VDARE’s Hate Speech Precludes Its Tax Exemption
Yesterday, I posted about VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, a NY federal district court action revolving around VDARE’s bumbling private inurement and excess benefit transactions. To recap, a 501(c)(3) educational known as VDARE bought a castle in West Virginia, ostensibly to use as its headquarters and convention hall. VDARE had legitimate need of a headquarters and conference center. The organization’s hate makes private venues refuse to host their Hatorade conventions.
Except at first it sure looked like the Castle was purchased as a private home for insiders. In 2019 VDARE’s father-mother-son board rode this scam to the tune of $4.3 million. It was the very next year that the Brimelows closed on the castle, the whole family posing out front with the keys to the Kingdom. People, including NY’s attorney general took note of all the press VDARE was releasing, pictures and such of the family chilling in the Castle.
It also looks like the insiders have almost corrected the transaction resulting in the Castle doubling as personal residence, and therefore would likely qualify for 4958 abatement. I told them how yesterday. But look. VDARE should get it all checked out by an authentic white lawyer. From George Mason or maybe Ava Maria down here in Florida. And they should ask any lawyer if VDARE is entitled to tax exemption despite its hate speech. If he believes Volokh, he’ll say “yes because denying tax exemption to hate groups has the same effect as prohibiting hate speech.” But does that even sound like it makes sense? Or that a hate group is a charity? Even constitutional scholars recognize free speech as an unfinished Tower of Babel. It started out brilliantly but now, the architects unable to speak coherently from once case to the next, it seems incomprehensibly tall except to the most seasoned porters.
VDARE should not be tax exempt because it is a white supremacist hate group. VDARE denies it all of course, citing a case about protecting Black people from hate groups. Stochastic terrorists thrive on plausible deniability. Brimelow claims only to be against “open borders” and unsustainable immigration policies. Problem is, the only immigration the Brimelows “educate” about is the dangerous migration of Jews and non-white people, and its “educational” materials depict Jews and all non-white people, even those born right here in the USA (which excludes Peter Brimelow, BTW) as dangerous, lazy, vermin and leeches on all non Jewish white people and sometimes Asians tolerated as honorary white people. I don’t have to debate or prove it. Just have a look at VDARE.com. Trust me, its a hate group.
Besides, whether VDARE’s a proven hate group is a different question from whether the government may defund a hate group. The government must be held to its proof, no doubt, but that doesn’t prove government lacks authority once a thing is proven. That’s really all I want to establish (for now). A blow against those lazily testifying about this with a sophistry leading to the academic version of a shoulder shrug. While gunmen, taught by these subsidized “educational” organizations, shoot up churches, grocery stores, and elementary schools. Yep, I’m talking about Volokh again. “Its terrible that hate groups are supported by all of us, but its all for the greater good ya know.” No kidding, read the transcript.
Volokh and Free speech theologians assert that government must grant exemption to hate groups even when it is indisputable that the group’s objective is that more people hate other people. To do otherwise would violate the First Amendment. Only in the upside down does that make any kinda sense. That is just so much bovine defecation. Laziness. Academic malpractice even. Because academics are supposed to wrack their brains and figure it out. Not rest on jurisprudential laurels in comfortable easy chairs. Here is why the government may and must deny tax exemption to hate groups:
1. The government may deny tax exemption to a hate group because hate groups seek an outcome, by whatever words or speech, that is not charitable. They teach people to hate other people. Hate is the learning objective. Hate, as a noun not a speaking verb, is a noncharitable purpose the government may decline to subsidize even if it can’t allow the speech. The assertion that hate speech is protected, and therefore hate education demands subsidy, is but a convenient and stupid red herring.
2. The government may define education as a certain process and then subsidize only that process. Even if it may not discriminate against ideas. The science of epistemology is not so incomprehensible that education process cannot be objectively distinguished from indoctrination process so that speech is neither chilled nor prohibited. Only an idiot would assert that hate groups educate rather than indoctrinate. That it may be difficult to distinguish education from indoctrination in any particular case says nothing about authority and does not defeat the logic. It just means the factual predicate must be proven.
3. If the unconstitutional conditions prevents government from denying tax exemption based on hate speech — a mischaracterization of cause and effect, in any event (see number 1 above) — it must also preclude the government from granting tax exemption to hate groups. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is a limitation on government, not a grant of individual right. It does not generate a new right, like the right to tax exemption. It prohibits government from doing indirectly what it may not do directly. Government may not subsidize racial discrimination by direct payment, so it may not do so indirectly. Even if nobody has standing to enforce the limitation, its a constitutional one nevertheless. Taxpayer standing is not a condition precedent to the government exercising its authority to deny exemption for constitutional reasons.
There is thus nothing in heaven, hell or on God’s earth justifying VDARE’s tax exemption and nothing preventing the government from revoking its exemption.
darryll jones