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

[Illbay]

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.

They do make hay with it, which is all the more reason for us to be sure we don't find ourselves allied with those who use legitimate issues like illegal immigration to cover their racist agendas. If we aren't diligent with it, then the Left gets to "make hay," as you say, and deflect the argument.

Yes, they're going to make that claim even when it is unmerited, but if they can confuse the issue by showing that we are buddy-buddy with those of doubtful intent, it works to their advantage.

The thinking person knows the difference.

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

That was my ultimate point, though I would add that they ALSO don't owe anyone an explanation. If you want to use their reticence to make the decision to withdraw financial support from FR, that is of course your prerogative.

[Illbay]

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

No, actually, I use your own attitudes and tactics to show how you are HARDLY a "champion of freedom."

[Sabertooth]

Ergo, there must be another reason that content from websites like American Patrol and VDARE aren't allowed.

Wonder if you can guess what it is?

Why is guessing necessary?

On the several occasions that I've clicked around vDare or American Patrol, I haven't seen anything that warrants the decision not to allow them on FR. I haven't seen anything that appears to me to violate FR's basic posting guidelines, so I'm curious. I don't dispute Jim Robinson's right to make the decision he has, but I would like to understand the rationale behind it.

I'd like to know if there is specifically objectionable stuff that I've missed, or if perhaps I have some blind spot with regard to stuff that I should have realized is objectionable.

Fair enough?

[Spiff]

No, actually, I use your own attitudes and tactics to show how you are HARDLY a "champion of freedom."

Reasonably asking for an explanation of certain policies and clarification of what those policies actually are is an attack on whose freedom, precisely?

[Illbay]

Screaming about "your first amendment 'rights'" and how "Free Republic is no longer free" is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Spiff]

Screaming about "your first amendment 'rights'" and how "Free Republic is no longer free" is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

There you go again, IllBay. I've never once, in the context of JimRob's banning of AP and VDare, mentioned my "first amendment rights". Not once. Yet that doesn't stop you from making such an accusation.

Similarly, I've never once claimed that "Free Republic is no longer free" or anything of the sort. Not once. Yet that doesnt stop you from making the accusation.

This goes right along with you accusing American Patrol of being a "rally for machine-gunning the spicks[sic]" and such. Despite the fact that you could not provide a single quote or article from American Patrol to back up your claim, you still continue your slander.

You obviously have been hallucinating. Either that, or you a freakin' liar. Take your pick - we all know your game here.

[RonDog]

I don't dispute Jim Robinson's right to make the decision he has, but I would like to understand the rationale behind it...

Perhaps the answer lies amongst the six hundred replies on THIS thread, from about six months ago:

According to Joe Hadenuf: Official Free Republic Position Parallels GOP On Immigration. No Big Deal
6/23/02 | Joe Hadenuf
Posted on 06/23/2002 12:52 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf

Last night during a conversation/debate between myself and the leader/owner of the Free Republic, Jim Robinson, a rather stunning revelation was brought forth. I asked Mr. Robinson, which Republicans were vocally backing, and supporting Tancredo in his fight for our sovereignty?
After some delay, Jim answered, “I have no idea. Immigration is not a big concern of mine.”

more

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I knew about Vdare. But, American Patrol? I'd like clarification on the issue of AP and whether it's legal to post AP here.

[wardaddy]

The thinking person knows the difference.

I disagree. When one uses the racist or anti-jew tag incessantly, it dilutes the intended purpose. I understand your enthusiasm to keep a perpetual purge going at all times to ward off nasty folks but it can just as easily be used to try to shut down dissenting voices....which is precisely how the liberals use such contentious words. It's like publicly proclaiming someone to be a child molester or abuser in today's climate...some of the goo almost always invariably sticks. I don't think I said anything about witholding my own contributions from this site. Nor have I seen anything on these scorned sites that looks so offensive at first glance whereas on Stormfront as you alluded to, one can tell fairly easy that one is "not in Kansas anymore".

[rogerthedodger]

I'm with you in spirit CIS. I think one can talk about race or nationality without being a racist, just as one could discuss, for example, Marx without being a Marxist.

I think the point of posting articles on FR is to gauge the opinion of a wide audience of people--to get all viewpoints. Excluding certain viewpoint, no matter how odious one may think them, begins to whittle down the purpose of the forum.

More and more I'm seeing a great deal of intolerance on threads posted here. There have always been ridiulous displays of ignorance and great willingness to indulge in personal attack and name-calling, but at least in the past you could express an intelligent opinion and not have five replies calling you a Buchananite, Buckleyite, Ne-con, dumb paleo, Bushie, etc etc. (sort of like "Trotskyite" "Counter-Revolutinary" "Splitter" etc etc). It's sad to see that the viwership of the website is being curtailed to only a few set of approved ideologies, whether this is deliberate or not.

[StarFan]

Ping

[Brownie74]

Yeeeesh!! Here we go again. I have posted articles here that I took off of American Patrol. Most of the stuff on AP comes from local newspaper articles anyway.

I find no fault with VDare either. The truth is the truth. What's wrong with that?

[warchild9]

FR's censorship isn't complete, since heterodoxes such as myself aren't suppressed. it's a big Web and there's plenty of room for everyone out there!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The ugliest, most venomous, obscenity-strewn posts I've read on FR came in response to my speculating that the country would have been better off if MLK had lived.

Quite a chilling experience.

Free speech is vital. But some things trump even the First Amendment -- things like common sense, compassion and faith.

[b4its2late]

I don't like it and I don't want it on FR.

That'll work for me!

On a side note......Boy, you replied quick...... I'm impressed! :-)

[b4its2late]

Just a question then a suggestion from a neutral party..... Would you consider yourself a person that trys to tell the captain where his ship should be sailing? If you owned the ship, that would be ok. But since you don't own the ship and he does, live with Jim's reply.

He don't want to go there, so don't post it here.....

Just a friendly suggestion.

[Illbay]

When one uses the racist or anti-jew tag incessantly, it dilutes the intended purpose.

Sorry I wasn't clear, but that was precisely my point. It's just that if there IS some apparent substance to the charges, they become more credible.

"Thinking people know the difference" means that if there's no "there" there, most people will dismiss such a spurious charge.

[Sir Gawain]

If you owned the ship, that would be ok.

Who is paying for the ship?

[b4its2late]

He built the ship. He sails the ship.

[Neets]

No one is denied a ride on the ship because they don't pay.