PETER BRIMELOW: Why We’ve Suspended VDARE and I’ve Resigned After 25 Years pic.twitter.com/tnWSz3L0xs

— VDARE (@vdare) July 23, 2024

The video from Peter Brimelow explains it all but effectively it's because the New York State government has engaged in a massive invasive legal battle with VDARE and has requested tons of information costing many hours and money despite VDARE doing nothing wrong.

Additionally, VDARE has been been cancelled almost everywhere even to the point where banks and payment processors have kept them from being able to accept any payment or donations. They have also been subject to near constant cyberattacks from a clearly coordinated group that shuts them down everywhere. VDARE is convinced this probably has government backing so going to the FBI is pointless.

Either way it's a damn shame that they are closing up shop as they were one of the first organizations raising the alarm against foreign immigration invasion and have been fighting the good fight for 25 years, well before anyone here, including myself, even considered this was even a minor problem.

I would recommend watching the video, Brimelow eloquently explains all of the above in great detail.

Drive by slander....

When did the term Lawfare come into such common use? I've never heard the term until this year and now everyone is using it! I'm still confused on it's meaning and use. Someone explain this word's meaning/intent in layman's terms, please.

So, it's not okay to be white?

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

When did the term Lawfare come into such common use? I've never heard the term until this year and now everyone is using it! I'm still confused on it's meaning and use. Someone explain this word's meaning/intent in layman's terms, please.

---

It's just a new term to describe something that has been ongoing for a few decades now. It's basically tying someone up in the courts constantly to prevent them from doing anything.

The first big example was "bake the cake" with that baker. It's grown massively since then and has expanded to numerous things including industry with environmental issues and more.

VDare is not a group one should be defending.

Yes, the lawfare against them is wrong; they have the right to say what they want and and believe how they want.

They claim to not be a white supremacists, but they sure as heck give a voice to people who are.

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

When did the term Lawfare come into such common use? I've never heard the term until this year and now everyone is using it! I'm still confused on it's meaning and use. Someone explain this word's meaning/intent in layman's terms, please.

---

Been around for a while.

It is using the legal system to destroy someone financially with frivolous lawsuits, both civil and criminal. Even if the target wins every lawsuit, they spend all of their money in doing so.

It is how the Democrats in Alaska drove Sarah Palin out of office when she was governor. They kept filing endless lawsuits, and at the time, the state would not cover the governor's legal bills so it was either resign, or be driven into bankruptcy.

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

When did the term Lawfare come into such common use?

---

Maybe you haven't been paying attention. The left is using it at every level of their corrupt enterprise in order to seize permanent power. The frequency that they're using it now has ramped up dramatically, but it has been happening for a while.

Rapier108 said:

---

VDare is not a group one should be defending.

Yes, the lawfare against them is wrong; they have the right to say what they want and and believe how they want.

They claim to not be a white supremacists, but they sure as heck give voice to people who are.

---

Notice that the only people this ever happens to are groups supporting white interests. It never happens to any group or organization from any other race, yet people like you continue to decry organizations.

Sure you say it's wrong for the other groups to exist yet you refuse to admit that you cannot fight those other organizations without similar groups of your own. Advocacy groups like VDARE have been trying to push immigration reform for decades. They saw what was coming way before anyone else did.

DargelSkout said:

---

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

---

Venerial Disease Abuse Resistance Education

We either believe in free speech or we don't.

Thanks for the explanation. That does help.

DargelSkout said:

---

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

---

Paleocon organization that has been around since the early 1990s that is against all immigration and has been sounding the alarm for most of that period. That has been their primary driver for most of their existence.

Pat Buchanan has been one of their writers over the years.

It's very powerful when it is government offices doing the political attacking using effectively unlimited budgets and public resources. It is literally straight out of the Alinsky playbook, though the name is more recent.

" What label would you use to describe your views at this point?

In what sense?

I'd say you're a white nationalist.

Our position is that VDare is a forum site. That we will publish any view as long as they're critical of the [Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965]. Personally, I would regard myself as a civic nationalist.

Really?

Yeah, my heart is with civic nationalism, but my head is with racial nationalism. Because I think that's the way things are goingI think the country is precipitating out on racial lines. Don't you?

No."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/a-brief-conversation-with-a-white-nationalist-at-cpac.html

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

Nanomachines son said:

---

DargelSkout said:

---

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

---

Paleocon organization that has been around since the early 1990s that is against all immigration and has been sounding the alarm for most of that period. That has been their primary driver for most of their existence.

Pat Buchanan has been one of their writers over the years.

---

"...against all immigration..." is where I have to step off of the bus. Immigration is not a bad thing for a nation state and if managed right can be very positive.

I am a product of immigration from South America. My parents did it the right (legal) way in the 60's and worked very hard to assimilate into America's culture. They learned the language and insisted on English as our first language growing up. I am 100% American but also love that my heritage is Latin as well as western European.

Immigration works if it is done slowly and methodically and assimilation is demanded. Michael Savage always emphasized the foundational cornerstones of a nation state as Language, Borders and Culture. Keep those strong and immigration can be a GREAT thing.

MiamiHopper said:

---

" What label would you use to describe your views at this point?

In what sense?

I'd say you're a white nationalist.

Our position is that VDare is a forum site. That we will publish any view as long as they're critical of the [Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965]. Personally, I would regard myself as a civic nationalist.

Really?

Yeah, my heart is with civic nationalism, but my head is with racial nationalism. Because I think that's the way things are goingI think the country is precipitating out on racial lines. Don't you?

No."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/a-brief-conversation-with-a-white-nationalist-at-cpac.html

---

Free speech. You can disagree all you want. But as long as nobody is harmed and no legal citizens are prevented from their own liberty, then they should be able to say what they want, when they want.

I know nothing about this organization, so I'm not projecting support for them or their views.

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

DargelSkout said:

---

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

---

Paleocon organization that has been around since the early 1990s that is against all immigration and has been sounding the alarm for most of that period. That has been their primary driver for most of their existence.

Pat Buchanan has been one of their writers over the years.

---

"...against all immigration..." is where I have to step off of the bus. Immigration is not a bad thing for a nation state and if managed right can be very positive.

I am a product of immigration from South America. My parents did it the right (legal) way in the 60's and worked very hard to assimilate into America's culture. They learned the language and insisted on English as our first language growing up. I am 100% American but also love that my heritage is Latin as well as western European.

Immigration works if it is done slowly and methodically and assimilation is demanded. Michael Savage always emphasized the foundational cornerstones of a nation state as Language, Borders and Culture. Keep those strong and immigration can be a GREAT thing.

---

Against all immigration is an over statement. I won't speak for them but the argument is that we need a legal immigration "pause" so that the melting pot can start to work again after the flood of mass immigration since the law changes in the 1960's. And a complete stop to all illegal immigration.

That is a traditional paleocon position.

I am more in line with this thought on immigration.

Stop all illegal immigrstion!!

Remove the illegals that are here now (as far as that is realistically possible)

Maintain a period of assimilation for those immigrants here. Temporary reduction in immigration (not elimination).

Institute an immigration policy that is sustainable in order to maintain language, borders, culture.

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

They are able to read minds ? Depends on the criteria. They can't say all cops are racist and then not serve cops

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

If you take this mentality you can effectively remove people from society for wrongthink. You literally cannot hold a job or do anything at all without a bank account in the modern world. Unless someone is engaging in something illegal or in criminal activity, it should not be legal to do this.

You are saying this is a good thing yet wrongthink ideas can change on a whim. One day it is race, the next jt is something else. At some point you will also hold bad views so you're saying it's perfectly okay to cancel you from society.

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

DargelSkout said:

---

Am I the only one who never heard of VDARE? What is it?

---

Paleocon organization that has been around since the early 1990s that is against all immigration and has been sounding the alarm for most of that period. That has been their primary driver for most of their existence.

Pat Buchanan has been one of their writers over the years.

---

"...against all immigration..." is where I have to step off of the bus.

---

That's fine. No one made you join their group. They have a right to freedom of assembly.

Nanomachines son said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

If you take this mentality you can effectively remove people from society for wrongthink. You literally cannot hold a job or do anything at all without a bank account in the modern world. Unless someone is engaging in something illegal or in criminal activity, it should not be legal to do this.

You are saying this is a good thing yet wrongthink ideas can change on a whim. One day it is race, the next jt is something else. At some point you will also hold bad views so you're saying it's perfectly okay to cancel you from society.

---

I don't think this would be an issue for personal banking unless it's someone who is very outspoken like David Duke. Banks and other businesses though may not want to be associated with outfits like racist websites, etc. This isn't controversial.

MiamiHopper said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

If you take this mentality you can effectively remove people from society for wrongthink. You literally cannot hold a job or do anything at all without a bank account in the modern world. Unless someone is engaging in something illegal or in criminal activity, it should not be legal to do this.

You are saying this is a good thing yet wrongthink ideas can change on a whim. One day it is race, the next jt is something else. At some point you will also hold bad views so you're saying it's perfectly okay to cancel you from society.

---

I don't think this would be an issue for personal banking unless it's someone who is very outspoken like David Duke. Banks and other businesses though may not want to be associated with outfits like racist websites, etc. This isn't controversial.

---

Lots of people have been cancelled in this way who were just normal people already. You clearly support this practice.

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

What about not doing business with black people? Gays? Democrats? Gun owners?
Should banks do business with people who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings?
Should banks do business who believe in the scientific fact that there are only 2 genders?

Nanomachines son said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

If you take this mentality you can effectively remove people from society for wrongthink. You literally cannot hold a job or do anything at all without a bank account in the modern world. Unless someone is engaging in something illegal or in criminal activity, it should not be legal to do this.

You are saying this is a good thing yet wrongthink ideas can change on a whim. One day it is race, the next jt is something else. At some point you will also hold bad views so you're saying it's perfectly okay to cancel you from society.

---

I don't think this would be an issue for personal banking unless it's someone who is very outspoken like David Duke. Banks and other businesses though may not want to be associated with outfits like racist websites, etc. This isn't controversial.

---

Lots of people have been cancelled in this way who were just normal people already. You clearly support this practice.

---

Behind every progressive is a fascist screaming to come out.

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

Are banks doing this on their own? Or is the government pressuring them?
The government pressured twitter to remove republican posts.
The government pressured corporations to force their employees to get a Covid vaccine

This is a naive position at best, but more likely deliberately and dangerously obtuse.

Texit

MiamiHopper said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

deddog said:

---

Whether they are a white supremacist organization or not is irrelevant.

We need to absolutely defend the right to free speech, even if we completely disagree with what is being said.
Lawfare is absolute BS.

---

Businesses like banks and payment processors don't have to do business with racists. In fact that's a good business practice.

---

If you take this mentality you can effectively remove people from society for wrongthink. You literally cannot hold a job or do anything at all without a bank account in the modern world. Unless someone is engaging in something illegal or in criminal activity, it should not be legal to do this.

You are saying this is a good thing yet wrongthink ideas can change on a whim. One day it is race, the next jt is something else. At some point you will also hold bad views so you're saying it's perfectly okay to cancel you from society.

---

I don't think this would be an issue for personal banking unless it's someone who is very outspoken like David Duke. Banks and other businesses though may not want to be associated with outfits like racist websites, etc. This isn't controversial.

---

Since you are a democrat, you are a racist. That's based on hundreds of years of historical fact. Therefore, you should not be able to have access to banks. Don't shoot the messenger. It's your own stance.

The herd of ill-legals is an invasion. They are all criminals.

VDARE?

Why are there zero links to who they are?

Hi FBI