March 29, 2004
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
FROM: VDARE.COM SUPPORTER
[See also: NPR vs. VDARE.COM; etc. by James Fulford]
You are probably well aware that the NPR evening program "On Point" [Contact "On Point"] featured a debate between Sierra Club board member and former president Robert Cox and Richard Lamm on the Sierra Club election [Sierra Club Slingfest Listen, March 23, 2004]
A few observations:
Richard Lamm was good at times but so-so overall. He was mainly on the defensive, and too quick to cede ground to his opponents. Overall, he did much to defuse enthusiasm that immigration reformers might have had for him, e.g. he suggested that the 1924 restriction legislation was advanced by bigots.
Also he seemed to distance himself from Brenda Walker and VDARE.COM by drawing the analogy that while Hitler was a vegetarian, not all vegetarians are Nazis. (Therefore: while VDARE supporters are immigration reformers and extremists, not all immigration reformers are extremists, bigots, etc.)
The host (Tom Ashbrook) commented that the Southern Poverty Law Center was reputable (or credible, I can't recall) as a monitor of "hate groups." When Lamm let this contention get by unchallenged, I was astonished.
Robert Cox read a statement from Dr. Paul Ehrlich that encouraged members to block the slate advocating population stabilization. (Ehrlich is now a quivering stooge of the Marxist left. How he can reconcile his books on the population explosion with his current position is beyond the imagination.)
Robert Cox indicated that the Sierra Club received 7,000 more membership applications than usual after the Brenda Walker article. He sounded concerned that many of these would be from extremists of the VDARE.COM variety. [VDARE.COM NOTE: the Sierra Club has three-quarters of a million members, making this influx of immigration-reformers a very small number compared to, say, the foreign-born population of the US.]
Robert Cox suggested that VDARE.COM denigrates Blacks. The only thing I could think of that might loosely support this argument was the VDARE.COM suggestion that WSJ editorial writer Riley might be opposed to the traditional idea of the American nation state because of his appearance/ethnicity. However, this observation is distinct from denigrating him as a Black person.
It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. My sense is that if the pro-population stabilization slate wins, this will go a long way towards neutering leftist mouthpieces like the SPLC. What would help even more is another Prop 187 type victory.
Anyway, keep up the great work. VDARE.COM continues to get better and better.
Peter Brimelow comments: In his incestuous interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose director Morris Dees is running for the Sierra Club board as the Sierra establishment's favored White Knight (so to speak), Sierra Old Guard board member Robert Cox [email him] denounced Brenda Walker for posting "on what I consider to be a racist Web site, vdare.com," and went on to say "I noticed the other articles posted on the site, too. One, called 'Routing the Race Deniers,' talked about the differences in racial groups based on skull measurements and compared the skulls of Northern European whites and Africans — just disgusting stuff." Cox did not of course add that this Steve Sailer article was in fact a review of a book co-authored by Vincent Sarich, Professor Emeritus, University of California at Berkeley, i.e. an impeccably respectable source. Cox reveals an anti-scientific politically correct hysteria amounting to medieval superstition. He deserves complete contempt.
VDARE.COM was founded to challenge the political correctness of Left and Right. There is no doubt that this is hard on the Sierra Club insurgents, who seem generally to be herbivorous liberals and agree with us only on the issue of mass immigration. They would certainly prefer to have the Sierra staff's access to the Establishment media—but the Sierra staff isn't sharing. So the insurgents have to put up with us. We say to both sides: the truth shall set you free.