Yvette Carnell & Jesse Lee Peterson are astroturfed by the same white supremacist sugar daddy

[GMoney]

Then, when reparations FINALLY gets popping to the level that politicians start speaking out, she suddenly jumps onto the wave late. But instead of joining up with the ones who are actually getting shyt done, she STILL shyts on Coates, still talks bullshyt about him and the others who have been fighting, and instead uses reparations in order to push her old talking points about Black and Brown immigrants that she's been sharing with all the White Supremacist folk.

And then she takes credit for all the shyt that everyone else has done, as if 16,000 twitter followers, some divisive language, and just a couple months of work suddenly changed the world when Coates was out there writing essays that were read by TENS OF MILLIONS of people and putting in five years of work to build it into a national discussion.

Yvette, Tone, Tariq and Co made the reps convo pop off in 2019.

The new black media has influence with black people that Coates doesn't. You keep harkening (wishing) for what you see as legitimate voices on this without being honest who's really propelling this conversation at the moment--and it's not your legitimate favorites; sorry it just isn't.

It doesn't matter the legacy media they publish or speak on, the 100k+ of followers combined from Yvette and Co on the various social media platforms is driving the convo, thus this push back!!!

Also, Yvette does give Coates credit on occasion, she doesn't just shyt on him.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I just found out that Steve Bannon is now honorary chairman of the Republican Hindu Coalition.


The same guy who ran alt-right Breitbart, continuously hypes "The Camp of the Saints" (an anti-Indian book so racist that the leader of the Indians in the book is a literal shyt-eating deranged religious fanatic), and who claimed that 3/4 of Silicon Valley was Indian....is now promoting "Hindu-American" interests in the USA.


The Hindus justify this because their organization is virulently anti-Muslim (they've called for profiling Muslims and surveling mosques and have supported mob violence against Muslims back in their home country), and they like that Bannon and Trump are virulently anti-Muslim too.

So what do y'all think? How do y'all think supporting White Nationalists in their fight against Muslim immigrants is going to work out for the Hindu immigrants?

I almost forgot the Trump administration on that Israel/pro-Jewish wave too.

Now y'all are in a "White Nationalists and Israel and ADOS and Hindu immigrants" coalition. It's a big tent!

Add conservative anti-immigration latinos to that.

You Don't Speak for Me - Wikipedia

The group was created after Rodriguez viewed media coverage of the 2006 United States immigration reform protests. According to Rodriguez, "Their leaders were saying it was a march for immigrant rights and a Latino/Hispanic movement. I thought to myself, 'Hey, those are illegal aliens, not immigrants!' I'm of Hispanic ancestry and those people are acting like they speak for me. Well, you don't speak for me!"[7]

You Don't Speak for Me was launched with help from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that supports lower levels of immigration in the United States.[8] Less than three months after the launch, a vice chair of the group claimed that it had attracted about a thousand members.[9]

These dudes have joined a rainbow coalition of crypto-fascists thinking they’re fighting for reparations.

 

[Stone Cold]

I didn’t get this tweet

Because if she is as anti-immigration as a lot posters here claim

She would be proud to support Obama

He did more for her political philosophy than PFIR ever could

Trump isn't matching Obama deportation numbers

No One Expected Obama Would Deport More People Than any Other U.S. President | WNYC | New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News

Deportations under Trump still lag far behind those carried out by the Obama administration

US government deporting Central American migrants to their deaths

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yvette, Tone, Tariq and Co made the reps convo pop off in 2019.

The new black media has influence with black people that Coates doesn't. You keep harkening (wishing) for what you see as legitimate voices on this without being honest who's really propelling this conversation at the moment--and it's not your legitimate favorites; sorry it just isn't.

It doesn't matter the legacy media they publish or speak on, the 100k+ of followers combined from Yvette and Co on the various social media platforms is driving the convo, thus this push back!!!

Also, Yvette does give Coates credit on occasion, she doesn't just shyt on him.

They don't have even 100k followers when a lot of the same people are following all of them on multiple platforms.

Yvette has 16k followers. And the vast majority of those were already pro-reparations ADOS folk (I assume, for your benefit). And the vast majority of people who follow a social media account don't do shyt - no one gets real-world engagement from even 10% of their followers. Go through her feed and look at how few of her followers are even bothering to share her posts, and that's like 3 steps down from any sort of real engagement. If she can't even get 1% or 0.1% of her followers to even like and share a post, how many are gonna do anything more than that?

So you want me to believe that a few hundred or at most a few thousand of her followers, nearly all of whom were already pro-reparations anyway, suddenly made an entire national conversation pop off in a matter of months....because they started sharing hashtags about the same thing they were already talking about?

Go out in the real world, step away from Yvette followers, and show me where to trace the reparations convo back to Yvette. Show me where that happens.


On the other hand, when Coates published The Case for Reparations, it was read by FOUR MILLION people on the very first day. It was the most-read article in The Atlantic's 150 year history. Soon it had been read by tens of millions of people from all across the American spectrum. And then there were numerous articles, panels, conferences, events, many involving seriously influential power players, organized in direct response to his article and the discussion it created. Events that have been building the momentum for five straight years.

Then Black Lives Matter picked up reparations as an official part of its platform in 2016. Against, a movement with MILLIONS of people who care about it, not just a few thousand. Many of whom were being energized by justice issues and coming to participate in the Black struggle for the first time.

You want me to believe that 16,000 followers on social media, most of whom were already the choir being preached too and who had no meaningful leverage to work with in order to influence power, were able to effect dramatic social change 10x as fast as tens of millions of people from across the ideological spectrum who were dealing with these views for the first time.

I can give you dozens of receipts of writers saying The Case for Reparations is what brought the reparations conversation to the mainstream. Both from people who support the movement and people who oppose it. I can list all sorts of people in powerful positions from all sorts of backgrounds who credit it with bringing them in favor of reparations, from Eric Holder to David Brooks. I personally have been pro-reparations for 20+ years, but before Coates's essay I hadn't felt like it was even possible to fight for, it felt like a lost cause. He made an incredible argument that gave a lot of us hope that hadn't had hope before. An argument that tens of millions of people actually read. The kind of argument that can change people's opinions and actually mobilize them to fight.

What has Yvette actually added to the conversation, I mean what has she said that actually influenced public discourse at all, other than a hashtag? A hashtag that doesn't even attract anyone to the cause, but just adds an extra line to fight over? What is her pro-reparations argument that has crossed outside of her limited network of followers, that we can see influencing the discourse?

I'm waiting for the receipts.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

They don't have even 100k followers when a lot of the same people are following all of them on multiple platforms.

Yvette has 16k followers. And the vast majority of those were already pro-reparations ADOS folk (I assume, for your benefit). And the vast majority of people who follow a social media account don't do shyt - no one gets real-world engagement from even 10% of their followers. Go through her feed and look at how few of her followers are even bothering to share her posts, and that's like 3 steps down from any sort of real engagement. If she can't even get 1% or 0.1% of her followers to even like and share a post, how many are gonna do anything more than that?

So you want me to believe that a few hundred or at most a few thousand of her followers, nearly all of whom were already pro-reparations anyway, suddenly made an entire national conversation pop off in a matter of months....because they started sharing hashtags about the same thing they were already talking about?

Go out in the real world, step away from Yvette followers, and show me where to trace the reparations convo back to Yvette. Show me where that happens.


On the other hand, when Coates published The Case for Reparations, it was read by FOUR MILLION people on the very first day. It was the most-read article in The Atlantic's 150 year history. Soon it had been read by tens of millions of people from all across the American spectrum. And then there were numerous articles, panels, conferences, events, many involving seriously influential power players, organized in direct response to his article and the discussion it created. Events that have been building the momentum for five straight years.

Then Black Lives Matter picked up reparations as an official part of its platform in 2016. Against, a movement with MILLIONS of people who care about it, not just a few thousand. Many of whom were being energized by justice issues and coming to participate in the Black struggle for the first time.

You want me to believe that 16,000 followers on social media, most of whom were already the choir being preached too and who had no meaningful leverage to work with in order to influence power, were able to effect dramatic social change 10x as fast as tens of millions of people from across the ideological spectrum who were dealing with these views for the first time.

I can give you dozens of receipts of writers saying The Case for Reparations is what brought the reparations conversation to the mainstream. Both from people who support the movement and people who oppose it. I can list all sorts of people in powerful positions from all sorts of backgrounds who credit it with bringing them in favor of reparations, from Eric Holder to David Brooks. I personally have been pro-reparations for 20+ years, but before Coates's essay I hadn't felt like it was even possible to fight for, it felt like a lost cause. He made an incredible argument that gave a lot of us hope that hadn't had hope before. An argument that tens of millions of people actually read.

What has Yvette actually added to the conversation, I mean what has she said that actually influenced public discourse at all, other than a hashtag? A hashtag that doesn't even attract anyone to the cause, but just adds an extra line to fight over?

I'm waiting for the receipts.

Plus you never know how many of her 16000 followers are duplicates, undercover white supremacists and bots.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Yvette has 16k followers.

Wait she only got 16K followers? In the whole world?

And this the movement that’s supposed to be “mainstream” and influencing the national political discourse?



It’s random stripper thots with 16K local nikkas following them

To me this just proves the coli is full of bots/agents.

No way the whole world only produced 16K Yvette followers and the coli got hundreds of them

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

Yvette, Tone, Tariq and Co made the reps convo pop off in 2019.

The new black media has influence with black people that Coates doesn't. You keep harkening (wishing) for what you see as legitimate voices on this without being honest who's really propelling this conversation at the moment--and it's not your legitimate favorites; sorry it just isn't.

It doesn't matter the legacy media they publish or speak on, the 100k+ of followers combined from Yvette and Co on the various social media platforms is driving the convo, thus this push back!!!

Also, Yvette does give Coates credit on occasion, she doesn't just shyt on him.

It's funny you say that because it's been noted that they're the leaders of #ADOS but a lot of propenents deny that claim




That acknowledgement is why a thread like this exists questionable ties among leadership

 

[GMoney]

They don't have even 100k followers when a lot of the same people are following all of them on multiple platforms.

Yvette has 16k followers. And the vast majority of those were already pro-reparations ADOS folk (I assume, for your benefit). And the vast majority of people who follow a social media account don't do shyt - no one gets real-world engagement from even 10% of their followers. Go through her feed and look at how few of her followers are even bothering to share her posts, and that's like 3 steps down from any sort of real engagement. If she can't even get 1% or 0.1% of her followers to even like and share a post, how many are gonna do anything more than that?

So you want me to believe that a few hundred or at most a few thousand of her followers, nearly all of whom were already pro-reparations anyway, suddenly made an entire national conversation pop off in a matter of months....because they started sharing hashtags about the same thing they were already talking about?

Go out in the real world, step away from Yvette followers, and show me where to trace the reparations convo back to Yvette. Show me where that happens.


On the other hand, when Coates published The Case for Reparations, it was read by FOUR MILLION people on the very first day. It was the most-read article in The Atlantic's 150 year history. Soon it had been read by tens of millions of people from all across the American spectrum. And then there were numerous articles, panels, conferences, events, many involving seriously influential power players, organized in direct response to his article and the discussion it created. Events that have been building the momentum for five straight years.

Then Black Lives Matter picked up reparations as an official part of its platform in 2016. Against, a movement with MILLIONS of people who care about it, not just a few thousand. Many of whom were being energized by justice issues and coming to participate in the Black struggle for the first time.

You want me to believe that 16,000 followers on social media, most of whom were already the choir being preached too and who had no meaningful leverage to work with in order to influence power, were able to effect dramatic social change 10x as fast as tens of millions of people from across the ideological spectrum who were dealing with these views for the first time.

I can give you dozens of receipts of writers saying The Case for Reparations is what brought the reparations conversation to the mainstream. Both from people who support the movement and people who oppose it. I can list all sorts of people in powerful positions from all sorts of backgrounds who credit it with bringing them in favor of reparations, from Eric Holder to David Brooks. I personally have been pro-reparations for 20+ years, but before Coates's essay I hadn't felt like it was even possible to fight for, it felt like a lost cause. He made an incredible argument that gave a lot of us hope that hadn't had hope before. An argument that tens of millions of people actually read. The kind of argument that can change people's opinions and actually mobilize them to fight.

What has Yvette actually added to the conversation, I mean what has she said that actually influenced public discourse at all, other than a hashtag? A hashtag that doesn't even attract anyone to the cause, but just adds an extra line to fight over? What is her pro-reparations argument that has crossed outside of her limited network of followers, that we can see influencing the discourse?

I'm waiting for the receipts.

I've had this SAME exact conversation with you before and the fact that you're repeating these same points shows I had no impact. I don't think I will this time either, but let this be for other people reading this exchange.

First, Yvette's influence is on YouTube, not Twitter, where she has 60k+ followers and her videos just on her channel alone have been viewed over 10 million times.

This current reparations conversation has been amplified by Tariq Nasheed and others who have a much larger following than Yvette over social media.

This network of black social media sparked the reparations conversation in 2019, not any of the people you mentioned. A bunch of inadvertent incidents from the Kamala Harris campaign after her presidential announcement got the ball rolling on all of this.

You are bringing up things that are years and multiple news cycles old trying to shoehorn them into 2019.

If the Coates article had any bearing on an election it would be in 2016. The article had little to any bearing on that election. In fact, the only reason the Yvette haters are even bringing up that clip of her is because as a Bernie supporter she was responding to Coates insistence that Bernie should be for reparations, yet in 2019 Bernie has been asked and pushed on reparations far more than he ever was in 2016 and that because of ados not Tanhesi.

Your argument is the equivalent of telling me the Eagles: Greatest Hits is the best selling of all-time because see: "stats and numbers", when everyone on the streets is fukking with Thriller. You are bringing up The Atlantic and Black Lives Matter as if both aren't darlings of the liberal establishment, a liberal establishment which has been thoroughly criticized by ORDINARY black folks. The entities you mentioned are not stirring shyt but their lattes. The millions of people you mentioned don't matter cause they aren't doing shyt!

Answer this: Where were all the Atlantic monthly subscribers, white liberals and blm intersectionalists at the reparations hearing? Guess what, they weren't fukking there because they don't give a shyt, they don't drive the conversation. That Coates article was nothing more than a think piece to them. They took action by reading the article, that's it!

It was nothing but ADOS, N'Cobra and a bunch of legacy pro-black groups in attendance sitting behind Tanehisi. Those people are who matter, not a bunch of white and black liberals who like to pat themselves on the back because they read "The Case for Reparations" in 2014.

 

[Gravity]

I've had this SAME exact conversation with you before and the fact that you're repeating these same points shows I had no impact. I don't think I will this time either, but let this be for other people reading this exchange.

First, Yvette's influence is on YouTube, not Twitter, where she has 60k+ followers and her videos just on her channel alone have been viewed over 10 million times.

This current reparations conversation has been amplified by Tariq Nasheed and others who have a much larger following than Yvette over social media.

This network of black social media sparked the reparations conversation in 2019, not any of the people you mentioned. A bunch of inadvertent incidents from the Kamala Harris campaign after her presidential announcement got the ball rolling on all of this.

You are bringing up things that are years and multiple news cycles old trying to shoehorn them into 2019.

If the Coates article had any bearing on an election it would be in 2016. The article had little to any bearing on that election. In fact, the only reason the Yvette haters are even bringing up that clip of her is because as a Bernie supporter she was responding to Coates insistence that Bernie should be for reparations, yet in 2019 Bernie has been asked and pushed on reparations far more than he ever was in 2016 and that because of ados not Tanhesi.

Your argument is the equivalent of telling me the Eagles: Greatest Hits is the best selling of all-time because see: "stats and numbers", when everyone on the streets is fukking with Thriller. You are bringing up The Atlantic and Black Lives Matter as if both aren't darlings of the liberal establishment, a liberal establishment which has been thoroughly criticized by ORDINARY black folks. The entities you mentioned are not stirring shyt but their lattes. The millions of people you mentioned don't matter cause they aren't doing shyt!

Answer this: Where were all the Atlantic monthly subscribers, white liberals and blm intersectionalists at the reparations hearing? Guess what, they weren't fukking there because they don't give a shyt, they don't drive the conversation. That Coates article was nothing more than a think piece to them. They took action by reading the article, that's it!

It was nothing but ADOS, N'Cobra and a bunch of legacy pro-black groups in attendance sitting behind Tanehisi. Those people are who matter, not a bunch of white and black liberals who like to pat themselves on the back because they read "The Case for Reparations" in 2014.

What does ados people get as a result of these conversations about reparations? When can we expect these conversations to amount to tangibles?

I see y'all fighting over credit for starting the conversations so evidently you expect these conversations to amount to something.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I've had this SAME exact conversation with you before and the fact that you're repeating these same points shows I had no impact. I don't think I will this time either, but let this be for other people reading this exchange.

I don't remember who you are but if it was the conversation I'm thinking of then I destroyed y'all with receipts in that one too, receipts which you never replied to.

First, Yvette's influence is on YouTube, not Twitter, where she has 60k+ followers and her videos just on her channel alone have been viewed over 10 million times.

Those "10 million views" are mostly on old videos that don't have shyt to do with reparations. And they're mostly the same subscribers just watching each of her videos, so you're counting the same people 100x or more. Her three most watched videos, the only ones that even have 100,000 views, are about how much she doesn't like Jay Z's album, about how much she doesn't like Black Panther, and a video called "Donald Trump is So Right About How Poor Black People Are".

Looking at the last year most of her videos only have about 30,000 views and NONE of them in the last year has more than 60,000. If she's being amplified, who is doing the amplifying?

Meanwhile, there are multiple videos of Coates on youtube that have hundreds of thousands of views, and he doesn't even have a youtube presence himself, he's mostly appearing on traditional media that is getting hundreds of thousands or millions of viewers every time out. Or writing books that sell millions of copies.

Let me repeat that. His last two books have sold millions of copies combined. And you're talking about someone whose youtube videos get 30,000 views.

This current reparations conversation has been amplified by Tariq Nasheed and others who have a much larger following than Yvette over social media.

So why does most of Tariq's "amplification" only get 100 or so shares? If Tariq's followers only share a comment a hundred times, is that really meaningful amplification? Sharing is the LEAST committed thing you can do to push an agenda, it's literally clicking a button. If only 100 people are even willing to share it, then how many actually do something in their life? 10?

The #ADOS petition to have H.R. 40 legislation now is stuck at 3,480 signatures. They're an online movement yet can't even get more people than that to sign a freaking online petition.

If you have a better example of big thing that #ADOS has done, which is directly tied to ADOS and not someone else's shyt they're trying to take stealth credit for, then I'd love to see it.

This network of black social media sparked the reparations conversation in 2019, not any of the people you mentioned. A bunch of inadvertent incidents from the Kamala Harris campaign after her presidential announcement got the ball rolling on all of this.

I'm still waiting for the receipts. You can't keep making unverified claims and expect me to believe you.

You are bringing up things that are years and multiple news cycles old trying to shoehorn them into 2019.

If the Coates article had any bearing on an election it would be in 2016. The article had little to any bearing on that election. In fact, the only reason the Yvette haters are even bringing up that clip of her is because as a Bernie supporter she was responding to Coates insistence that Bernie should be for reparations, yet in 2019 Bernie has been asked and pushed on reparations far more than he ever was in 2016 and that because of ados not Tanhesi.

You're just betraying a lack of understanding about how politics works. shyt doesn't move like you think. The 2016 race was supposed to be a Hilary coronation, then Bernie Sanders came in with his own pet issues that he'd spent 30 years pushing, but that finally were getting hearing mostly amplified by unresolved anger from an economic crash 8 years earlier as well as animosity towards Hilary Clinton that had been building since the 1990s. No one had any room to shoehorn reparations into the discussion because there was no meaningful negotiation of platform at all in that race - it was just Bernie coming out of nowhere with his long-cemented platform and Hillary trying to wish him away. Coates tried to insert reparations into the discussion but he had no leverage because the only two voices were Hillary and Bernie - Hillary wasn't about to move towards the left and Sanders wasn't about to change what he'd already been saying for 30 years.

That made the 2020 race the first one in which candidates' positions could actually be developed in response to the reparations question. THAT is why you're seeing it popping now. And the strength behind the conversation is still the ongoing conversation that Coates has driven. THAT is why damn near every article or commentary you see on the movement credits Coates with bringing it. You don't see Yvette's name mentioned anywhere. You don't see any of her ideas or tags mentioned anywhere, except in the occasional article that will mention some fringe group trying to work it's way into a debate that they're on the fringes of.

Hell, you know who the reporters were who finally got the Dem candidates to state a position on reparations? Astead Herndon (a Coates fan) and Jeff Stein (a White liberal).

If Yvette and #ADOS are really so powerful, if the candidates are really pandering to them, then why don't they even mention them? Why doesn't anyone else mention them? You can claim it's all some big conspiracy, and there isn't really anything I can say to dissuade you from that. Except it's really odd to claim that someone has so much positive power that they will be pandered to and yet so little power that no one will admit that's who they're pandering too. Seems unlikely.

Especially when only 30,000 people are watching each of her videos and only 100 people are sharing each of Tariq's tweets.

Answer this: Where were all the Atlantic monthly subscribers, white liberals and blm intersectionalists at the reparations hearing? Guess what, they weren't fukking there because they don't give a shyt, they don't drive the conversation. That Coates article was nothing more than a think piece to them. They took action by reading the article, that's it!

Breh, Coates HIMSELF was basically the star of the entire hearing.

I don't even get what you're trying to say. That there were no white liberals invested in that hearing? That none of the people at the hearing read the Atlantic or are involved with BLM? Where the hell do you get that from?

And I can give you HUNDREDS of examples of actions that were taken by people in response to The Case for Reparations. You just ignore them.

You are bringing up The Atlantic and Black Lives Matter as if both aren't darlings of the liberal establishment, a liberal establishment which has been thoroughly criticized by ORDINARY black folks. The entities you mentioned are not stirring shyt but their lattes. The millions of people you mentioned don't matter cause they aren't doing shyt!

Wait, I can give examples of speeches, conferences, debates, panels, and so on, of The Atlantic giving The Case for Reparations on of the biggest promotional boosts it has ever given an article and of Black Lives Matter doing ground work across the country, and you claim they ain't doing shyt.....

in comparison with an online-only movement that struggles to get 100 of its followers to even share a tweet.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Well what do we have here.

Looks like FAIR's 2017 tax return.

https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/521136126_201712_990_2018103015849319.pdf

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Let's have a looksee. First off, the FAIR telephone # is 202-328-7004. I'm not saying do anything with that. Just saying.

So what is the purpose of this nonprofit network that has front groups of which Yvette Carnell, Jesse Lee Peterson, Leah, Durant, and other assorted grifters, superc00ns and white supremacists are board members...

Daniel A Stein, huh? Let's check him out.

In 1991, FAIR president Dan Stein said immigrants are "getting into competitive breeding"

Dan Stein, the longtime president of anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), published a letter to the editor this week in the Washington Post claiming that he never said something he actually did say in 1991.

In response to Post columnist Dana Milbank’s article “Is it a coincidence that Trump uses the language of white supremacy?” Stein wrote:

Mr. Milbank claimed that I have “famously uttered” an offensive phrase about immigrants “competitive breeding.” For the record, I state unequivocally, once more, as I have for 25 years, that I have never, ever made any such statement. In fact, there is no entire quote available from me that contains that sentiment.”

Stein added, “Don’t believe me? Find it.”

Stein’s quote comes from a 1991 Albany Times Union article titled “Immigrant Women Have More Babies.” The news report reads:

FAIR Director Daniel Stein argues that higher birth rates will give immigrants a disproportionate share of political power as their numbers increase in America.

"It's almost like they're getting into competitive breeding," he said. "You have to take into account the various fertility rates in designing limits on immigration."

Written by journalist Greg B. Smith, the Times Union article can be read in full here. Reached over email, Smith, now a reporter at the New York Daily News, confirmed the quote. “If I wrote it, he said it,” he told Hatewatch.

People For The American Way uncovered Stein’s comment in a February 2016 report detailing the extensive overlap between anti-immigrant groups like FAIR and the broader white nationalist movement.

When Stein said immigrants were “getting into competitive breeding,” FAIR was still receiving funding from the Pioneer Fund, one of the most influential hate groups of the 20thcentury and a group founded with an explicit eugenicist mission. From the mid-1980s until 1994, FAIR accepted some $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund.

FAIR is part of a constellation of anti-immigration groups created by population-alarmist-turned-white-nationalist John Tanton, who once wrote "I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."

Tanton, now in his 80s and suffering from Parkinson’s disease, was once prolific in executing a strategic vision for an organized anti-immigrant movement that today has reached new heights of influence under the administration of President Donald J. Trump.

The attacks on sanctuary cities, refugee resettlement, the increase in ICE raids and the sidelining of DACA — all often justified with phony statistics, fearmongering and lies— are the fruits of this movement and its connections. Tanton’s vision of a “European-American majority” is shared by a president who prefers his immigrants from Norway.

Stein no doubt relishes this reversal in political fortune brought by the Trump presidency. “Getting out of bed these days is a lot more fun than it used to be,” he told Vice.

It now appears Stein thinks he can get away with anything, including rewriting his own ugly record.

Told you we gonna peel this back layer by layer.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So their contributions and grants jumped from 10 million to 26 million from 2016-2017.

Revenue less expenses went from -89000 to almost 19 million. Interesting.

@Cole Cash I got you homie.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Officers, directors and trustees. I see Stein and Frank Morris, this black guy in the cowboy hat I posted earlier in this thread who was the chairman for their front group, Choose Black America, who Leah Durant set up and who Jesse Lee Peterson was a public face for...the holy trinity of c00nery.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Officers, directors and trustees. I see Stein and Frank Morris, this black guy in the cowboy hat I posted earlier in this thread who was the chairman for their front group, Choose Black America, who Leah Durant set up and who Jesse Lee Peterson was a public face for...the holy trinity of c00nery.

Let's see who else is on this list of demons.

Chairman, Donald Collins, Jr...blogger for white supremacist site VDARE. Not linking it, but fukk him.

Dale Herder, Secretary...wrote an islamophobic book after 9/11 which has 1 Amazon review and the only other review I could find for it was on a white supremacist website, which I will not name or link.

Sharon Barnes, Director...worked on the editorial board for the aforementioned white supremacist publication.

To be continued...