All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

The Surreality of Anti-BNP Propaganda

48 Comments

Just in advance of election day in Britain both the political and media wings of the anti-White regime have pulled out all the stops in their reality-inverting propaganda. Discarding their masks as sober statesmen and unbiased journalists, as well as their usual lip-service in support of democracy, they are shamelessly, hypocritically resorting to the most extreme and prejudicial language to gin up fear and loathing against those they accuse and condemn for doing the same.

They’re projecting their own guilty minds of course. The difference between the BNP and the anti-White bastards in control is that the BNP don’t currently control anything. It is the anti-White anti-BNP forces who have made all the failing policies and who control and censor all the established megaphones with iron fist.

The thrust of the anti-BNP propaganda campaign is that voters should fear what the BNP might be and might do, even though much of the scare-mongering is fabricated from whole cloth. Repeated often enough they hope their snide smears will make White voters forget what they can see with their own eyes: the imported anti-White hate and violence wreaking havoc all around them, and the traitorous leaders who brought it, rejoice in it, and have themselves attacked native Britons in order to defend it.

If any part of what I’m writing seems like an exaggeration, review for yourself the media’s own product.

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate, The Guardian, 2 June 2009:

We love Britain precisely because of its tolerance and diversity. The British National party and its allies are a threat to everything that makes us proud of this country we love. The BNP is working hard to conceal its extremism because it knows that people in Britain totally reject the politics of racism and hatred.

This statement, signed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, amounts to: “We love aliens more than we love native Britons, it is the aliens who make Britain great.” With native leaders like this, who needs alien enemies?

Voters urged not to support BNP in poll, Alex Forsyth, Portsmouth Today, 2 June 2009:

Fears have been raised that the far-right party could win seats on Hampshire and West Sussex county councils because voters have lost faith in mainstream parties.

Fears are being raised alright. By the media. Only in far-wacko minds is the simple act of voting your interests considered “far-right”.

Europe braces for extremist gains in elections, Paisley Dodds, The Associated Press, 2 June 2009:

In some of Manchester’s bleakest neighborhoods where unemployment is rife and anxiety about an immigration influx is palpable, one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s worst fears is unfolding before Thursday’s European Union elections.

The British National Party, which doesn’t allow nonwhites as members and is against membership in the European Union, is gaining ground in former Labour Party strongholds that once threw their support behind Brown and his predecessor, Tony Blair.

More rhetoric of fear.

Most anti-BNP articles won’t even admit that reaction to the regime’s support for genocidal immigration is a well-spring of support for the BNP. This article does but inverts reality, painting opposition to genocide as “extremist”. The suggestion is that the BNP incites racial hatred, though the reality is that mass immigration bringing in other races is the more proximate cause.

Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband, James Kirkup, Telegraph, 3 June 2009:

Mr Miliband, whose Jewish father fled Belgium before the Nazi invasion, added: “This is the country that flew the flag of freedom against fascism in the 1940s.

“It will be a day of shame if we send fascists to the European Parliament.”

David Miliband has no ground on which to stand. He should be ashamed for trying to shame native Britons for voting their own interests in their own homeland. He should bugger off to Belgium, or better, to israel, if he doesn’t like that the British people today still wish to defend their homeland from being overrun by outsiders as their forefathers did. That was, after all what the Battle of Britain and the larger carnage of World War II was about, wasn’t it? Or was it all, then and now, really about doing what’s best for jews? Miliband’s idea of shame assumes the latter.

Why you should not vote for the BNP, Kevin Maguire, mirror.co.uk, 3 June 2009:

The extremist BNP are thick, as well as nasty, thugs.

Please don’t be conned into voting for this vile, racist, incompetent mob tomorrow.

This is a prime specimen of the kind of pure hypocrisy published by major media outlets. Though it is an opinion/editorial rather than “journalism”, it’s easy to see how the one colors the other. No major media outlet would publish a similarly worded piece about any other political party, never mind anything like the continuous stream of vile, nasty, thuggish “opinion” aimed at smearing the BNP.

BNP bigots are racist AND sexist, Fiona Phillips, mirror.co.uk, 2 June 2009:

As a Briton, enjoying our rich and diverse country. As a mother, wondering what future my children will grow up in.

And as a woman, because the BNP isn’t just a racist, homophobic, xenophobic party, it’s a sexist party too. Whatever they pretend, they just aren’t a normal party.

And don’t forget, they beat their spouses, molest children, lay about, and drink blood too! The media really knows no bounds when it comes to smearing anyone who stands up for White interests.

Even if any of the trash talk is true, the BNP’s saving grace is that they aren’t guilty of genocide. They don’t want Britain flooded with surly hostile aliens. They’re against that. So if it’s really all about your children then stopping the genocide should be your first priority. If you favor the aliens, well then be honest, for you it’s really all about their children, isn’t it?

Racist campaigning for BNP, Chris Osuh, Manchester Evening News, 2 June 2009:

A CONVICTED racist is boasting about his leading role in the British National Party’s campaign to win votes in this week’s European elections.

Roy West, from Dukinfield, pleaded guilty to racial harassment at Tameside Magistrates’ Court in February after telling his German next-door neighbour to ‘go back to Krautland and kill some more Jews.’

Astounding. The media normally (see Miliband’s comment above) see self-righteous speech that puts jews on a pedestal as virtuous, but here they’ve managed here to turn it into racist hate. It’s amazing to see the kind of contradictions created when all pretense at being consistent is discarded, except the rock solid consistent hatred for Whites standing up for their interests.

How BNP tries to hide its racist core, Harry Underwood, The First Post, 2 June 2009:

The BNP claims to have modernised, but its championing of British jobs for British people cannot hide its insistence that its members are white

Hide? The BNP is quite open about who they represent. You’ll find it in their Mission Statement:

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.

It’s the first thing anyone who’s at all curious about the BNP find out. Logically a party so organized would restrict membership to the very people it purports to represent. It is not morally or ethically wrong, nor is it hidden.

Accusations otherwise are the projections of people who hide their hatred for Whites behind a false love of aliens.

Denial is opening the door to the extremists, Alice Miles, Times Online, 3 June 2009:

These were not skinhead thugs that I met on Monday. We should not stand, fingers in ears, pretending that such views do not exist on some of the ordinary housing estates of Britain.

Some anti-BNP articles are more subtle, being aimed at the regime’s thought-leaders rather than voters. This one admits the “hate” rhetoric isn’t working, arguing against pretense that it is, while pretending that the regime has simply not been listening. The reality is that the regime has been actively squelching and pathologizing any and all dissent to their genocidal policies on immigration and “diversity”.

The regime is far more likely to continue its denial, to the point of denying legitimacy to the BNP by outlawing opposition to immigration. To accept opposition to immigration would be a dangerous step toward admitting past wrong-doing. To do that, when the wrong-doing is genocide, would be suicidal, and the regime knows it. Those at the top are not in any way noble enough to stand down now.

BNP eyes ‘seismic’ breakthrough, BBC News, 2 June 2009:

The BNP was on course to win a seat in the North West, [Spokesman Simon Darby] said, and attract up to 12% of the vote in some regions.

Mr Darby said BNP candidates attracted unparalleled hostility from the media, campaigners, celebrities and other political parties – who accuse it of being racist and divisive – but said the election of a BNP MEP would “change the rules of the game”.

Native Britons on the fence should clearly see who their enemy is by comparing the hysterical anti-BNP smears and slander passed off by the media as news and opinon with the language used and positions taken by The British National Party itself.

Here are the anti-BNP headlines above gathered together to better illustrate the poison the media is trying to place in every readers’ mind:

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate
Voters urged not to support BNP in poll
Europe braces for extremist gains in elections
Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband
Why you should not vote for the BNP
BNP bigots are racist AND sexist
Racist campaigning for BNP
How BNP tries to hide its racist core
Denial is opening the door to the extremists

Blog

Obama Nominates Anti-White Latina for SCOTUS

26 Comments

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor

Note that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn’t hesitate to identify such an opinion as “racist” “anti-latino” “White supremacism”. They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.

The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it “could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing”.

How — and why — Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:

An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”

As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.

Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:

Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.

Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these “dog whistles” – though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of “racism”.

There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards’ blunt observation. If the “dog whistle” people think popular sympathies for state’s rights or against immigration reflect White “racism”, then by their own reasoning it’s safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of “empathy”, “equality” and “diversity” means “I hate Whites”.

UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw?” asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. “New racism is no better than old racism.”

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn’t put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn’t inevitable.

“We’re all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.

“We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community,” said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.

Ms. Sotomayor’s critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.

Heat? Scandal? Where? She’s anti-White and that’s “extremely pleasing”. The nomination is “right on course”.

What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee’s social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this “historic” nomination?

Blog

Shocking Old News

46 Comments

In addition to reporting and opining on the latest developments in the ATCGs of human differences, n/a at race/history/evolution notes has a gift for finding and exposing historical evidence of the long struggle between race-realists and race-deniers.

Quoting Jonathan P. Spiro in Grant vs. Boas:

These students of Boas set about devising the intellectual weapons and amassing the ethnographic data they would need to combat the disciples of Grant. And while on a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity and biological determinism against the proponents of environment and the primacy of culture, it was difficult not to notice that it was at heart a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the Zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.

Quoting Gelya Frank in Boasianism as a cult:

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology’s Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations have been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.

There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the disci- pline of anthropology and individual anthropologists

Now I’m shocked, shocked to discover that jews, especially supposed professionals dedicated foremost to the study of man’s tribalism, could so whitewash the full extent of their own tribe’s dominance of that field until so long after the fact. Doubly shocking is the excuse, which is of course that “the anti-semites” made them do it.

Actually I’m well beyond shock, as the more I’ve examined the subject the more commonplace and even banal such revelations have become. Today, looking back at what transpired in the hundred years or so since the Grant/Boas struggle, I’m compelled to make two points:

1) The Boasians, prevailing as they did, have produced as a consequence a social and academic environment which is anti-racist only in name. The regime is in fact as race-based as ever, the discrimination has only been reversed. Today it is perfectly acceptable to be anti-White, and horribly taboo if not illegal to be “anti-semitic”.

2) Those who opposed the Boasians, to the extent they saw and objected to the self-serving jewish agenda and feared for the future of their posterity, were correct. And if it’s proper to label them and those of us who continue to struggle “anti-semites”, then it’s only fair to recognize that our opponents were and still are anti-White. It conforms to their own name-calling standards and, more important, accurately reflects the empirical results of their words and actions.

The image above is from Race: Reality and Denial by Richard McCulloch.

Blog

Symptoms of Hostility

67 Comments

In “Greenspan to testify on immigration” Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn’t even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, “Genocidal Immigrationists” comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn’t make sense it’s often because you’re view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it’s willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under “political correctness makes you stupid“.

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

– – –

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation’s validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don’t care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two – another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there’s an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It’s called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn’t see that as bad. No, it’s a wonderful boon. We’re so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist’s holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat’s essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

– – –

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen – and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn’t important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here’s one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. “Impossible to contain”, “every country”, “bring the world’s economy to a standstill”. Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren’t sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don’t think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 “the old days” and claiming the SARS outbreak is “totally different” is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. “Who cares how many people die”, seems to be the thinking.

– – –

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because “[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans”:

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we’re heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

– – –

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it’s only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all “people of color” decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

– – –

In “Swine flu” Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn’t bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It’s the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that’s the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

Blog

DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites

17 Comments

Are you feeling marginalized, cheated, or otherwise oppressed? Disturbed by abortion? Angry about the current economic and political climate? Upset about millions of illegal immigrants our government won’t arrest or deport? If you said yes to any of these questions and you’re White then be advised that the Department of Homeland Security considers you a potential enemy of the state.

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (via Washington Times):

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Note that “rightwing extremists” are being accused of reacting to actual facts and events, while the writers of this report are the ones “playing on fears”. This report is a perfect example of propaganda. It not only demonizes an opposing cause, it does so by inverting reality.

* Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This is the footnote many media reports have focused on.

Note that the hate rhetoric is another inversion. The effect of this report, if not its desired purpose, is to fuel ill will towards Whites who are reacting to what we perceive as aggression and dispossession.
The “rightwing extremist” and “white supremacist” smears used to describe the disparate and well-intentioned people who favor state or local authority or oppose abortion or immigration reveals the report writers’ hypocritical hatred of even the weakest and most disjoint expressions of racial/religious self-interest from a particular racial/religious group: White Christians.

The report specifically targets and deliberately pathologizes Whites who are disturbed by anything we consider harmful to our interests.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

The founders of our country clearly trusted in and recognized the value of a well-armed citizenry and unambiguously expressed these beliefs in the 2nd amendment. Those who propose the imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans without amending the constitution are the extremists.

A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Note that this report is not only specifically antagonistic toward Whites acting in our own defense, it is also specifically sympathetic to jews.

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

The chain of causation is reversed. The very real foreclosures and loss of jobs fuels the perceived disastrous costs of the globalist, materialist, consumerist pyramid scheme euphemistically referred to as “the economy”.

The writers of this report are so keen to protect “financial elites” (and specifically jews) who have perpetrated fraud that they use the very accusatory tactics they decry to direct blame and hate instead onto what they imagine is deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of admittedly powerless “rightwing extremist groups”.

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Once again the word “perceived” marks an inversion.

Whites were the most evenly split racial group in the presidential election. The more lopsided votes of every other group are justifiably understood to reflect antagonism toward Whites because the new presidential administration’s support for immigration is in fact reducing Whites to a minority. The new presidential administration has and continues to capitalize on related racial and political prejudices against Whites – this report being a prime example.

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Here’s how “longstanding exploitation” works.

Some Whites recognize and complain about the unrelenting assault on our social and political interests and try to defend them. In this defense we constantly face smooth-talking dishonest aggressors just like the people who wrote this DHS report. This fills some Whites with frustration and despair, and they react violently. Then we’re all smeared as “extremists” and the violent reactions are exploited, even decades later, to justify and continue the assault against us. This report again provides a prime example. In seven pages of text Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing are mentioned three times.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

The constitution describes the political structure of a government. The fear that this structure has been subverted and illegitimately replaced with what amounts to a new kind of government is based on the very real evidence (the report we’re examining here for example) that the current government and its defense is based primarily on economics. In addition, the writers of this report are clearly antipathetic to the constitutional principles codified in the 1st and 2nd amendments. Their strident fervor is directed specifically against Whites who would defend and uphold the constitution.

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s.

The report writers seem to resent that theories with predictive value are naturally magnified. They present no evidence to substantiate their paranoid theories concerning “rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes”. The bulk of their report makes the case that “rightwing extremists” are most concerned about the domestic regime.

— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

Note that the biggest threat they perceive to the deliberately organized and government-supported demonization, disarming, and dispossession of Whites is the disorganized resistance of individual Whites acting independently. The moral: native Whites who conclude that our current government is acting against our interests are by this very act justifying the government to work that much harder against us. Regardless of what they might think or do however, immigrants and financial elites can rest assured that the government is actively defending their interests.

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

The “prominent civil rights organization” is not specified, but the source of the quote indicates that it is actually an anti-White-rights group.

Racist Extremists Active in U.S. Military – SPLC urges Rumsfeld to adopt zero-tolerance policy:

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding racist extremism among members of the U.S. military.

“Because hate group membership and extremist activity are antithetical to the values and mission of our armed forces, we urge you to adopt a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to white supremacy in the military and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the policy is rigorously enforced,” Cohen wrote in a letter to Rumsfeld.

Military extremists present an elevated threat both to their fellow soldiers and the general public. Today’s white supremacists become tomorrow’s domestic terrorists.

Zero tolerance for Whites pretty much sums up the hate-oriented nature of the domestic terrorists who have insinuated themselves and their anti-White ideas into the very highest levels of our government.