truth Social any time soon about how our tiny VDARE.com should also be supported.

But the fact is that we are, all of us, in the same fight—against a Totalitarian Woke weaponized justice system.

And so is America.

A Point Of Personal Privilege

And I must rise here on a point of personal privilege, as they say in the U.S. Senate.

I began writing about America’s post-1965 immigration disaster with my 1992 National Review cover story that has been credited with starting the modern debate. I did this despite the fact that my then-employer, Steve Forbes, was gearing up for a Presidential run featuring bone-headed Wall Street Journal Editorial Page–type immigration enthusiasm. I kept on writing about the immigration disaster despite the savage Regime Media backlash, my completely unexpected betrayal by National Review founder William F. Buckley and by Conservatism Inc. in general, the increasingly ominous threat to my ability to feed my family even in the obscure briar patch of financial journalism, abandonment by cowardly former friends, unbridled abuse and physical threats.

And now, at the age of 75, I am still working on the immigration issue in my office in the Berkeley Springs Castle every day.

I regret nothing—Non, je ne regrette rien, as the French Foreign Legionnaires famously sang as they were taken prisoner after their attempt to save French Algeria failed in 1961.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/CkZcjkF3Evw” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

Maybe that’s not the most hopeful analogy. But I like it.

Nevertheless, nothing has infuriated me as much as the lying insinuation by NYAG James that I, and my wife Lydia, bought the Castle to benefit ourselves personally.

Exactly the opposite is true. Because Lydia and I knew no commercial bank could be trusted not to cave to political pressure and pull a mortgage in the most inconvenient way—as happened to Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant in Canada [Canadian media outlet says bank denied it a commercial mortgage over conservative political leanings, by Yael Halon, Fox News, December 30, 2021]—we had to gamble on pouring all of an unprecedented and wonderfully generous 2019 gift to the VDARE Foundation into buying the Castle for cash. (The prudent and self-interested course would have been to invest it and live off the proceeds.) We sold our much-loved home in the beautiful Connecticut Berkshires. We uprooted our little daughters and moved to a small rental cottage on the Castle grounds here in Appalachia. We were forced to do this because, in the three years before COVID, our proposed conferences had been canceled because of political pressure more than a dozen times (see e.g., here, here, here, here). We concluded that, for a persecuted organization like ours to hold conferences, it ultimately must own its own venue.

The net effect: The Brimelow family no longer owns a home. But its shelter dollars now go to support the Berkeley Springs Castle complex. What NYAG Letitia James is insinuating here adds insult to injury—in fact, it adds injury (in the form of her deliberately ruinous subpoena harassment) to insult (see above) to the professional injury I have already, I may say unflinchingly, sustained.

Of course, this could never happen if the U.S. were still the Land of the Free. But the fact is that what we all now face is a communist coup. And America’s corrupted legal and regulatory institutions are complicit.

So I say: to hell with NYAG Letitia James!—and to hell with those e.g., the supposedly libertarian Reason commenters cheering her on.

And to hell with everyone else enabling this new Soviet America.

Why was the VDARE.com Foundation registered in New York State, and thus vulnerable to thugs like NYAG Letitia James, anyway?

The VDARE Foundation was set up in 1999 by a heroic volunteer lawyer who at that time did a great deal of pro bono work for the immigration patriot movement. He happened to be admitted to the bar in New York State, so he set it up there.

(However, contrary to NYAG Letitia James’ insinuations in her filings, the foundation was subsequently dormant for several years because we were working through another foundation registered in a different state. This is why we made no further filings: they were not necessary.)

It is perfectly normal for 501(3) charities to be registered in states other than those in which they have a physical presence.

And at the time, of course, with the West’s concurrent victory in the Cold War, no one had any idea of the communist Reign of Terror that was subsequently to sweep through American institutions, above all after the apparently unauthorized election of Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Thus our heroic volunteer lawyer was later forced by his white-shoe law firm, to its great discredit, to abandon his pro bono work for immigration patriots. This an example of the stealth “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style deprivation of professional and commercial services” (see above) that is a key part of America’s ongoing communist coup.

Why didn’t VDARE leave New York State?

New York State has to give its consent for a 501©(3) to leave.

Because our unusually good fundraising year pushed us over a N.Y. regulatory threshold, we initiated an exhaustive financial audit (i.e., a qualified third party had to look over our accounts). Our aim was to be fully compliant before we even considered raising our heads above the parapet with a request to exit.

This audit was very much hampered by the fact that our Connecticut accountants suddenly abandoned us and refused to suggest referrals (see “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional services” above).

The trivial, very common, easily corrected, and anyway generally obviated by the statute of limitations regulatory missteps that NYAG Letitia James is now hyperventilating about (see below) arose in the resulting chaos because we had so much trouble finding a replacement. In fact, at one point we had to turn to VDARE.com accountant reader, who had kindly offered his services.

The audit was completed—triumphantly. But of course NYAG Letitia James has ignored it anyway.

However, once the VDARE Foundation was forced into the real estate business in order to own its conference venue, we had to reorganize legally, at considerable expense, in a way that is more typical of commercial operations, to protect ourselves against predatory lawsuits (whether politically motivated or not), e.g., slip-and-fall. Thus the VDARE Foundation now owns a for-profit LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that holds the property surrounding the Castle and leases it back to VDARE. And the Berkeley Springs Castle itself is now owned by the Berkeley Springs Castle Foundation, a 501(c)(3) supporting organization of the VDARE Foundation that is registered in West Virginia. NYAG Letitia James has made numerous lying references to this reorganization (see below).

What has NYAG Letitia James done?

Last summer, we learned from Facebook that NYAG Letitia James had hit it with two overlapping subpoenas regarding its transactions with us:

  • Meta May 13 2022—PDF
  • June 14 to Facebook Payments Inc PDF

This was a flagrant violation of procedure. The Stored Communications Act, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2703(b)(1)(b), permits a government agency to obtain third-party information from Facebook or other internet services—provided that there is ”prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer” [viz., the third party, here VDARE].

But NYAG Letitia James never provided VDARE.com with that notice. An email from Facebook was the first we heard about it.

She simply disregarded the law.

This has turned out to be a pattern.

Significantly, in both cases, the Facebook subpoenas were issued on NYAG Letitia James’ behalf by someone called Rick Sawyer, who is described as “Special Counsel for Hate Crimes.” (In his email signature, Sawyer advertises his pronouns as “he/him”—for now.)

Needless to say, VDARE.com has not committed, or has even (yet) been accused of, a crime of any kind—let alone a “Hate Crime” (which we have anyway consistently argued is an unconstitutional concept).

But Commissar Sawyer’s role betrays what is really motivating NYAG Letitia James: not some technical issue arising from her role of overseer of charities, but the suppression of political opinion she dislikes (aka “Hate”). She apparently thinks she can do this by claiming that such political opinion results in “Hate Crimes” (unlike, of course, Black Lives Matter rhetoric).

Needless to say, this is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

NYAG’s James’ move against Facebook was especially bizarre because Facebook had, without warning to us, deleted VDARE.com’s page some two years earlier, all too obviously as part of its Woke campaign to defeat President Trump in that fall’s Presidential election [The 2020 Election Wasn’t Stolen, It Was Bought By Mark Zuckerberg, by William Doyle, The Federalist, October 12, 2021].

(With characteristic leftist vindictiveness, Facebook also deleted our own personal pages, which in Lydia’s case was entirely non-political—she had used it, as all student Millennials were encouraged to do, as a diary, family resource and baby book, showing our children’s first steps, etc.—and has refused to return her data, although we understand it is legally her property.)

And we never raised much money through Facebook anyway, or spent much money on promotion there, partly because I had quickly concluded it was shadow-banning us.

So why was NYAG Letitia James targeting Facebook at all? One theory: She or her minions might actually have been crazy enough to think our Social Media Manager really was a Russian agent. (He is an American, albeit a Southerner, i.e., nearly as bad.)

Facebook, not a friend, informed us that it would comply with these subpoenas—no easy task—unless we contested them.

And we did indeed consider contesting James’ subsequent subpoena against the VDARE Foundation, because it was plainly harassment aimed at suppressing our First Amendment rights (see below).

But eventually, very reluctantly, we took the hard decision to comply, without prejudice, with NYAG Letitia James’ demands as much as possible—to demonstrate good faith to the court.

Facebook thereupon apparently met her demands.

At least, we think it did. Typical of the relentlessly hostile environment in which patriots now operate, Facebook will not tell us what data it supplied. And neither will NYAG Letitia James.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Because our relationship with Facebook was so minimal, we believe and hope that none of our readers, or even the commenters on our late lamented Facebook page—and certainly not our donors—are significantly at risk here.

But THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. This whole episode is disgraceful in a supposedly free society.

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James’ targeting of VDARE.com followed her creation of a ”Hate Crimes Unit,” which she claimed would “strengthen oversight, because we see how much hate is being fueled by content on the internet” [’Hate Has Been Unleashed’ | New York’s AG Lays Out Her Plan to Solve the State’s anti-Semitism Crisis, by Amir Tibon and Danielle Ziri, Haaretz, January 8, 2020].

“Hate” is, of course, an offense unknown to the U.S. Constitution. “Hate speech” is in effect simply something with which NYAG Letitia James disagrees.

For example, in August, during the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, NYAG Letitia James joined in a letter to Facebook demanding that it increase censorship against ”hate speech and hate organizations,” aka suppress pro-Trump Facebook pages. [PDF] [AG Racine Leads 20-State Coalition Urging Facebook to Aggressively Combat the Spread of Hate and Disinformation Online, Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, August 20, 2020].

Similarly, in August 2022 James took the extraordinary step of trying to intimidate the tiny Cornerstone Church in Batavia, NY out of hosting an event featuring President Trump’s son Eric and former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn [ReAwaken Tour host feels harassed by NY attorney general , oleantimesherald.com, August 11, 2022].

The Cornerstone Church has (good for them!) now filed an action under the Civil Rights Act against NYAG Letitia James. It points out that the original venue had cancelled the event after pressure from Democrat elected officials, notably Monroe County Legislature President Sabrina LaMar, and also that the Church’s hosting of the ReAwaken Tour was a legitimate exercise of their First Amendment Rights.

Free Speech Foe Sabrina LaMar

Especially significant from VDARE.com’s point of view: The Cornerstone Church has argued that NYAG James’ behavior violated provisions of the New York State Bar Association’s Rules Of Professional Conduct—because she abused her office for political purposes and lied about the nature of their meeting:

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly sought to and did deprive them of their constitutional and civil rights, pursuant to the above-named statutes and causes of action by committing acts to deprive Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York,” the suit states. “Further, Defendant James negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly published multiple false statements to multiple media outlets to mar the reputations of Pastor Doyle and Clay Clark, to provoke objectionable opinions in the minds of members of the community to expose plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion.”

[ReAwaken organizers, host fight back on what they call ’intimidation,’ ’libel,’ from AG, by Joanne Beck, The Batavian, January 23, 2023]

More on this interesting idea, as it relates to VDARE.com, below.

Then we learned that NYAG Letitia James had issued a subpoena to the VDARE Foundation itself.

See the Subpoena, PDF

NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena made a staggering 44 separate demands for documents. Most of them were of no possible relevance to any oversight function that the New York Attorney General’s office could conceivably claim to exercise over charities registered in New York State.

For example:

We sued the New York Times because it described me, the Editor of VDARE.com, as an “open white nationalist.” Needless to say, this allegation is lethal in the current political climate. However, it is not an opinion, but a matter of fact—I have repeatedly said I’m a Civic Nationalist, i.e., I’m not “open” about being a white nationalist. The Southern District of New York Court recognized this when it acknowledged the issue was “actionable,” although absurdly claiming I had been made whole by the New York Times’ subsequent guilty stealth-edit of its website, even though correction was unacknowledged in the print edition despite its publicly stated ethics code.

At the time, a prominent First Amendment lawyer told us, “The Supreme Court is going to revisit SULLIVAN”—its disastrous 1964 decision that effectively deprived public figures of Common Law libel protection—”but not for you.”

So much for Equality Before The Law.

To SCOTUS’ great discredit, he turned out to be right.

But what does our New York Times litigation have to do with New York State’s charitable oversight role?

And why not subpoena our Colorado Springs litigation?

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James did not attempt to subpoena any documents regarding our litigation against the city of Colorado Springs for its refusal to protect our proposed 2017 conference there.

We believe this is because our suppression by Colorado Springs was so flagrantly unconstitutional, as even one Reason commenter acknowledged. To quote Judge Harris L. Hartz’ magisterial dissent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision:

A government effort to punish or deter disfavored speech is what VDARE adequately alleges. And the City accomplished its purpose. The complaint plausibly alleges that the Mayor’s statement caused the Resort to cancel the VDARE conference.

This atrocity is simply not something to which our new communist overlords want to draw attention.

Our initial response—WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Looking over all three (3!) subpoenas, to Facebook and to the VDARE Foundation, it appeared to us that, of 68 separate demands, fully 53 were improper, with most violations landing squarely on First Amendment grounds.

For example, Item 4 of NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena to the VDARE Foundation:

Quite apart from the extraordinary, and utterly unnecessary, compliance burden that this demand imposes on the VDARE Foundation, it also aims to expose everyone who has ever been involved with us to doxing and harassment by Antifa thugs.

Above all, it aims to expose our writers, who have careers and families to support, and who therefore now operate under pseudonyms because of the Reign Of Terror.

There is simply no need for NYAG Letitia James to know who they are.

Moreover, 40 gigabytes of email could amount to a million individual items or more. Redacting them is an enormous and obviously very tricky task (because of the risk of accidentally exposing donors and supporters).

And we absolutely do not want to tell NYAG Letitia James who our writers are—because we know that she cannot be trusted with confidential information.

Just look at this MSM story about a leak from NYAG Letitia James’ office last year:

Like other nonprofits, Stand For America files an annual tax return with the IRS. While the agency and the nonprofit must make those filings available to the public, including the amounts of contributions to the group, such nonprofits do not have to disclose the identities of their donors.

However, the organization Documented, which describes itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog that investigates money in politics, obtained an unredacted copy of Stand For America’s 2019 filings, which it then shared with POLITICO. The group did not share the original source of the filing, but it bears a stamp from the charity office of the New York state attorney general. [Emphasis added]

[Document reveals identity of donors who secretly funded Nikki Haley’s political nonprofit, by Alex Isenstadt, Politico, August 26, 2022]

Needless to say, giving money to GOP Establishment catspaw Nikki Haley is not really a hanging offense (except possibly in James’ crazed New York Democrat bubble).

But giving money to, or writing for, VDARE.com most certainly is a hanging offense right now—given the current Reign Of Terror. (Consider the fate of blogger Razib Khan, fired after less than 24 hours as a New York Times contributor just because he had some years earlier written a letter to VDARE.com opposing something we had published.)

So James’ incentive to leak the identities of our writers and donors is exponentially greater.

Six House Republicans from New York State wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding that he launch an investigation into the leak [NY GOPers ask DOJ to probe AG James over leaked Nikki Haley donors list, by Mark Moore, New York Post, October 13, 2022].

But significantly, Gulag Garland appears to have not responded to the GOP demand at all—further evidence that the Regime is now completely lawless.

(I might also note that Nikki Haley’s Stand For America appears effortlessly to have raised some $7 million in 2019. Obviously, this far outmatches any VDARE Foundation fundraising, even though donations to us are tax-deductible, whereas donations to Stand For America are not. It’s simply amazing how much money professional politicians can raise, as opposed to political truth-tellers like us. With that much money, we could cause a Cultural Revolution.)

Of course, in this sort of regulatory situation, courts do typically operate on the assumption that the government is acting in good faith.

But NYAG Letitia James subpoenas’ fail rate—53 out of 68 demands turn out to be First Amendment violations—simply is not the record of a government acting in good faith. Whatever statutory presumption NYAG Letitia James might be accorded, it is rebutted by this pattern.

Initially, we replied to NYAG Letitia James making these points.

See our letter, PDF.

Our subsequent response—an exhaustive (and exhausting) effort to demonstrate good faith.

I must stipulate here that the VDARE Foundation really is a tiny organization— “lean,” in our auditor’s words. And apart from editorial and tech support contractors, VDARE.com generally has only two full-time employees—Lydia and myself, home-schooling parents of three small children. And, importantly, we have no in-house lawyers.

Nevertheless, unlike many of the trusting January 6 martyrs, we knew better than to deal with the government without legal counsel [Why some alleged Capitol rioters are acting as their own attorneys, NPR, October 27, 2021].

But it simply took us time to organize our legal response to James’ massive onslaught.

This was particularly true because we have increasingly serious difficulty procuring any legal services at all—all this stuff about John Adams representing the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre although himself a Patriot, once the pride of the American legal profession, has gone down the toilet in this new Soviet America. (See “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services” above.)

As discussed above, we elected not to fight NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena on First Amendment grounds, despite its flagrant political motivation, but instead to begin more cautiously, by demonstrating good faith and complying with the subpoena as far as was compatible with our contractors’ and donors’ security.

But the cost of this good-faith effort has been enormous—see “the process is the punishment” above. This is how what Paul Gottfried calls “the Managerial State” enforces obedience.

Our legal fees already amount to over $300,000—and, remember, we have not yet even been accused of any wrongdoing at all.

Even worse are the opportunity costs. Lydia and I just don’t have that much bandwidth. We have already been forced to suspend the hard-copy VDARE QUARTERLY. And when did you last see a National Data column?

Moreover, VDARE.com event-planning and fundraising has been completely crippled since the summer of 2022. (We will have our second invitation-only Annual Conference in June—contact Lydia for more details.)

If you’re a donor and you haven’t heard Lydia’s delicious alto on your voicemail thanking you for your donation, this is the reason: She was physically digging through the Foundation’s records, which reside in a cargo container on the Castle grounds.

She’s a tall, strong girl (6’ 1”). But this is still a huge pain.

The VDARE Foundation archives after our chaotic move from Connecticut during COVID, on Berkeley Springs Castle grounds, 2022

By December 2022, the VDARE Foundation had produced over 7,000 pages of documents to AG NYAG Letitia James. We had engaged a third-party custodian to sort through our 40 gigabytes of emails, the equivalent of perhaps millions of pages, because we needed to protect the identities of our vendors, writers, volunteers and donors. And our lawyers’ review of those emails was well under way.

(Significantly, in the course of this production, our lawyers protested NYAG Letitia James’ demand that we produce the names of vendors, e.g., our webmaster, and were told the NRA had been forced to do so. This turned out to be a lie, and another ethical violation. Specifically, it is a violation of Rules 4.1 (”Truthfulness in Statements to Others”) and Rules 8.4 (“Misconduct“) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite all this, in early December, we received a peremptory email from NYAG Letitia James’ office demanding that the VDARE Foundation, within ten days, disclose its constitutionally protected information, reveal previously redacted (because we want to protect donors, writers and correspondents) information in the first 7,000 pages of production; complete review of the 40 gigabytes of emails (ditto); and produce a complete redaction log for the entirety of its production.

Again, the VDARE Foundation is a tiny entity in the world of New York State charities, not at all worthy of this massive regulatory overkill. And in the normal course of events, NYAG Letitia James’ underlings would have simply discussed any concerns about the status of the production with a phone call or a meeting.

But of course her persecution of us is not normal. It is purely political.

So, at this point, with NYAG Letitia James’ bad faith irrefutably evident, we filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief. In other words, we want an official declaration that James has violated the First Amendment, and we want the Court to halt her attempt to enforce the subpoenas.

Complaint as filed, Northern District of New York

NYAG James’ shocking reaction: Ignore protocol, file in state court.

Normally, the fact that we filed first should have meant that our First Amendment argument would have been heard in federal court.

But, in an extremely aggressive move that shocked our lawyers, NYAG Letitia James subsequently filed against us in New York State Court anyway.

See her filing here: PDF.

In doing so, she violated procedural norms yet again—it’s a pattern.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Northern District of New York Federal Court:

Especially revealing is the OAG [Office of the Attorney General]’s unseemly subterfuge in secretly rushing to state court to secure a favorable order before this Court hears and rules on its motion to dismiss.

VDARE filed its complaint in this Court on December 12, 2022, simultaneously emailing a courtesy copy of its papers to the OAG in advance of formal service, which provided the OAG with three weeks (until January 4, 2023) to respond. [Citations omitted] On December 21, 2022, a full two weeks before the OAG’s response was due on January 4, 2023, the OAG requested and secured VDARE’s consent to an extension of its deadline to respond in federal court, from January 4 to 18, 2023. In so doing, the OAG claimed (in an email) that the extension was necessary because of the holidays and an attorney who had taken ill:

Because of the holidays and a member of our team who has COVID, we would appreciate an extension until Jan 18 to respond to VDARE’s complaint in the NDNY. Can you please confirm your consent? [Citation omitted]

Unbeknownst to VDARE when it consented to the extension on December 21, 2022, however, the OAG had already initiated its special proceeding in state court the week before (on December 16, 2022) with a proposed order to show cause. [Citation omitted]

See our Memorandum of Law: PDF.

In other words, NYAG Letitia James lied to us, at least by omission, in order to get her state filing heard first.

Of course, in a just world, even apart from NYAG Letitia James’ obvious malfeasance here, the New York State Court should have stayed or even dismissed NYAG Letitia James’ petition to compel enforcement of the subpoena, pending resolution of our First Amendment case in Federal Court, which would normally have had priority.

But to our lawyers’ shock (again), and with unprecedented speed—as in, the next business day after filings were completed—New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus ruled against us, uncritically accepting NYAG Letitia James’ lying and stupid assertions as to why she had cause to want disclosure.

Kraus even endorsed NYAG James’ demand that we provide the names of writers.

This is particularly telling because NYAG James had ostentatiously eschewed asking for the names of writers in her response to our Federal suit—presumably because of its obvious First Amendment implications.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Federal Court:

…the OAG represented to this Court in its motion to dismiss this case that its subpoena to VDARE does “not seek any information regarding the development or publication of VDARE’s online content.” [Citation omitted]

Simultaneously, the OAG took the contrary and constitutionally offensive position in state court that “the identities of contractors—including writers who contribute to the website—these are precisely the records the OAG must examine in its investigation of VDARE’s organizational misconduct.”

Apart from taking contradictory positions in two different courts, the OAG’s purported rationale for the demanded disclosure does not fit its rationale: a vendor’s provision of services to VDARE and a writer’s provision of content to VDARE’s website have no automatic connection to any legitimate investigative need.

Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, February 22 2023

Arguing contradictory things in different courts is flatly unethical. It violates the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which explicitly precludes litigants from making contradictory claims in different courts.

VDARE.com’s response to NYAG James’ aggression

Of course we appealed Judge Kraus’ ruling—but only because our heroic donors had provided the money to do it. And we were granted a stay of her decision pending a full hearing.

But again, with unprecedented speed, the Appeals Court then rejected our stay pending appeal. Significantly, they even passed the matter on to their clerk for a summary order, indicating that they did not think it worth their time to be bothered with our First Amendment rights. We were granted no relief at all, not even the protection of our writers’ identities, which NYAG Letitia James of course had lyingly assured the Federal court she did not want.

See ruling here.

From our point of view, this nightmare is like watching water cascade uphill—the case should never have been heard in New York State Court; it should not have been rejected; and our stay should never have been rejected on appeal.

But rules just don’t seem to apply to immigration patriots.

Note the net effect of NYAG Letitia James’ aggression: We are now forced to fight this ruinously expensive war on TWO fronts—in Federal Court and in New York State Court.

In fact, THREE fronts—because Lydia is still being forced to prepare production to comply with NYAG Letitia James’ demands in case we lose. See below.

The downside of VDARE Foundation’s good faith effort to comply

The downside of VDARE.com’s good faith effort to comply: NYAG Letitia James was able to find and trump up (excuse the term!) various trivial alleged infractions.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” This principle, supposedly enunciated by Stalin’s secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria, is of course why Americans today are terrified of audits by the Internal Revenue Service.

And it’s why President Trump, in the video we linked to above (at 12:05), forcefully asserted his right to take the Fifth Amendment in his deposition, although specifically pointing out (at 10:36) that he had once thought that innocence was a sufficient defense.

Among alleged VDARE Foundation infractions that NYAG Letitia James is trumping up:

  • Lydia (“Secretary, Treasurer and Publisher”) of VDARE and I (“Director/CEO/Chairman”) did not specify in filings that we are married.

Even if this technicality were true, Lydia and I obviously USE THE SAME LAST NAMES! We file joint taxes with the same IRS where we file our 990s!! And, critically, NO BENEFIT WAS GAINED by the supposed failure to report!!!

And we have repeatedly, perhaps boringly, celebrated on VDARE.com the fact that we are married. For example, here in 2007, announcing our marriage, Another Personal Message From Peter Brimelow:

Manifestly, we had no intent to deceive.

And NYAG Letitia James knows this—because she admits elsewhere that she is stalking VDARE.com: She cites VDARE.com posts in her filings to support her lie that we were living at the Castle rent-free.

So NYAG Letitia James’ lie here is not merely malicious. It is stupid.

  • NYAG Letitia James claims, without evidence, that our Berkeley Springs Castle purchase is suspect

The Berkeley Springs Castle is a beautiful charismatic property and only two hours from the U.S. Capitol. (This is probably what alarms NYAG James—as Southern Poverty Law Center enforcer Michael Edison Hayden quite accurately complained in 2020: “[t]he castle gives them greater proximity to Washington D.C. and a place to hold conferences without fear of being shut down”).

But this is in West Virginia, and therefore actually surprisingly cheap—we got the Castle, 55 acres of mountain and three somewhat dilapidated cottages for $1.4 million.

For comparison, that’s less than a two-bedroom apartment in NW Washington DC.)

(WE URGE PATRIOTS TO JOIN US HERE IN AFFORDABLE, D.C.-ADJACENT, WEST VIRGINIA! Its demographics “Look Like America” before the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act, it has no big city to outweigh the rural vote, and it went for Trump 68.62% in 2020.)

But the serious point: It’s obviously a total waste of New York taxpayer money for NYAG Letitia James to spend so much time on this tiny transaction.

Furthermore, it is absolutely standard for 501(c)(3) charities like the VDARE Foundation to own their own headquarters, office space, meeting rooms etc. Here, for example, is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s headquarters in Montgomery AL—the notorious “Poverty Palace”:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Splc.jpg/1024px-Splc.jpg

And here’s the SPLC’s audited financial statement, which says that, combining their operating fund and suspiciously large endowment fund, they have access to $727 million. [SPLC Consolidated Financial Statement, (PDF) October 31, 2022]

And, as outlined above and confirmed by SPLC thug Michael Edison Hayden, we bought the Berkeley Springs Castle only because we discovered we could not rely on the corporate/ Ruling Class complex to defend our right to hold conferences—and the holding of conferences is critical to our role in advancing Patriotic Immigration Reform.

This is a problem that the SPLC and other communist groups absolutely do not have, for reasons that invite analysis, in the current political climate.

FOR THE RECORD: every step of the Berkeley Springs Castle transaction was carefully monitored by expensive lawyers—because we were well aware that we were susceptible to scrutiny by a malicious and unscrupulous politically motivated regulator.

Specifically:

  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that the Castle purchase was illegitimate because VDARE Foundation’s board was “overseen exclusively by the Brimelow family.”

In fact, despite NYAG James’ insinuation, there is absolutely no reason the VDARE Foundation board should not have been made up of Brimelow family members: this is common for small, family-run foundations.

But again, James’ claim is still a lie, and a stupid lie. Our board has always had at least one, and at various times at many as three, non-family members, as is perfectly obvious from our filings.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is similarly lying, and stupidly lying, by claiming that the Brimelow family’s temporary residence in the castle, and subsequently in a refurbished cottage on the castle grounds, was somehow illegitimate.

But in fact at every step, again carefully monitored by our lawyers, we paid independently determined fair market rent.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because we insisted on disclosing it to her at an early point when we were told it was allegedly the matter of concern.

But she refused to meet with our lawyers to discuss this disclosure. And her subpoena harassment rolled on.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that we transferred assets purchased by the VDARE Foundation to a for-profit corporation that Lydia controls.

But this for-profit corporation, part of the aforementioned restructuring after we were forced into the real estate business, is in fact owned by the VDARE Foundation—NOT by Lydia personally.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because it was disclosed, e.g.,on our 2020 Form 990, which we provided (and she has access to anyway).

Again, NYAG Letitia James is simply lying, and stupidly lying.

  • Facebook Expenditures

NYAG Letitia James asserts that Facebook Cancelled VDARE.com in early 2020 because it determined we engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” by creating a botfarm and that “these expenditures could constitute a waste of charitable assets and breach of the Brimelows’ fiduciary duties as VDARE officers and directors.”

But, as she perfectly well knows, we categorically deny that we were involved in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and in fact sued Facebook for libel on this exact point—see “They Want Us In Gulags” (That Includes Trump). Why VDARE.com Is Suing Facebook For Defamation.

Facebook, probably because it has testified before Congress to the contrary, seems not to want to admit that it is engaging in political censorship. But of course it is absolutely obvious to everyone that it is—e.g., completely independent third-party Facebook users who wish to share VDARE.com items are now libelously informed ”this URL goes against our community standards on spam.”

And in any case, VDARE.com is a charitable/educational organization that is in the business of spreading its message.

Paying to promote our message is unimpeachably legitimate.

Furthermore, most of the monies that NYAG Letitia James instances were actually paid, not by the VDARE Foundation, but separately by our Social Media consultant, to promote his own private business, helping us and his other clients.

NYAG Letitia James knows this—because the expenditures appear nowhere in our accounts.

By not acknowledging this she is, again, stupidly lying about material facts.

  • Payments

NYAG Letitia James asserts:

In 2019, VDARE reported a six-fold increase in revenue, from $700,000 in 2018 to approximately $4.3 million in 2019 […] Also in 2019, VDARE doubled the salary of its Chairman, Peter Brimelow, to approximately $345,000,

The VDARE Foundation had a great year in 2019, thanks to our wonderful donors. In previous years, in a way that is typical of small business owners, Lydia and I had often eschewed income to pay bills, depending on financial circumstances. So in 2019, the VDARE Foundation Board formally approved a payment for the year to me of $349,500. (N.b. Lydia was paid some $10,000.)

But in contrast, in 2020, with no major donor, Lydia and I together were paid only some $270,000.

And, for what it’s worth, in 2023 to date, basically because of the cost of NY AG James’ regulatory onslaught, we have not taken any salary at all.

BTW in 2023, NYAG Letitia James is the highest-paid State Attorney General in the U.S. according to Wikipedia, which puts her salary at $210,000 per annum (and she is allowed to get speaking fees, which I am effectively prevented from receiving by the Reign of Terror).

Personally, I think that Lydia and I deserve to earn much more. In 2021, National Cuckview’s Rich Lowry was paid apparently paid $400,000.

Who is doing more for the Historic American Nation?

  • Compliance

NYAG Letitia James asserts about our purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and subsequent reorganization transactions:

[u]nder New York law each required approval and written documentation of that approval by disinterested members of the VDARE Board of Director [CITATION OMITTED] and should have been submitted for review and approval to OAG or to Supreme Court [CITATION OMITTED]. Transfer of charitable assets to a for profit entity without fair consideration to disqualified persons is a violation of both New York and federal law.

But this would only be true if the purchase and transfer were to a non-profit entity independent of, and not controlled by, the VDARE Foundation.

NYAG Letitia James knows that this is not the case with the VDARE Foundation’s purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and its subsequent creation of a for-profit entity that the Foundation controls.

She is again lying to the Court—stupidly, because the facts are readily ascertainable, for example in our lawyers’ briefs.

Why now?

When I’m in an optimistic mood, I think this lying Deep State assault, along with so many others, is happening now because the Ruling Class is panicking. It has simply never recovered from the shock of Trump’s 2016 victory and the realization that the Democrat stealth strategy of Electing A New People could be halted (as it actually was for a time under Trump) and even reversed.

That’s why Biden has risked impeachment by opening the borders to rush in the Great Replacement in a plainly treasonous way, to finish the job as quickly as possible.

Now there are signs that, with the 2024 election coming up, the Regime is getting alarmed by polls showing even Democrats and independents are turning against immigration.

Which means that, now more than ever, the Regime must keep the immigration issue out of public debate—until America’s demographic transformation is complete.

Dissent on immigration must be utterly crushed—even polite dissent from a tiny operation like VDARE.com.

What happens now?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., the senior judge in the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, will rule on two of the competing motions that are pending before him:

  1. On NYAG Letitia James’s motion to dismiss the entire case, which he will either grant or deny and
  2. The VDARE Foundation’s motion to enjoin any attempt to enforce the subpoena by the AG.

We don’t know how long this will take. Federal judges are supposed to rule within six months, but often don’t. However, we are told this is not likely to be the case here.

But a footnote: Lies have consequences—we intend to move to sanction and disbar lying NYAG Letitia James

In journalism, and of course in politics, you get used to opponents lying all the time.

But NYAG Letitia James is not just a journalist and not just a politician: she is also the head of a state agency, and a lawyer.

That means that, as a lawyer, she is what is known as an “Officer of the Court.” As Law.com says

As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth… [Emphasis added]

You can see why this is necessary. The system simply cannot function if all factual assertions have to be checked all the time. Truthfulness “cuts down on transaction costs,” as the great Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once pointed out to me.

NYAG Letitia James, however, has consistently lied in court filings.

And it has worked—until now.

Thus, for example, New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus, in her ruling all too obviously cut-and-pasted from NYAG James’ brief, stated:

Public postings by Respondent Chairman Peter Brimelow and others indicate that he and his family have used the castle as their primary residence since at least March 2020. [A lie. As stated above, we lived only briefly in the Castle before moving to the cottage, AND WE PAID INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED RENT THROUGHOUT. Moreover, Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the Castle was purchased for an unimpeachable purpose: providing a venue for meetings that, because of communist threats that U.S. law enforcement authorities seem unable to counter, we cannot hold elsewhere.] During this same period, Respondent also substantially increased payments to Brimelow and to third-party, for-profit companies he controls… [A (confused, see “payments” above) lie. The West Virginia for-profit company—there’s only one—is OWNED BY THE VDARE FOUNDATION.]

Respondent separately reported spending tens of thousands of dollars on office expenses in 2019 [this is because at that time we operated from a home office in our home in Litchfield CT, a completely standard procedure] as well as paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a third-party LLC controlled by Brimelow that was based at Brimelow’s residential home address. [This was simply an employee leasing company that paid the salaries of all VDARE employees, including Lydia and myself. One of its purposes was to protect our employees from being doxxed.]

In December 2020, Respondent conveyed the entirety of the Berkeley Springs Castle property to two West Virginia corporations incorporated by Lydia Brimelow, Peter’s wife and a Respondent director, five months earlier. Respondent conveyed the castle itself and the land that it sits on to the Berkeley Castle Foundation (BCF), a non-profit corporation. Respondent conveyed the remaining land, consisting of eight parcels, to BBB, LLC, a for-profit corporation. [Misleading at best. Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the West Virginia corporations are ALL controlled by the VDARE Foundation.]

Of course, Judge Kraus could have avoided these stupid errors simply by reading our lawyers’ brief.

But apparently New York State judges don’t have to do that kind of thing.

Nevertheless, and this is a critical distinction: Attorney General NYAG Letitia James absolutely does have to tell the truth to Judge Kraus, and to all courts involved in our lynching.

Instead, she has systematically lied to them.

This implicates several New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

RULE 3.3:

CONDUCT BEFORE A TRIBUNAL

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer…

(3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false…

The official comments, which are designed to elucidate the rule, provide the gloss:

This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process…although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law and may not vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or by evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. [Comment 2 to Rule 3.3]

Further:

…an assertion purporting to be based on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit or declaration by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. [Comment 3 to Rule 3.3]

Comment 5 states:

Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence.

Comment 12 provides:

Lawyers have a special obligation as officers of the court to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.

Accordingly, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Such conduct includes, among other things… unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence related to the proceeding; and failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. For example, under some circumstances a person’s omission of a material fact may constitute a crime or fraud on the tribunal.”

In our case, New York Attorney General NYAG Letitia James has committed every one of these violations.

And these violations can have consequences. Thus Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz, author of the best-selling book Get Trump, has argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could be disbarred for indicting President Trump while knowing that the key witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, is lying [Alan Dershowitz slams Alvin Bragg’s potential Trump arrest: ’One of the most dangerous precedents’, Fox News, March 26, 2023].

And, remember, despite Politically Correct feeding frenzies in this age of the Great Awokening, sanctions have actually been successfully applied to culpable leftist Officers of the Court—for example against Soros Prosecutor Kim Gardner in the McCloskey case, and against Duke Rape Hoax prosecutor Mike Nifong [Judge Sentences Ex-Durham County District Attorney Nifong to Jail for a Day, Fox News, January 13, 2015].

Accordingly, we intend to file a grievance with the Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department asking that Letitia James be sanctioned, and hopefully disbarred.

Needless to say, we don’t have any particular expectation, in the current Unequal Justice environment, that justice will be served.

But we think that President Trump, if he notices us, will agree.

Remember, miracles happen quite often in politics. BUT VDARE.COM NEEDS A MIRACLE RIGHT NOW.

NYAG Letitia James’ regulatory harassment has driven us to the wall.

We are now right at the point where we cannot continue to pay our writers and our technical support staff—let alone defend their pseudonymity.

So, again, we must ask you to help us continue to fight for immigration patriotism—and for America.

We—and all of our posterity—will be profoundly grateful.

Peter Brimelow

Donate to VDARE.com here.

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.

Reposted with permission from VDARE.