A Reader Passes On Mark Steyn's Comments On Immigration Anarcho-Tyranny—And VDARE.com
Print Friendly and PDF

Earlier: Mark Steyn Points Out The SPLC, PayPal Attack On VDARE.Com Is A Harbinger Of Social Credit Score Dystopia For ALL Dissidents

From: A VDARE.com Reader [Email him]

Judging from his latest commentary, it appears that Mark Steyn is a reader of VDare.com.  After providing a synopsis of the Hindu-Muslim riots in Leicester, England (and the kid-glove reporting about these events in The Spectator), he recommends that readers go to VDare.com for a better account.

If you would like to read a blunter take than the Speccie’s, Peter Brimelow’s VDare has one. I mentioned Mr Brimelow on air the other day, as an early example of how so-called ”cancel culture” doesn’t mean merely that a state university or NPR won’t hire you or review your book; it increasingly means a denial of such things as an Internet provider or a merchant processor of credit-card payments—the basic services necessary to function in the modern world. In other words, a ChiCom ”social credit” system:

You can ask Peter Brimelow about how that goes over at VDare.com because he’s living it right now. He was the pilot programme for this.

Indeed. This week, PayPal (a de facto monopoly) came for my old comrade Toby Young —freezing not only his personal account but those of the two institutions he currently runs, The Daily Sceptic and the Free Speech Union. Toby doesn’t talk much about immigration, which is necessarily a third-rail issue. But the Daily Sceptic has been critical of lockdown and the Free Speech Union defends lady novelists accused of transphobia. At this stage, it might be quicker for PayPal to let us know on what subjects a diversity of opinions is still permitted. The quality of the CGI in X-Men 37.

Here’s a link to the entire essay: A Land of Selective Laws, Mark’s Midweek Notebook, September 21, 2022.  It begins with a scathing description of the anarcho-tyranny practiced by our immigration authorities.

However, if you like selective application of the law, you’ll be thrilled to hear that in recent days two foreign visitors headed to Steyn HQ to tape a couple of interviews were both fingerprinted by the crazed fanatics of US Immigration.

Fingerprinting is something you do to criminals. My guests were traveling for business on passports of two prosperous western nations that happen to be, both formally and more broadly, ”allies” of the United States. But, in the crapped-out Oppositeland that is today’s America, the southern border is open 24/7 to human traffickers, drug cartels, child sex-slavers, terrorists, bearers of viruses, and illegal immigrants with no verifiable identity, while respectable travelers without criminal records are treated as low-life scum by the perverts of US officialdom. Neither of my guests enjoyed the experience, and, notwithstanding the efforts of my hospitality to compensate, neither has any desire to set foot in the United States ever again.

James Fulford writes: The problems of legal immigrants dealing with the American immigration system versus the illegals crossing the southern border is the subject of one of VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow’s earliest columns on the subject, Time To Rethink Immigration, in 1992.

DANTE would have been delighted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting rooms. They would have provided him with a tenth Circle of Hell. There is something distinctly infernal about the spectacle of so many lost souls waiting around so hopelessly, mutually incomprehensible in virtually every language under the sun, each clutching a number from one of those ticket-issuing machines which may or may not be honored by the INS clerks before the end of the Civil Service working day.

The danger of damnation is perhaps low—although a Scottish friend of mine once found himself flung into the deportation holding tank because the INS misunderstood its own rules.

As regards to the whole ”cancellation” thing, we’re always grateful to Steyn for his kind words, because he doesn’t make the mistake of saying, as some free speech defenders do, that we’re evil but shouldn’t be persecuted like that, rather he says ”I can think of no reason why in a free society a person should not be entitled to hold such views.”


Print Friendly and PDF