VANITY: An Open Letter to Jim Robinson About VDare

NA ^ | 11-21-2002 | myself

[Clinton Is Scum]

Jim -

My wife and I are longstanding members of Free Republic (since 1998). We were involved in the Pugget Sound chapter for awhile, and have supported the site financially.

I have heard from numerous sources that articles from Vdare may not be posted to Free Republic. Is this true? If so, can you please take a few minuts to explain your rationale for this policy?

I think Vdare is a terrific site. The editor of the site, Peter Brimelow, is a brilliant thinker and respected journalist. The site is concerned with "national identity" questions: immigration, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism. Yes, these are controversial issues, but the positions advocated by Brimelow and his colleagues are well within the range of opinions posted by FReepers every day. Anyhow, if we can't discuss controversial issues at Free Republic, where can we discuss them?

I hope it is OK to post this in the public forum. If you would prefer to discuss privately, please send me a FReepmail.

Regards,
Clinton Is Scum

[gdc61]

i've never been to any of the sites mentioned, the basic premise listed for them("national identity") are they anti "illegal immigration, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism" is this correct ? it seems to be in line with FR and MY interests.

[Spiff]

If you post racist drivel from American Patrol and VDARE on FR, it WILL be construed as advocacy for those same positions.

You and your cohorts have yet to produce any such "racist drivel" from American Patrol or VDare nor anything nearly equating to a rally for "machine-gunning the spicks[sic]" of which you accused American Patrol.

Yet your slander continues unabated. Talk about someone who has an over-inflated view of his own opinion who litters threads with dozens of mindless vanity posts.

[Clinton Is Scum]

These sites are well within the mainstream of FReeper opinion. I have been an avid reader of both sites for about six months and have found the editorial content to be of extremely high quality. Take a look; if you're concerned about illegal immigration, affirmative action and multiculturalism, you will agree wholeheartedly with 95 to 100 percent of what you read there.

[Spiff]

Fascists are typically socialists. It's an outgrowth of their desire to control thought. The Robinsons have no obligation to allow anything at all on their site. There is a very good reason for that, of course, because FR has many, many enemies. If you want to peruse VDARE and American Patrol and racist sites such as that, you have all the freedom in the world to do so. But you do NOT have the right to bring their stuff over here and dump it like a load of garbage. Keep it over there. I'm sure you can handle more than one website.

Mindlessly calling someone a fascist....blah, blah, blah...defending enforced political correctness...blah, blah, blah...etc, etc, etc...talk of enforcing borders is hate speech...blah, blah, blah...ad hominem...play the race card...yadda, yadda, yadda...

I once had you pegged as a conservative. Your behavior, as I summarized above, clearly proves I was mistaken. Wouldn't your type be more comfortable at DUh or Salon?

[Bella_Bru]

I have dutch apple. With or without ice cream?

[mountaineer]

There is an ominous cloud hanging over the First Amendment at the "Free" Republic.

Off to remedial civics class with you - the First Amendment doesn't apply to a private entity like FR.

[Clinton Is Scum]

Another excerpt from Free Republic defense in the lawsuit brought by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times:

Robinson created Free Republic in 1996 out of shear frustration. He was dissatisfied with the current Presidential administration (the "Clinton Administration") and with the "mainstream" media coverage of its policies and activities. Robinson was frustrated with the inability on other internet sites and alternative forums to engage in a completely free and open discussion of news and politics -- especially by dissenters to the current Presidential Administration's policies and activities and dissenters to the "mainstream" media coverage of same. Before creating Free Republic, Robinson frequented other internet discussion sites and was frustrated by their censorship and restrictions on free expression of ideas.

[Clinton Is Scum]

If the government ever tried to force Jim to repeal his ban on VDare postings, I would be the first to object. Like I said above, Jim has the right to censor whatever he wishes. But I always felt that the spririt of the First Amendment--i.e., a commitment to freedom of speech--was a core tenet here. That spirit is one of the things that prompted Jim to start the site in the first place. It is what drew me to Free Republic four years ago.

I fear that spirit is no longer here. Commitment to some kind of "party line" has apparently come to be valued more highly than open debate, as in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

[Illbay]

That's right, ignore what I'm saying in favor of an attack.

I repeat: Your insistence that YOUR philosophy must be pushed to the head of the line, even if the owners of this site don't agree, is very reminiscent of the Nazi Germany policies that required a photograph of Der Fuehrer prominently displayed in every shop--subject to a visit by the Brown Shirts.

I repeat: This isn't your site. No one is forbidding you to go to AP or VDARE or StormFront or any of those places. Go there and wallow to your heart's content.

But you CONTINUALLY bring up this subject, time after time on these silly vanities. If I were the Robinsons, I would have suspended you long since because you keep badgering them on the subject despite being told what the policy is, and that you aren't owed an explanation.

The very fact that you continue to be able to yammer on in this mindless pursuit of your silly agenda is all the proof anyone needs that your accusations of "repression" are just bogus.

[Illbay]

I fear that spirit is no longer here.

Then do what JimRob did: Go start your own website (or quit this one entirely and hang out all you like at VDARE).

[Neets]

But I always felt that the spririt of the First Amendment--i.e., a commitment to freedom of speech--was a core tenet here.

It is, always has been and always will be.

The problem with some folks around here tho, is that they forget that that freedom of speech works both ways. As the owner of this site, he has the freedom to allow or disallow the postings of his choice.

[madfly]

ping

[SCalGal]

I'll bring cheese.

[madfly]

ping

[wardaddy]

I rail pretty hard about both "sensitive" topics you alluded to and I've never even been warned or had a post yanked.

Maybe it's the way you express yourself.

[RonDog]

There is an ominous cloud hanging over the First Amendment at the "Free" Republic. We can no longer discuss controversial issues like immigration and affirmative action without worrying about being banned from the site. JimBob will receive no more contributions from this FReeper.

As I posted on the other thread:

...There is no good reason to antagonize the host of this forum, IMHO.

In my experience, you can get MUCH better results by working WITH people in authority than you can by trying to fight against them, particularly if they are on OUR SIDE, as Jim is - for the most part. :o)

As you certainly must know, "censorship" and the First Amendment are issues that apply primarily to government-controlled forms of expression, and generally NOT to privately operated concerns like Free Republic.

Not sure exactly why Jim is against VDARE, but if he does not want their stuff posted here, we will need to work around that - for now - unless and until we can get him to change his mind about that.

I am a BIG proponent of PRAGMATISM. Let us accept whatever help Jim Robinson is currently prepared to provide in the promotion of Michelle's ideas, and remember that MANY folks who have to deal with the realities of the intellectual marketplace need to operate as Caesar's wife: above even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, from http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/mores/religion/bonadea.htm:

Bona Dea Scandal

Religion Index

     Each year the Vestal Virgins, together with a select group of patrician ladies, conducted a secret rite to the Bona Dea. Traditionally this ceremony was conducted in the home of the Pontifex Maximus.
In the year (62 BC) following the consulship of Cicero and the destruction of the Catalinarian conspiracy the office of Pontifex Maximus (a political not religious appointment) was held by none other than Julius Caesar. According to tradition, all males, even male animals, were excluded from the event. Caesar was of course absent for this particular evening when the ceremony, planned by his wife Pompeia, is said to have occurred.

At this point, the story becomes part fact and part fiction. Many have written of the scandal over the years and I have tried to give you what I view as common theory. Since Pompeia was herself not the most stable of women, Caesar's respected and noble mother, Aurelia,was in charge of the details. She noticed one woman, heavily cloaked, tall and with an affected tone in her voice. She prided herself in knowing every guest and could not place this individual. She asked a servant girl to keep an eye on the unknown guest who lost control of his affected voice and was discovered to be a man. He escaped from the house without definitive recognition.

Rumors flew. No one doubted but that it was Clodius. It was not unlike him to play wild pranks even with so sacred an event at this ceremony. One story reported that he and Pompeia were having an affair and she had smuggled him into her house. This was a difficult rumor to deter. An impiety had occurred and conservative Romans were very upset. Caesar divorced Pompeia with a quote of unknown origins "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." There was no proof of Pompeia's involvement, just suspicion...

more

[wardaddy]

Illbay,

Are you claiming Vdare or American Patrol are in the same league as Stormfront?

I just briefly perused both and while there may well be some bad stuff(I did not look real hard), there was also some pretty mainstream stuff like Malkin and whatnot.

I think we Conservatives would do well to sheath the racist tag label a bit unless truly merited. The PC dems make hay enough with that tag.

As for this site, the founders can do I suppose about anything they'd like. It's theirs'.

[mhking]

There is an ominous cloud hanging over the First Amendment at the "Free" Republic. We can no longer discuss controversial issues like immigration and affirmative action without worrying about being banned from the site.

I see no "cloud" hanging over the First Amendment here; No one is preventing you from setting up your own public soapbox to say what you want.

As "owner" of this little community that we call Free Republic, Jim has determined that there are a number of sites whose content is not welcome. He has said nothing of the subject matter.

I think he was polite, yet firm on the matter. That certainly does not indicate a bias as far as I can determine -- unless I've missed something somewhere.

[Spiff]

I repeat: Your insistence that YOUR philosophy must be pushed to the head of the line, even if the owners of this site don't agree, is very reminiscent of the Nazi Germany policies that required a photograph of Der Fuehrer prominently displayed in every shop--subject to a visit by the Brown Shirts.

To prove you can't make a decent argument, you bring up Nazi Germany and Hitler. Truly classic and totally predictable.

Never mind the fact that I'm not asking Jim to push "my" philosophy to "the head of the line". But don't let that stop you from spouting more lies.

I repeat: This isn't your site. No one is forbidding you to go to AP or VDARE or StormFront or any of those places. Go there and wallow to your heart's content.

I have nothing to do with Stormfront, thank you very much. I'm not saying that anyone is forbidding me from visiting any site I want or that it is my site. I made a reasonable request for an explanation. Why is it that you have to interject yourself into such questions with your slander, personal attacks, nazi-references, race-baiting, and other crap!?

But you CONTINUALLY bring up this subject, time after time on these silly vanities. If I were the Robinsons, I would have suspended you long since because you keep badgering them on the subject despite being told what the policy is, and that you aren't owed an explanation.

I did not start this thread. I didn't start the earlier threads. I've not been told what, precisely, the "policy" is (if one exists) nor have I been told by anyone other than you that I'm not owed an explanation. Neither am I the only one requesting such an explanation.

The very fact that you continue to be able to yammer on in this mindless pursuit of your silly agenda is all the proof anyone needs that your accusations of "repression" are just bogus.

[CatoRenasci]

I've been around FR since well before JimRob instituted regsitration. I am as concerned about illegal immigration as anyone, but I fail to understand your complaint: it's Jim's site and the rules are up to him. Most of those whose work are posted on VDare are also published in the 'mainstream' press, and I would be willing to bet if those writers' mainstream stuff is posted here JimRob wouldn't object (assuming it's not LASlimes/WashCompost etc and then for legal reasons). JimRob, can you confirm this?