Republicans who denounce illegal immigration, but then stress the “need” for more legal immigration, as VDARE has said through the years, aren’t just myopic: they are blind to the reality that immigration will soon change the country permanently, and perhaps create conditions that are beyond repair. One reason legal immigration is particularly dangerous: It is creating an “overclass” of skilled immigrants who will leverage their professional success and financial power to greatly hasten white dispossession, and bring about the Great Replacement.

Several examples should give us pause:

• Sundar Pichai

Born in Madurai, India, Sundar Pichai, the [Khazar-banker-installed] CEO of Alphabet Inc. and its subsidiary Google, is one of the most prominent overclass immigrants in corporate America.

Under Pichai’s watch, Alphabet Inc. has taken to censoring the Right. This website fell victim to Big Tech’s witch hunt in 2020 when Alphabet subsidiary YouTube booted VDARE off the platform for supposedly violating rules that prohibit “hate speech.” YouTube has become a private censorship arm for the anti-white occupation regime and will continue to misuse its global power until anti-censorship laws govern the social media giants, which have become the equivalent of public utilities.

Remember what Pichai promised: To eliminate “borderline content”: “Content which doesn’t exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.”

Similar assaults on free speech will only intensify as foreigners occupy key positions in Big Tech and politics. Unlike the white Europeans who preceded them, for instance, America’s new, non-white immigrants don’t much care about defending the First Amendment.

• Jeet Heer

Heer, born in India and The Nation magazine’s National Affairs correspondent, is a vile creature who constantly peddles anti-white hate on social media. A Canadian national and former editor at the New Republic magazine, Heer is part of a transnational cadre of rootless cosmopolitans who take great pleasure in insulting whites for an easy paycheck.

In May, a Twitter user called Aditya Ingole dug up several of Heer’s tweets from 2018, when he vociferously bragged about hastening the Great Replacement.

We will replace you. Leftist always claim innocence while for the last 10 years their whole platform was demographic is destiny. I remember articles proclaiming the permanent majority in congress for democrats. pic.twitter.com/rOhtUr1XLn

— Aditya Ingole (@aadityaingole) May 22, 2022

Heer repeatedly tweeted “We will replace you.” One of the tweets he posted on October 28, 2018, went as follows:

Pro-tip: only response to make to an internet Nazi is ‘We will replace you.’

In a long thread on October 27, 2018, Heer discussed the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting and its link to anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism narrative is a worn-out card the Regime Media use to dismiss legitimate concerns about the effects of mass migration. Heer went with his usual “we will replace you” shtick, but then took it to another level by responding this way to a now-suspended user: “You lost in 1865 and in 1945. We will replace you.”

• Nikki Haley

Unlike the other figures here, Nikki Haley, was born (“Nimrata Randhawa”) in the U.S. She is arguably the most prominent Indian in Republican politics. As governor[ness] of South Carolina (2011-2017) and former ambassador to the United Nations, Haley has built an enviable national profile.

And unlike her anti-white, Indian counterparts on the Left, Haley is far from shrill. She’s a smart political operator and knows the party she represents is still predominantly white. She tailors her message accordingly.

Still, after the mass shooting at a black church in Charleston in 2015, then-Governor[ness] Haley obsequiously bowed down to the howling communist mob and its Regime Media Information Ministry, and ordered the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the State House [Confederate flag removal prompts dueling rallies at SC State House, by Madeline Stewart, WIS NEWS 10, July 10, 2021].

Anti-Confederate sentiments and the iconoclastic hatred of Confederate and Southern symbols, not least the statues that came down in Richmond, Virginia after the Floyd Hoax, are simply proxies for generalized anti-white hate. They’re stepping stones for the anti-white Left’s ultimate goal: erasing America’s white history. Spineless conservatives don’t recognize this and have gladly gone along. Non-white Republicans such as Haley, with no ancestral attachment to the country that took them in, are accelerating it.

• Karen Attiah

Although born in Desoto, Texas, Karen Attiah is of Nigerian-Ghanaian extraction and one ornery anti-white journalist to boot.

Her academic record is not too shabby (discounting Affirmative Action). She received a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University and a Master of Arts in International Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in 2012.

Unsurprisingly, those academic credentials, coupled with her non-white background, made her an easy fit as Global Opinions Editor at the Washington Post. On any given day, she publishes a vociferously anti-white propaganda piece. She takes full advantage of the bullhorn the Post handed her to routinely spew anti-white vitriol. For instance—ludicrously, given her privileged position—whites don’t let black women have their voices heard [America hates to let Black women speak, by Karen Attiah, Washington Post, October 8, 2020].

She’s even called for the Texas Rangers baseball team to change its name. For Attiah, naming a baseball franchise after the storied lawmen is a bridge too far. She thinks the Texas Rangers were racist because they were too tough on non-white criminals.

• Jia Lynn Yang

During the initial stages of the China virus, many East Asian-American grievance peddlers had to get their licks in against whites. While East Asians are much calmer and more intelligent than the overwhelming majority of nonwhites, the most opportunistic and conniving among them enthusiastically participate in the programmatic bashing of whites.

Jia Lynn Lang, now National Editor at the New York Times, exercised her East Asian privilege—high IQ, non-white—to attack whites throughout the China virus pandemic. She was particularly bothered by the alleged “torrent of anti-Asian racism in America” when the pandemic began.

If Yang has referred to the spate of black-on-Asian violence, I’d be a tad sympathetic to her and her fellow Asians’ plight. But her complaints were directed against white America and its egregious sin of racism towards Chinese and Japanese [When Asian-Americans Have to Prove We Belong | This isn’t the first time we’ve been treated as a threat, by Jia Lynn Yang, New York Times, April 10, 2020]. The op-ed promoted her book One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965.

Scott Greer did a great takedown of the book on one of his IQ Supplement episodes on his Highly Respected Substack page. The major takeaway is that the Hart-Celler generation of immigrants and their progeny hold uniquely hostile views to the Historic American Nation.

Our own @Steve_Sailer on: "Jia Lynn Yang's Disloyalty: Concept of "Citizenism" Has Not Exactly Caught on"https://t.co/e0OiWF7dIZ

— VDARE (@vdare) May 23, 2020

They don’t care about American traditions and will enthusiastically join the latest anti-white bacchanalia.

Yang’s book could be viewed as the anti–Alien Nation given its glorification of immigrant struggles and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of the Historic American Nation.

Yang’s Op-Ed is a puff-piece for her book, One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965. It's like https://t.co/5EONqfQvGK Editor Peter Brimelow’s ALIEN NATION in reverse. https://t.co/by4bv2B5zk

— VDARE (@vdare) April 14, 2020

• Saira Rao

Saira Rao is another strange specimen who takes great pleasure in using her activist position to pillory whites, but she isn’t just any unhinged anti-white hellraiser. She is the U.S. daughter of Indian immigrants and a seasoned anti-white professional. She formerly clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and worked as a lawyer on Wall Street.

Rao “began the painful process of dismantling her own internalized oppression” by transitioning towards anti-white activism. She set up a publishing company, In This Together, ran a failed congressional campaign as a candidate for Colorado’s 1st district (mostly Denver, 63% white) and then helped found Race2Dinner (at which liberal white women paid up to $3000.00 to learn how racist they were) with fellow ethnic grievance hustler Regina Jackson.

Why liberal white women pay a lot of money to learn over dinner how they’re racist

A growing number of women are paying to confront their privilege – and racism – at dinners that cost $2,500 https://t.co/pitH6Ewe3y

— Yashar Ali  (@yashar) February 3, 2020

On social media, Rao is openly anti-white. She has openly expressed her disgust with the United States by declaring that “The American flag makes me sick.” Rao finds racism in every nook and cranny of American society.

This country is a racist transphobic homophobic xenophobic ableist classist Islamophobic misogynistic dumpster fire.

As such, seeing the American flag makes me want to vomit.

— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) June 22, 2022

At some point, we will have to acknowledge that many white people love racism more than they love themselves.

— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) August 9, 2020

Rao recently teamed up with Jackson to write White Women: Everything You Already Know About Your Own Racism and How to Do Better, which is set to be released at year’s end. One can only imagine the anti-white venom that will fill its pages.

America’s Leftist high-skilled immigrants are amassing considerable wealth, power, and social prominence, with which they are building a vast network of anti-white elites who will dictate the country’s multicultural course.

Things will only worsen if GOP policy makers don’t get serious about restricting all immigration. That means clamping down on the legal immigration mainstream Republicans countersignal immigration patriots about.

Like all predictable political disasters, the forthcoming demographic dispossession of the Historic American Nation can be stopped. Legislation in the 1920s is a model for immigration reform that could preserve America’s European identity. Ideally, we’d have a U.S. Ruling Class that goes the extra mile by implementing an immigration moratorium, a desperately needed measure to prevent the anti-white Left from achieving electoral hegemony and turning the country into a veritable Tower of Babel.

The country faces a civilizational emergency. Half-measures won’t stop it.

For proof that nothing in the document was particularly radical, look no further than the March 2, 2020, letter from Yale University signed by 800 top professionals. It warned against quarantines, lockdowns, closures, and travel restrictions. It said such extreme measures “can undermine public trust, have large societal costs and, importantly, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments in our communities.” That document appeared only two weeks before the lockdowns announced by the Trump administration. 

That was the period of the grant amnesia. The conventional wisdom turned on a dime toward full backing of regime priorities, a shift more extreme and mind boggling that anything in dystopian fiction.

Seven months later, the Great Barrington Declaration said something very similar to the Yale document. It was a summary statement concerning what governments and society should and should not do during pandemics. They should seek to allow everyone to live as normally as possible in order to avoid guaranteed damage from coerced disruptions. And the vulnerable population – those who would experience medically significant impacts from exposure – should be protected from exposure insofar as doing so is consistent with human rights and choice.

It was nothing particularly novel, much less radical. Indeed, it was accepted wisdom the year before and for the previous century. The difference this time, however, is that the statement was released during the wildest and most destructive science experiment in modern times. The existing policy of lockdowns was utter wreckage: of businesses, schools, churches, civic life, and freedom itself. Masks were being forced on the whole population, including children. Governments were attempting a regime of test, track, trace, and isolate, as if there were ever any hope of containing a respiratory pathogen with a zoonotic reservoir. 

The carnage was everywhere already and obvious from a look at every downtown of every city in the US. Stores were boarded up. The streets were mostly empty. The professional class was hunkered down, binging on streaming and gaming services, while the working class was hustling everywhere to deliver groceries to doorsteps. In short, insanity had broken out. 

Several groups of doctors had already made strong statements against the goings on, including the frontline doctors group on Capitol Hill and the brilliant Bakersfield doctors, among many individuals. However, they were quickly shot down by major media and blasted for failing to support the great undertaking. Even that was astonishing to watch unfold. It didn’t matter how exalted the reputations of the doctors or scientists were. They were all shot down, more or less instantly, as crazies and cranks. 

It was like living in a horror house of mirrors where nothing appears as it is supposed to. At the time, I chalked it all up to mass confusion, cultural amnesia, bad education, government overreach, media ignorance, or just some general tendency of humanity to go mad that I had not previously seen in my lifetime but had only known from history books. 

Several top epidemiologists felt the same way. They were Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford, and Sunetra Gupta from Oxford. Together they wrote a very short statement in hopes of bringing public officials and common people back to good sense and rationality. We had the idea of putting it online and inviting others to sign. We were racing against time because there were several interviews coming up. Lucio Saverio-Eastman, now with Brownstone, skipped a nights’ sleep to create the website. He tells the story here. 

The blowback began within hours. It was really something to behold. Twitter accounts came out of nowhere to smear the document and its producers and the institution that hosted the event where the scientists explained their thinking. The calumnies and attacks were coming in so quickly that it was impossible to respond. The website itself was subject to open and admitted sabotage, with fake names. That required some fast patches and new levels of security. 

It was a storm of frenzy the likes of which I had never seen. It’s one thing to object to a point of view but this was next-level. The hit pieces were pouring out of huge venues, almost as if they had been ordered from the top. Much later we found out that they had in fact been ordered: Francis Collins, the head of National Institutes of Health, called for a “quick and devastating takedown” of the document. 

When that revelation came out, it didn’t make much sense to me. I get that this view had become what seemed to be a minority view but how do you “take down” the public health wisdom of one hundred years? The GBD was not the outlying position; the lockdowns were the radical move that never had a scientific justification. They were just imposed as if they were normal even though everyone knew they were not. 

Lately we’ve been flooded with more information that starts to make sense of this puzzle. As Rajeev Venkayya had told me the previous April, the whole point of the lockdowns was to wait for the vaccine. Frankly, I didn’t believe him at the time. I should have. After all, it was he who had invented the idea of lockdowns, worked for the Gates Foundation as head of its vaccine advisory, and then moved to a vaccine company thereafter. If anyone knew the real plan, it was he. 

In the meantime, we now know there was then being built a vast censorship machinery involving the federal government, outposts as universities such as Stanford and Johns Hopkins, tech companies, and media embeds in all important outlets. It was not only being built but being deployed in order to craft the public mind in ways that would maintain the spirit of fear and the reality of lockdowns until the magic inoculation arrived. The whole plot sounds straight out of a bad Hollywood movie, but it was a plot being enacted in real life. 

Think here of the timing of the Great Barrington Declaration. It came out barely a month before the election, after which the plan from the top was to release the vaccine, presumably after the sitting president was defeated. That way the new president could get the credit for the distribution stage and thus would the pandemic end. 

The underlying dynamic of the timing of the release of the GBD – we had no clue at all that this was going on – worked utterly to subvert the entire censorship regime. The perception too was that this document would undermine vaccine acceptance. At that point in the great plan, all focus was on molding the public mind toward mass jabbing. That meant cultivating among the population the appearance of expert unity.

“Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed,” said the document. “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.”

Further, “the most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”

Reading those words today, in light of what we now know, we can start to make sense of the sheer panic at the top. Natural infection and immunity? Can’t talk about that. The end of the pandemic is not “dependent upon” the vaccine? Can’t say that either. Go back to normal for all populations without significant medical risk? Unsayable. 

You need only reflect on the astounding barrage of vaccine propaganda that began immediately upon release, the attempt to mandate it on the whole population and now the addition of the Covid jab to the childhood schedule even though children are of near zero risk. This is all about [depopulation, dehumanizing and] product sales, as you can easily discern from the unrelenting ad videos made by the new head of the CDC. 

As for the product effectiveness itself, there seems to be no end to the ensuing problems. It was not a sterilizing inoculation, and it appears that the manufacturers always knew that. It could not stop infection or transmission. The hazards associated with it were also known early on. Every day, the news gets more grim: in the latest revelation, the CDC seems to have kept two separate books on vaccine injury, one public (showing harms without precedent but which has been deprecated by officials) and one yet to be released. 

Even now, therefore, there is every effort being made to keep a lid on what surely ranks as the greatest failure/scandal in the modern history of public health. Some brave experts called it out before the whole calamity unfolded even further. 

The problem with the Great Barrington Declaration was not that it was not true. It’s that – unbeknownst to its authors – it flew in the face of one of the most funded and elaborate industrial plots in the history of governance. Just a few sentences sneaking through the wall of censorship they were carefully constructing was enough to threaten and eventually dismantle the best laid plans. 

Sometimes just telling the plain truth in well-timed ways is all it takes. (read more)

George Soros has wreaked havoc nationwide by funneling enormous sums of his vast wealth into lower-profile public offices with an outsized impact on the direction of the nation. Almost 20 years ago he started his SOS Project, focusing on electing leftwing secretaries of state because they are chief elections officers of their respective states, resulting in major reinterpretations of elections laws. This accelerated a leftward shift in voting laws that would result in pushing ballot harvesting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, forbidding voter ID and blocking other election integrity measures.

In the past few years, his network has shifted to county prosecutors, resulting in repeated outrages in leftwing enclaves like New York City (Alvin Bragg) and Los Angeles (George Gascon). They have also been a major focus in the Virginia counties surrounding Washington DC, like Arlington (Parisa Dehghanti-Tafti) and Fairfax (Steve Descano).

But all those jurisdictions are solidly blue. Just past Fairfax to the north and west is Loudoun County. More than a decade ago it was ruby red (as was Fairfax not many years prior to that), but now it is clearly purple – and gets outsized media attention, as it appears to be both a microcosm of the fight for Virginia but also a flashpoint for battling over parental rights and schools, especially on issues like Critical Race Theory and transgender issues involving sports and student safety.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly that in the top two law enforcement positions in the county. The sheriff is Mike Chapman, a 46-year law enforcement professional who is a conservative Republican, managing a department with over 800 officers. But the district attorney – called the “commonwealth attorney” in Virginia – is Biberaj, a leftwing fanatic with a list of crimes she refused to prosecute, who had received almost $1 million in campaign cash from Soros’s network.

But it was not enough to save Biberaj from the wrath of voters in this D.C .exurb, even though Biberaj had a total of $1.1 million this year and her Republican challenger, Bob Anderson, had only $70,000. Despite a 15:1 cash advantage and all the benefits of incumbency, Anderson edged out the radical Biberaj, 68,068 to 67,768 – a margin of 300 votes.

Polling shows Republicans continue to hold massive advantages over Democrats on issues of law and order, border security, and public safety. (read more)

Asked if the beating was a hate crime, Johansson said there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.

“Right now I have no evidence at all that this is a hate crime,” Johansson said Tuesday. “It is a murder, which in my opinion is a very heinous crime in and of itself, but I do not have evidence of a hate crime.”

This marks the second viral video since August to show Las Vegas teens displaying an apparent callous disregard for human life. On Aug. 14, cyclist Andreas Probst was killed, allegedly by two teens in a hit-and-run, one whom allegedly recorded the incident. Johansson was asked what these videos say about children in Las Vegas.

“I don’t want to get into surmising what I believe is going on with the youth,” Johansson said. “I don’t want to believe that this is what everyone is doing. I want to believe that this is a small subset of the population.” (read more)

US District Judge B. Lynn Winmill recently unsealed a court filing, an amended complaint that perhaps contains the most evidence yet gathered by the FTC in its long-standing mission to crack down on data brokers allegedly "substantially" harming consumers by invading their privacy.

The FTC has accused Kochava of violating the FTC Act by amassing and disclosing "a staggering amount of sensitive and identifying information about consumers," alleging that Kochava's database includes products seemingly capable of identifying nearly every person in the United States.

According to the FTC, Kochava's customers, ostensibly advertisers, can access this data to trace individuals' movements—including to sensitive locations like hospitals, temporary shelters, and places of worship, with a promised accuracy within "a few meters"—over a day, a week, a month, or a year. Kochava's products can also provide a "360-degree perspective" on individuals, unveiling personally identifying information like their names, home addresses, phone numbers, as well as sensitive information like their race, gender, ethnicity, annual income, political affiliations, or religion, the FTC alleged.

Beyond that, the FTC alleged that Kochava also makes it easy for advertisers to target customers by categories that are "often based on specific sensitive and personal characteristics or attributes identified from its massive collection of data about individual consumers." These "audience segments" allegedly allow advertisers to conduct invasive targeting by grouping people not just by common data points like age or gender, but by "places they have visited," political associations, or even their current circumstances, like whether they're expectant parents. Or advertisers can allegedly combine data points to target highly specific audience segments like "all the pregnant Muslim women in Kochava’s database," the FTC alleged, or "parents with different ages of children."

"Kochava’s use and disclosure of this precise geolocation information invade consumers’ privacy and cause or are likely to cause consumers substantial injury," the FTC's amended complaint said. "In addition, Kochava collects, uses, and discloses enormous amounts of additional private and sensitive information about consumers. Kochava’s use and disclosure of this data, whether alone or in conjunction with Kochava’s geolocation data, also invade consumers’ privacy and cause or are likely to cause consumers substantial injury."

According to the FTC, Kochava obtains data "from a myriad of sources, including from mobile apps and other data brokers," which together allegedly connects a web of data that "contains information about consumers’ usage of over 275,000 mobile apps."

The FTC alleged that this usage data is also invasive, allowing Kochava customers to track not just what apps a customer uses, but how long they've used the apps, what they do in the apps, and how much money they spent in the apps, the FTC alleged.

Kochava "provides an unprecedented view into a consumer’s personal actions, decisions, and behaviors," the FTC alleged, seeming particularly concerned that Kochava collects barely any information from its customers before providing access to this sensitive information. "Kochava’s practices intrude into the most private areas of consumers’ lives and cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers," the complaint said.

Kochava "could implement safeguards to protect consumer privacy, such as blacklisting sensitive locations from its data feeds or removing sensitive characteristics from its data" at "a reasonable cost and expenditure of resources," but deliberately chooses not to, the FTC alleged. Instead, Kochava "actively promotes its data as a means to evade consumers’ privacy choices," the FTC alleged. Further, the FTC alleged that there are no real ways for consumers to opt out of Kochava's data marketplace, because even resetting their mobile advertising IDs—the data point that's allegedly most commonly used to identify users in its database—won't stop Kochava customers from using its products to determine "other points to connect to and securely solve for identity.”

For these reasons, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction to stop Kochava from its allegedly unfair use and sale of consumer data.

Winmill wrote in an order to unseal the amended complaint that the FTC still has to prove that Kochava has violated the FTC Act, but its arguments are sufficient to survive Kochava's motion for sanctions, which the judge's order also denied.

According to Winmill, Kochava "has not offered any compelling reason to maintain the amended complaint under seal."

"Certainly, the FTC’s allegations cast Kochava’s services in an unfavorable light," Winmill wrote. "But that is no reason to shield the complaint from public view."

Experts told The Record that the ruling was "a promising turnaround in a landmark FTC action against a major data broker" and noted that unsealing the complaint has now revealed "Kochava’s shocking appetite for the most sensitive details of lives and the ways the company uses that data to profile, target, discriminate, and profit."

Kochava’s request to sanction FTC denied

Last year, when the FTC sued Kochava, the adtech firm quickly counter sued, claiming that the FTC's lawsuit was an overreach. Initially, Kochava won, and the FTC's lawsuit was dismissed because a judge agreed that the FTC had not "adequately alleged a 'substantial injury to consumers.'"

But the court gave the FTC 30 days to gather more factual support and amend its complaint, which the FTC then filed and sought to seal "out of an abundance of caution" to ensure that Kochava's trade secrets were protected while the case was litigated.

The FTC gave Kochava one week to respond to its motion to seal the complaint, then moved to withdraw the motion after Kochava failed to respond. The very next day, Kochava filed documents opposing the FTC's motion to unseal and requesting the court impose sanctions against the FTC for filing a baseless claim.

Kochava hoped the court would impose sanctions on the FTC because Kochava argued that many of the FTC's allegations were "knowingly false." But Winmill wrote that the bar for imposing sanctions is high, requiring that Kochava show that the FTC's complaint was not just implausibly pled, but "clearly frivolous," raised "without legal foundation," or "brought for an improper purpose."

In the end, Winmill denied the request for sanctions, partly because the court could not identify a "single" allegation in the FTC complaint flagged by Kochava as false that actually appeared "false or misleading," the judge wrote.

Instead, it seemed like Kochava was attempting to mislead the court. On several occasions, Kochava inaccurately described the FTC's claims or simply disagreed with the FTC's analysis, Winmill wrote. At other times, Kochava attempted to dispute FTC allegations based on its "implementation of a new Privacy Block feature" that makes it impossible to identify a mobile user in its database based on "geolocation data near healthcare facilities, places of worship, shelters for the unhoused, and recovery centers." But Winmill invalidated this argument by pointing out that any updates that Kochava made to its database after the FTC filed its lawsuit did not "foreclose the FTC’s request for injunctive relief" based on injuries that occurred before Kochava added the feature.

Winmill said that for now, the FTC has provided enough support for its allegations against Kochava for the lawsuit to proceed.

"The Court concludes that the FTC’s legal and factual allegations are not frivolous," Winmill wrote, dismissing Kochava's motion for sanctions. The judge concluded that Kochava's claims that the FTC intended to harass and generate negative publicity about the data broker were ultimately "long on hyperbole and short on facts." (read more)

Thus opens the foundational epic of European civilization.

Achilles is angry because his woman, Briseis, has been appropriated by Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks. He expresses this discontent by going on strike. While the rest of the Greek army fights and dies outside the walls of Troy, Achilles lounges in his tent, content to sit out the combat until Agamemnon comes to his senses and returns his war bride. If Achilles were simply any other warm body with a spear, this wouldn’t be such a big deal, but he is Achilles – the greatest warrior of the Heroic Age. Without him, the Greeks are at a severe disadvantage. Achilles’ petulance is therefore a problem for Agamemnon.

The lesson is hardly a subtle one. Kings and generals need to keep their soldiers happy. They especially need to keep their best soldiers happy. If they don’t – for instance, by taking their women from them – morale will suffer, and they may well find themselves without the crucial support of their warriors when it most matters.

Washington seems to have missed that lesson, and now, they’re paying the price.

For the last decade they have been relentlessly and mercilessly whipping American whites: defaming them as racists, mocking their intelligence and manliness, tearing down their statues, erasing the names of their ancestral heroes, replacing their fictional archetypes with diverse doppelgangers in the media, disadvantaging them in education and employment, demanding that they attend racial struggle sessions. The list of outrages and humiliations is long and all too familiar, permeating as it does every one of our institutions.

But now, the Empire of Lies faces a problem.

War has returned to the world. History, its rumoured demise notwithstanding, once again stalks the land. Russia mauls the Ukraine; Israel is beset with enemies; the Empire’s influence in Africa frays by the day; China salivates over Taiwan.

Meanwhile the American domestic economy, long since hollowed out by the extractive rent-seeking of financial parasites, lurches from one crisis to the next. The Great Satan remains powerful, for the present, but the young bucks can scent that the silverback is not what he used to be. Their provocations increase in daring and intensity. If they aren’t slapped down, their boldness will only increase.

The criminal regime that has insinuated itself into the halls of American power is running against a clock. They must have a war to cover the slow collapse of their fake economy. They must have a war to prevent rival regimes from displacing their American golem. But their golem is crumbling. Therefore they must have a war sooner rather than later, because with every moment of delay America becomes weaker, while China and Russia become stronger.

Their problem is that no one wants to fight for them.

The core warrior population of America has always been the Scots-Irish of the Appalachian regions, the good ol’ boys of the South, and the farm boys of the Midwest. Hillbillies and rednecks, in other words. Many families from these areas have multi-generational traditions of service. Dad served in Vietnam, Grampa in WWII, Great-Grandpa in the Great War, and Great-Grandpa’s Pappy fought under Lee in the War of Northern Aggression.

These are precisely the white populations that have been singled out for the most unrelenting and vicious racial abuse over the last several decades. They are the one group that it’s okay to defame in the media, depicted as ignorant, bigoted, backwards, and inbred. The people running Hollywood seem to have a special disgust for them. For generations they have born this with a sort of stoic good cheer, accepting their role as the heel in the great kayfabe of American political drama even as they shouldered a disproportionate burden of blood, tears, and sweat in America’s imperial wars.

The events of the last two decades seem to have put an end to that. It wasn’t just the psychotic frenzy of race communism that gripped the regime’s mind, although that certainly played a factor as the military has hardly been immune to it. Who wants to serve in an armed forces that has thrown meritocracy in the trash to make sure the commissioned ranks include as many strong black lesbians as possible, that spends more time making sure the enlisted ranks understand the nuances of pronoun usage and the finer points of critical race theory than training for war? Demoralizing as all that has been, the absolutely pointless debacle of the Neocon Forever War in the Middle East has played at least as large a role.

The Terror War started with the moral fervor of a crusade. The Arabs1 had struck at America’s heart, destroying the World Trade Centre2 and attacking the Pentagon itself. Osama bin Laden had to be found and killed; Al Qaeda had to be dismantled; we had to fight them over there or we’d have to fight them over here3. Then we were told that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program, that he was working on weapons of mass destruction, and that we had to destroy his fascist Ba’athist regime before Zero Day destroyed DC or NYC or some other sodomopolis that people still actually liked back in those days.

And then, for twenty years – for so long that by the end, there were young men serving in the same war that their fathers had fought in at the beginning – America stumbled around like a drunken bull elephant, smashing up countries it knew nothing about for reasons that no one in charge could articulate. We were nation-building, or democracy-building, or institution-building, or defending the rights of women and sexual minorities, or whatever. The excuses seemed to change every few years, as the meat grinder churned on, sending back the occasional mutilated corpse, and a much larger number of the permanently maimed and the irreparably psychologically broken.

The retreat from Kabul revealed the sordid rot behind the tawdry facade of America’s longest war for the world to see. The military had spent a generation propping up a secular “liberal democracy”, which the intelligence agencies were quite positive was strong enough to survive the withdrawal of America’s military. Instead the entire thing collapsed before the military had even pulled out. Worse, the gross, criminal incompetence of the general staff themselves turned the withdrawal into a shambolic debacle. Worst of all, in the aftermath no one was held accountable: not for screwing up the war, not even for screwing up the withdrawal. The only officer to face any consequences was a lone, brave colonel whose career was destroyed for publicly suggesting that someone take accountability.

Every single veteran who had fought for the American military between 2001 and 2021 watched as twenty years of brutal combat, thousands of flag-draped coffins, and trillions of dollars successfully replaced the Taliban with the Taliban.

And they watched as every single member of the august class of perfumed princes and political bosses responsible shrugged off the entire needless disaster without offering so much as a “sorry.” I suspect it was hard for them not to also reflect that those same people had lied through their perfect Hollywood teeth about Saddam’s WMDs ... and more than a few might have wondered about Building 7 and Dancing Israelis.

Meanwhile, the border leaks like an overflowing dam.

Illegal immigration isn’t just an American problem. Migrants flood by the million into Europe, as well. Then there’s legal immigration. The years of the Terror War corresponded to an unprecedented demographic assault upon the core populations of every single Western country, most especially the Anglo countries that were the main belligerents in the war. The Neocon strategy was to invade the world and invite the world – importing as fast as possible the very people most directly affected and therefore most angered by their callous brutality. “Let’s stir up the barbarians and then let as many as possible inside the gates” is so obviously dumb that it’s hard to believe anyone could be that stupid on purpose, suggesting that these think tank ghouls specifically wanted to destabilize the homeland. I don’t find that hard to believe, personally: it’s not like they have any loyalty to the lands they manage. Their centre of tribal gravity is elsewhere. The homeland being destablized isn’t their homeland.

America and its satellites are controlled by a regime that has demonstrated itself to be incompetent and mendacious in the prosecution of war, contemptuous of the populations it rules and most especially contemptuous of those sub-populations who fight for it, and not so much unconcerned as actively hostile to the territorial integrity of the states they control.

It is no accident that the American military is in a recruiting crisis. Who in their right mind would want to fight for a regime regarding which the primary controversy is whether it is merely stupid or actively evil, and of which it is not controversial at all that the stupid and/or evil people managing it hate you?

So. A few days ago a new recruiting ad dropped. Emma and her two moms were nowhere to be seen.

There was not a single diverse or empowered face. The stunning and brave had disappeared entirely. Instead, we were treated to an old-school Be All You Can Be slogan, underlining footage of a planeload of a ruggedly masculine white faces parachuting out into the open air.

The response on Xitter, at least, was one of unrelenting mockery. Oh, now that we’re on the verge of war with Russia and China, suddenly you want the despised white boys to place their stale, pale, and male bodies in the way of switchblade drones and SAMs? Sorry, no. Fight your own war. Best of luck with the trans women of colour, we’re sure their pronoun power will prove more than sufficient to defeat the Mongol hordes.

This is probably not the response that the army’s marketing department was hoping for. The ad likely emerged from a long series of interminable and extremely awkward committee meetings, in which everyone danced around the obvious fact that years of messaging aimed at the college-indoctrinated neurodivergent socially conscious zillennial demographic had manifestly failed to attract the hoped for diverse army of the future, but had quite successfully alienated the long-standing core recruiting pool.

So, back to basics.

Show the rubes some red meat, and they’ll forget all about Emma.

Right?

Anheuser-Busch tried the same thing after its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney drove the sales of Bud Light through the floor. They didn’t dare apologize for an ill-considered affiliate campaign with a demented TikTok groomer. Instead, they tried to pretend that never happened, and pushed out a series of ads featuring Harley-Davidsons, tough working class men, American flags, and all the rest of the accoutrements of six-pack patriotism with which they had habitually adorned their product up until five minutes ago. It failed spectacularly. Sales didn’t budge, and AB InBev’s stock price did not recover. By associating their brand with a flamboyant tranny, they had made it a synechdoche for homosexuality. That association is now by all appearances effectively permanent.

Just so, perhaps, the US military.

Since the Obama years the officer corps, and particularly the general staff, has become bloated with political toadies. Old women like Mark “I want to understand white rage” Milley, whose best-known hit was promising to pass military secrets to the Chinese in case Cheetoh Hitler did something rash like trying to provoke WWIII in the South China Sea (something that sober and honest adults in the room such as Biden would never do) ...

Mincing bloatlords like Lloyd Austin, last seen hiding his face behind a pandemic panic shield, most famous for standing down the entire US military so the ‘extremism’ of voting Republican could be rooted out ...

Lovecraftian horrors like “Admiral” “Rachel” Levine ...

And most recently America’s first (biologically) female admiral to be appointed to lead the Navy, the schoolmarmish Lisa Franchetti.

Patton, MacArthur, Grant, and Lee these organisms are not.

The one fighting general with some resemblance to the warlords of old was James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who enjoyed a brief burst of popularity around 2017 or so until he was revealed as just another swamp creature slobbering after board appointments to consultancies and defense contractors, in the interests of which he was more than happy to betray both the soldiers he was appointed to lead and the president who appointed him to lead them.

Combine this with years of gay recruiting ads, leaked gender theology training videos, endless stories of training standards being reduced in order to ensure female fighter pilots and rangers can make the cheapened grade, bases being renamed to expunge the memory of Confederate war heroes, and hundreds of other little embarrassments and petty humiliations, and it perhaps should not be surprising that even in the midst of a terrible economy the white men the regime desperately needs to fight its wars are refusing to do so.

Sensibly enough, they are behaving like Achilles at the opening of the Iliad.

Metaphorically, the American warrior’s woman has been taken from him. Briseis in this analogy could be America itself, which has been rendered something uncomfortably alien as it has been handed over to aliens. It could stand for the real estate market, which Americans are increasingly priced out of so that BlackRock and the real estate trusts can turn a nation of homeowners into a rental favela. Frankly, it could be less a metaphor than a simple statement of fact: the American woman, once the envy of the world, has been mutated by decades of birth control pills, SSRIs, social media derangement, and feminism into a disquieting ungulate whose exterior ugliness is exceeded only by the spiteful resentment of her bitter soul.

Disrespected and dispossessed, the American Achilles refuses to fight.

Of course, the plot of the Iliad would have gone nowhere if Achilles had stayed reclining on his pillows throughout. Eventually, he was induced to return to the war: his best friend Patroclus was killed in the fighting, motivating Achilles to seek revenge. When he comes back to the fight, Agamemnon makes a big show of returning Briseis, although he dodges responsibility for the theft by blaming Zeus for driving him mad.

So far as I know it plays no part in the plot of the Iliad, but if Agamemnon had been sufficiently cunning, perhaps he might have arranged for Patroclus to die specifically to elicit this emotional reaction from Achilles. Certainly the American ruling class has done essentially this on multiple occasions, indeed in essentially every major conflict in which it has been involved. They sunk the Maine and blamed it on the Spanish Empire, put the Lusitania in harm’s way to motivate entry into the Great War, allowed the Japanese to sink the fleet at Pearl Harbor in order to achieve the necessary Day of Infamy, invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident out of whole cloth in order to escalate involvement in Vietnam beyond mere military advising, and as for the New Pearl Harbour that inaugurated the War on Terror, well....

Which isn’t to say it always works. There have been several false flags in Syria, for example – mostly gas attacks – which the regime tried unsuccessfully to pin on Assad. Enough doubt and mockery was heaped on these claims by the forces of weaponized autism to prevent them from motivating the American public to support direct military intervention on a large scale, with the result that, remarkably and to the immense frustration of the neocons, Assad very much remains in power.

Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some kind of outrage in the near future, to be pinned on Iran, or Russia, or even China. Maybe a low-level nuclear attack on an American city. Maybe the sinking of a carrier group. There are plenty of possibilities.

But outrage will not be enough. There must also be concessions. Agamemnon couldn’t rely solely on Achilles’ rage over Patroclus’ death, but also had to return Briseis. On that note, this post from /pol/ from back in February of 2023 seems prophetic:

As Anon says: don’t fall for it.

Don’t fall for the false flag, whatever shape it takes.

And don’t fall for their apparent concessions.

They’ve made it quite clear that they intend to demographically replace white people, not only in America, but throughout the Western world. Nothing would be suit them better than to round up all the young white men and send them off to be chewed up by machine guns, immolated by fuel-air bombs, maimed by loitering munitions, and bled out in the trenches, with the survivors returning to be spat upon, forgotten, and left to rot with xylazine needles in their arms.

The regime was perfectly happy to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Ukrainian heads were filled with nationalist fervor to defend their sacred clay from their cousins the Russian “orcs”, and the result has been nothing short of a demographic catastrophe: their women fled, their men dead, the flower of their youth cut off and made a burnt offering on the bloody altar of globohomo.

Don’t fight for these people. As Sam Hyde said, “When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think its funny.”

Let the Bud Light Army fight its own wars with their pet diversity hires. After all, are they not stunning and brave? Has the MCU not assured us that they are better than white men in every way? Let them prove it on the battlefield, and save your strength for the fight to come against the real enemy back home.

Stay in the damn tent.

....you really are fucking stupid.

A network of “sophisticated” high-end brothels in greater Boston and eastern Virginia provided sex for pay to “elected officials, high tech and pharmaceutical executives, doctors, military officers, government contractors that possess security clearances, professors,” and others, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

.....

Levy’s office said that the brothels required “interested sex buyers” to provide employer information and references before booking sessions with prostitutes.

The trysts took place in high-priced apartments rented by the principals of the scheme.

Who wants the over/under on whether all of those locations were seriously compromised with hidden cameras and other surveillance equipment and now there is a myriad amount of material for blackmail use.  Many of these "clients", I'm sure, are married but what is worse is that many of them held security clearances which would of course be subject to revocation in this sort of circumstance -- in which case said person is financially destroyed as they can no longer do their job.

Oh, and note the names of the principals.  Does that give you reason to believe there is a foreign entanglement involved in this?

Hoo-hoo is one of the oldest means of compromising someone in a sensitive position.

Its even better if you get them to pay for it when that would be an illicit encounter as opposed to just enjoying consensual sex with a date as a single person.

Twenty years ago, when I was a college student, I started writing about a then-nameless, niche ideology that seemed to contradict everything I had been taught since I was a child. 

It is possible I would not have perceived the nature of this ideology—or rather I would have been able to avoid seeing its true nature—had I not been a Jew. But I was. I am. And in noticing the way I had been written out of the equation, I started to notice that it wasn’t just me, but that the whole system rested on an illusion.

What I saw was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Color blindness with race obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob. 

People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues. According to them, as James Kirchick concisely put it: “Muslim > gay, black > female, and everybody > the Jews.”

I was an undergraduate back then, but you didn’t need a PhD to see where this could go. And so I watched, in horror, sounding alarms as loudly as I could. 

I was told by most Jewish leaders that, yes, it wasn’t great, but not to be so hysterical. Campuses were always hotbeds of radicalism, they said. This ideology, they promised, would surely dissipate as young people made their way in the world. 

It did not.

Over the past two decades I saw this inverted worldview swallow all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life. It started with the universities. Then it moved on to cultural institutions—including some I knew well, like The New York Times—as well as every major museum, philanthropy, and media company. Then on to our medical schools and our law schools. It’s taken root at nearly every major corporation. It’s inside our high schools and even our elementary schools. The takeover is so comprehensive that it’s now almost hard to notice it—because it is everywhere. 

Including in the Jewish community.

Some of the most important Jewish communal organizations transformed themselves in order to prop up this ideology. Or at the very least, they contorted themselves to signal that they could be good allies in the fight for equal rights—even as those rights are no longer presumed inalienable or equal and are handed out rather than protected.

For Jews there are obvious and glaring dangers in a worldview that measures fairness by equality of outcome rather than opportunity. If underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias, then overrepresentation—and Jews are two percent of the American population—suggests not talent or hard work, but unearned privilege. This conspiratorial conclusion is not that far removed from the hateful portrait of a small group of Jews divvying up the ill-gotten spoils of an exploited world. 

It isn’t only Jews who suffer from the suggestion that merit and excellence are dirty words. It is strivers of every race, ethnicity, and class. That is why Asian American success, for example, is suspicious. The percentages are off. The scores are too high. Who did you steal all that success from? 

Of course, this new ideology doesn’t come right out and say all that. It doesn’t even like to be named. Some call it wokeness or anti-racism or progressivism or safetyism or Critical Social Justice or identity Marxism. But whatever term you use, what’s clear is that it has gained power in a conceptual instrument called “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or DEI.

In theory, all three of these words represent noble causes. They are, in fact, all causes to which American Jews in particular have long been devoted, both individually and collectively. But in reality, these words are now metaphors for an ideological movement bent on recategorizing every American not as an individual, but as an avatar of an identity group, his or her behavior prejudged accordingly, setting all of us up in a kind of zero-sum game.

We have been seeing for several years now the damage this ideology has done: DEI, and its cadres of enforcers, undermine the central missions of the institutions that adopt it. But nothing has made the dangers of DEI clearer than what’s happening these days on our college campuses—the places where our future leaders are nurtured. 

It is there that professors are compelled to pledge fidelity to DEI in order to get hired, promoted, or tenured. (For more on this, please read John Sailer’s Free Press piece: How DEI Is Supplanting Truth as the Mission of American Universities.) And it is there that the hideousness of this worldview has been on full display over the past few weeks: we see students and professors immersed not in facts, knowledge, and history, but in a dehumanizing ideology that has led them to celebrate or justify terrorism. 

Jews, who understand that being made in the image of God bestows inviolate sanctity on every human life, must not stand by as that principle, so central to the promise of this country and its hard-won freedoms, is erased. 

What we must do is reverse this.

The answer is not for the Jewish community to plead its cause before the intersectional coalition or beg for a higher ranking in the new ladder of victimhood. That is a losing strategy—not just for Jewish dignity, but for the values we hold as Jews and as Americans. 

The Jewish commitment to justice—and the Jewish American community’s powerful and historic opposition to racism—is a source of tremendous pride. That should never waver. Nor should our commitment to stand by our friends, especially when they need our support as we now need theirs.

But DEI is not about the words it uses as camouflage. DEI is about arrogating power. 

And the movement that is gathering all this power does not like America or liberalism. It does not believe that America is a good country—at least no better than China or Iran. It calls itself progressive, but it does not believe in progress; it is explicitly anti-growth. It claims to promote “equity,” but its answer to the challenge of teaching math or reading to disadvantaged children is to eliminate math and reading tests. It demonizes hard work, merit, family, and the dignity of the individual. 

An ideology that pathologizes these fundamental human virtues is one that seeks to undermine what makes America exceptional.

It is time to end DEI for good. No more standing by as people are encouraged to segregate themselves. No more forced declarations that you will prioritize identity over excellence. No more compelled speech. No more going along with little lies for the sake of being polite.

The Jewish people have outlived every single regime and ideology that has sought our elimination. We will persist, one way or another. But DEI is undermining America, and that for which it stands—including the principles that have made it a place of unparalleled opportunity, safety, and freedom for so many. Fighting it is the least we owe this country.