Tag Archives: splc

Jobling-Ian-White-America-Editor-224x300

Ian Jobling: Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

In November 2012, Ian Jobling was interviewed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

When Jobling shuttered his website in May 2010, Hunter Wallace provided a synopsis of Jobling’s brief race-realist-ish career in White America, R.I.P.:

The saga began in 2006 when Ian Jobling and Mike Berman broke with Jared Taylor over his refusal to anathematize anti-Semites to their satisfaction. This can be traced back to the infamous David Duke/Michael Hart confrontation at the 2006 Amren conference. In the wake of that incident, Jobling and Berman circulated a letter which condemned Duke and anti-Semitism. If memory serves, they were displeased with Taylor’s response and launched “The Inverted World” in protest.

Mike Berman quit the project early on because (of all things) The Inverted World was not philo-Semitic enough for his tastes. Jobling spent the next few years supporting the Iraq War and attacking various prominent figures in the pro-White movement. His website targeted David Duke, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, and Frank Salter.

In 2009, The Inverted World evolved in White America, which was the same project under a new name.

I disagree with Wallace’s final analysis:

There was nothing wrong with White America. Jobling’s problem was that he didn’t have the temperament to build a successful website.

Jobling’s problem, from a pro-White point of view, was that he was a dissembler and dissimulator. He waved a pro-”white” banner and tried to tell Whites what to do, while his main priority, all along, was to fight “anti-semitism”. From his time at AmRen onward Jobling was pretending to be something he wasn’t. He could have called his own web site “Support Jews America” or “Jew-First America”. That’s what he was about. The mainstream is full of such organizations. Jobling deliberately went outside the mainstream, striking a pose in opposition to “liberalism” and “leukophobia“, only to spend a great deal of his effort attacking pro-Whites who most cogently distinguish and explain the role played by jews.

I have commented on Jobling a few times, mostly in association with others who behave similarly, like Lawrence Auster and Guy White. Unamused is another more recent but less zealous example.

I described my last and most direct exchange with Jobling in The Urge to Purge, in October 2008.

Jobling saw race through a polarized, black/white lens. This is common in the race-realist, human biodiversity (HBD), men’s rights and black run America (BRA) spheres. Even in such places, where racial traits and conflicts of interest are often otherwise relatively freely discussed, many people simply refuse to think or talk about jews. Others more or less actively defend jews, and do so even when their interests conflict with Whites. Jobling was this latter type.

Jobling’s view of the relationship between Whites and jews went beyond simple blindness. As I alluded above, he wrote volumes about “liberalism” and “leukophobia”. He stared directly at Marx and Freud and others who have done and continue to do similarly destructive work. He even read and wrote about Culture of Critique. Yet somehow his self-imagined analytical mind and interest in human behavior could never accept any significant difference between Whites and jews, biological or otherwise.

Actually, that’s not entirely correct. Jobling did see a significant difference between Whites and jews. On his now defunct Inverted World/White America website, Jobling blamed Whites while excusing jews. At least some of the content is preserved at archive.org.

Principles of the Pro-White Movement is typical of Jobling’s dismal brand of “white” advocacy:

Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.

The portion of the text emphasized above is the only portion of the entire essay Jobling so elevated.

Drawing a clear distinction between Whites and jews, Jobling claims that jews aren’t to blame for “our current racial dispossession”, because it is “inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves”. This is the suicide meme. Note the subtle inconsistency in Jobling’s use of “our” and “themselves”, as if he doesn’t see himself as a “white Gentile”. For a self-described pro-”white” who can’t bring himself to capitalize White, it’s odd that he cares enough to capitalize gentile.

His two links showcase an uncanny ability to look directly at the hostility of jews against Whites before dismissing it.

The “Jewish influence on the West” link takes you to Jobling’s cockeyed review of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, Did the Jews Do It?:

Summarizing CoC is difficult, as it has two theses, one overt and one covert. The overt thesis is that a number of major 20th century intellectual and political movements—racial egalitarianism, Freudianism, Marxism, and advocacy of open borders—have been vehicles of Jewish ethnic interests. This thesis is supported by copious and convincing evidence. The covert thesis, which is never fully avowed or openly argued for, is much more ambitious. MacDonald would have us believe that Jewish activism is the major cause of the forces that he believes is bringing down the West: multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, and the taboo against white racial identity. This thesis is manifestly implausible. MacDonald’s book is, in fact, an emotional, extravagant, and unsubstantiated indictment of Jews covered by a veneer of scholarship.

Jobling admits that MacDonald’s exposition of jewish hostility toward Whites is very convincing. He simply cannot accept it. At such a loss for an argument of his own he grabs the nearest one at hand. He takes the typical jewish intellectual behavior MacDonald so well documented and imputes it to MacDonald instead.

If MacDonald had confined himself to exploring the ethnic dimension of these movements, no reasonable person could object to his book. However, MacDonald’s real ambition is to convince us that the movements he discusses bear the majority of the blame for multiculturalism and all its attendant phenomena.

MacDonald introduces this agenda into the book through hints and implications, rather than overt argument. The sneaky, two-faced character of CoC is evident in his response to Paul Gottfried, who criticized MacDonald for laying excessive blame on Jews for the cultural changes in the West since 1950.

Here Jobling doesn’t act reasonable. The sneaky, two-faced character he sees is only a reflection of his own bias. MacDonald confines himself and Jobling still manages to get upset, even though he must claim to read MacDonald’s mind so he can do so.

Paul Gottfried is a jew who dissembles about jews, “whites” and “liberalism” in the same vein Jobling and Auster have.

There is a simple, but, I believe, devastating counter-argument to MacDonald’s theory. If the Jewish/Gentile dynamic that MacDonald outlines is rooted in these groups’ biological natures, and Jews have extensive powers to convert Gentiles to multiculturalism, why didn’t anything like multiculturalism emerge before the 20th century? Jews have been present in the West since Roman times, but Gentiles in medieval European societies did not believe in white guilt, nor did they think diversity was a strength, despite the presence of Jewish minorities—indeed, multiculturalism was not only non-existent in medieval Europe, it was unthinkable. That almost all Gentile societies containing Jewish minorities have remained strongly ethnocentric is evidence that Jews have little power to weaken Gentiles’ confidence in themselves.

Jobling never quotes MacDonald explaining MacDonald’s theory.

The main value in MacDonald’s work is in the facts he gathers and lays out – the names, dates and quotes – exposing historic hostility and aggression of jews against Whites. Those, like Jobling, who make a big stink about MacDonald’s motives or theories seem most intent on distracting attention away from what he documents.

Jobling’s implication that jews haven’t lobbied for special rights, or in favor of more general principles like pluralism, tolerance, equality, diversity (the hallmarks of modern multiculturalism), or that this never contributed to the collapse of the societies hosting them before the 20th century, is absurd. If he had looked a bit harder he could have found evidence for it in Rome (see particularly the bits about “jewish rights” and what Tacitus had to say). There have been copious examples in Europe since.

Before Rome and beyond Europe there were Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Macedonia and more. A study of the history of people tolerating jews living amongst them teaches two lessons: 1) The jews can be counted on to do a good job looking after themselves, and 2) everyone else could do a better job.

The contemporary guilt-tripping of Whites is a case in point. It traces directly back to the emancipation of jews in Europe. The undoing of European rule over European societies proceeded apace once jews were granted equal access to citizenship and the ruling class. The cries of jews against “discrimination” and “hate”, openly aimed at Europeans as early as the late 1700s, are echoed today in the service of every other imaginable “oppressed” “minority”.

The tendency to blame Whites, which Jobling noted in his SPLC interview, began in earnest only after the jews were emancipated. Jews have consistently blamed Whites for every problem created by their integration, and before. The basic mechanism is still the same today. The use of “racism” as shorthand for “Whites are to blame” is simply a generalization of how jews, and Jobling, use the term “anti-semitism”.

Jobling’s second link, “Jewish conspiracies against whites”, takes you to his article, The Insanity of David Duke.

What Jobling actually tries to explain is why he thinks “the racial right in America is fundamentally insane” using “the worldview of David Duke”. The most important part of that worldview, from Jobling’s point of view, is what he describes as Duke’s “theory that Israel was complicit in the 9/11 attacks”. (The only surviving link to Duke is How Israeli terrorism and American treason caused the September 11 Attacks.)

It would be easy to prove that this theory is merely wrong, but I am making a much stronger claim: that this theory is the product of a mind that has lost touch with the principles of reason, a mind that is so maddened by hatred of Jews that it obsessively and irrationally twists everything that it dislikes about the present and the past into evidence of Jewish evil. Because Duke is so popular with the racial right, his views are a good indication of those of the broader community.

Once again Jobling goes on the warpath, not against the facts or Duke’s arguments, but against his own theories, projecting his own maddened hatred onto Duke. He is so disturbed by Duke that he does not try to address what he says directly. He just wants to blot him out. Losing touch with the principles of reason he irrationally twists what Duke argues into evidence that the entire “racial right in America” is fundamentally insane.

Here and elsewhere Jobling regularly “proved” things that were clearly a matter of opinion – usually what he proved was that his opinion about someone else’s opinion was worthless.

Turning now to what Jobling had to say in his SPLC interview, we find that one reason he finally gave up his pro-”white” schtick is that he just couldn’t abide Whites having the kind of nationalism jews have:

In the wake of 9/11, there were a lot of people saying the U. S. was at fault for the attacks, that they were somehow justified by U.S. policies toward Israel. I didn’t buy that argument. And that’s why I got the idea that everyone blamed whites first — that there was an inclination to blame white people even though a non-white was to blame.

A part of white nationalism that I really never bought into but I just sort of agreed with because of the people around me is the idea of ethnonationalism — that it’s natural for people to align with their own race and to work in their own race’s interests. And if you don’t do that, there’s something wrong with you and if you don’t defend your own race’s interests, you’re just going to be victimized by other races because those other races have it together, right? The idea is we are organized by race and we all are meant to work in our race’s interest.

So this is really the heart of white nationalism and the major scholarly exponent of this idea today is Kevin MacDonald. And also J. P. Rushton. And Taylor was popularizing these wrongheaded ideas.

A major source of contention between us [Jared Taylor and Jobling] was the Iraq War. I was a supporter, which may well have been the wrong position. I basically bought into the Bush administration’s line. I believed in the idea of trying to establish a liberal democratic nation in Iraq.

Taylor doesn’t believe in those ideals, not at all. He took this very simple-minded nationalist viewpoint, that we should allow other nations their sovereignty. I always basically agreed with liberal democratic ideals. My concerns about non-white immigration were that immigrants did not believe in those ideals, so we needed to retain a white nation so we can go on being a liberal democracy. That was very, very different from what Taylor believed.

To my knowledge Jobling has never criticized jewish nationalism, and here we see his test drive with “white” nationalism was based on support for Israel and his view of jews as “white”. Ultimately however, he just “never bought into” nationalism for anyone but jews.

Jobling tried to argue that jews were really just like any other White ethnicity. As time went by it must have become as clear to him as it already was to many of the people arguing with him that the truth is the opposite. The modern “liberal” “leukophobic” democracy Jobling says he likes so much treats jews and Whites to different standards. In particular, nationalism for jews is treated completely differently from the nationalism of any European ethnicity.

France for the French is a perfectly reasonable statement most Whites would agree to without a second thought. But as Ian Jobling, the SPLC, and most jews will tell you, France for the French is nothing but a “far-right”, “racist”, “xenophobic”, “nazi” concept. If it means jews can’t hold any office and come or go as they please then it’s also unthinkably “anti-semitic”. At the same time, if you want to be US Secretary of Defense you must say you support Israel as a jewish state.

This undeniable reality completely undercuts Jobling’s core claim that jews are “white”, no different from the rest of us Whites. When push came to shove, Jobling gave up on both nationalism and “whites”. He goes on supporting Israel and jews.

What might motivate a man to argue and behave as Jobling does? There are some hints in his SPLC interview:

I grew up in Louisville, Ky. My mother teaches history and women’s studies at the University of Louisville. My parents divorced in 1974 and my father moved up to Canada, where he taught at a seminary. I went to the best private school in Louisville. Then I went to Amherst College.

My involvement with American Renaissance was incredibly hard on my family relationships. I still see my mother and father, but with my mother’s family, there was so much conflict there that I just stopped seeing them.

Both my parents, I think, did rather well about this. And chose to ignore it. The problem is hard — seriously disagreeing with a family member. Can they put that disagreement aside, to save the rest of the relationship? And both my mother and father managed to do that, [to] compartmentalize and segregate this whole problem. And they did manage to treat me as a son.

My mother’s family was obsessed with sorting out my life, however. They couldn’t get over it. It made for some very rough times and very snarky, hostile Thanksgivings.

Jobling never exhibited any religious basis (e.g. a Christian or Christian Zionist ideology) for his behavior. The impetus appears, by his own account, to come from within his family. Jobling’s description of his extended family, especially on his mother’s side, includes some characteristically jewish traits: academic, snarky, obsessed with sorting out his life, ultimately unable to get over his “white” activism.

It’s likely Jobling is at least partly jewish. Whether he is nor not, Whites probably haven’t seen the last of him, or for that matter, more like him. If Jobling does once again sally forth, nobody should be surprised if it’s to carry on the one consistent ambition he has always had – to fight for the jews.

Ian_Jobling_10-09-12

Ian Jobling’s Homecoming

In November 2012, Jobling was interviewed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. One-Time American Renaissance Writer Ian Jobling Repudiates Racist Editor Jared Taylor. Jobling-related web documents have a tendency to go away, so I’m archiving the exchange here, no blockquote.

Can you tell us a little about your childhood?

I grew up in Louisville, Ky. My mother teaches history and women’s studies at the University of Louisville. My parents divorced in 1974 and my father moved up to Canada, where he taught at a seminary. I went to the best private school in Louisville. Then I went to Amherst College.

I’ve read the Southern Poverty Law Center’s stories about neo-Nazis and other really extreme racists, and my background is really quite different from theirs. I didn’t publish songs about killing Jews. I didn’t beat up any black people. I basically did research on crime and education as they relate to race.

How did you end up going from a Ph.D. program to white nationalism?

Starting around 2002, I was still in grad school. I was really very unhappy there. It was plain that I wasn’t going to get a job in the academy. White nationalism was a position totally opposite to everything that I had known up to that point. The ideas coincided with my inclination and interests in a number of ways.

One thing that I was very angry about was what I called cultural egalitarianism, the idea that there is no superior or inferior culture. Everyone is sort of just different and we should be nonjudgmental and tolerant of everything. That I didn’t agree with, and I still don’t. I thought Western culture to be superior in certain ways and that an argument could be made for that. And I was very interested in evolutionary psychology, which studies the relationship between genetics and behavior. It was through that work that I came into contact with racial difference research by [race scientists] Jean-Philippe Rushton and [the late] Glayde Whitney.

Did you get to know them?

Yes, I reached out to them, met them and participated on listservs with them. And I was really quite impressed by them. For someone angry at the liberal culture of the academy, as I was, they had what I thought was a really good critique of what was going on there. So I became very attracted to these ideas, partly because of my frustration with academia.

The 9/11 attacks had something to do with it, too. In the wake of 9/11, there were a lot of people saying the U. S. was at fault for the attacks, that they were somehow justified by U.S. policies toward Israel. I didn’t buy that argument. And that’s why I got the idea that everyone blamed whites first — that there was an inclination to blame white people even though a non-white was to blame. I felt like non-whites were getting all sorts of special apologies and so, if that makes any sense, that was one of the things that really angered me and attracted me to white nationalism.

And it was personal, too. I lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods in Buffalo and was a victim of one robbery by a couple of black youths and another attempted robbery.

Had you run into racist ideas before graduate school?

I never encountered anything like that in my childhood. I don’t think I have ever met a skinhead in my whole entire life. I was part of an academic community that was transnational.

When was it that you started getting frustrated with the academy?

I’m someone who has an analytical mind. And it seemed that were no rules to literary criticism and a lot of advancement in that field had to do with sucking up and just not rocking the boat. For example, my interest in evolutionary psychology and in biological theories of human behavior was off the map in terms of ideas that people were using at that time. They were talking about Marx and Freud and such things.

I don’t think I should ever have gone to the academy really and some of my frustration was always sort of present.

How did you come to know Jared Taylor?

Glayde Whitney [who once wrote a fawning introduction to former Klan leader David Duke’s autobiography] was an especially big fan of American Renaissance. It wasn’t long after I came to know him that I published my first essay. There’s actually an article in American Renaissance about my conversion. I was interested in evolutionary psychology, I guess, starting from 1997, and I came to think these are very bright people and not everything they tell you is false. And so I eventually became interested and persuaded by them about racial differences in intelligence, criminality, and so forth. I didn’t know Whitney was linked to Duke and I had no interest in anti-Semitism.

Tell us about your time at American Renaissance.

I joined in November of 2003 and learned Web design basically on the job. I put up the new amren.com website, which ran news stories. People would comment on them. I also would moderate comments. It was a very popular site. The comments had to be moderated to keep the anti-Semites out. And then I wrote articles, stuff Taylor wanted written about. I didn’t have a lot of discretion at any point in my career there.

The major project that I undertook was the revision of The Color of Crime [a booklet about racial differences in crime rates], which came out in 2005. I did all the research for that.

When did you start to question your commitment to white nationalism?

One thing you must understand is there are two basic strands to white nationalism. This is not generally understood. One strand relates to racial differences in intelligence and behavior. And especially research on black and white intelligence differences. There is some real substance in that research, though I’m no longer as convinced by all that stuff as I used to be. I took a body of research on black/white differences in intelligence and extrapolated from it wildly and irresponsibly into a general theory of white superiority over all other races.

What’s the other strand?

A part of white nationalism that I really never bought into but I just sort of agreed with because of the people around me is the idea of ethnonationalism — that it’s natural for people to align with their own race and to work in their own race’s interests. And if you don’t do that, there’s something wrong with you and if you don’t defend your own race’s interests, you’re just going to be victimized by other races because those other races have it together, right? The idea is we are organized by race and we all are meant to work in our race’s interest.

So this is really the heart of white nationalism and the major scholarly exponent of this idea today is [anti-Semitic theorist] Kevin MacDonald [who argues that Jews are genetically driven to undermine majority white societies by favoring such things as multiculturalism and non-white immigration]. And also J. P. Rushton. And Taylor was popularizing these wrongheaded ideas.

Did Taylor have any trepidation about associating with such a prominent anti-Semite as MacDonald?

Of course. He never alluded to Kevin MacDonald. He wanted to keep himself clear of that crowd. I came to see ethnonationalism as dumb and really dangerous. It’s basically the same mindset as Nazism, right? Hitler believed that different races had different interests and they were like organisms that were designed to work together. And they had to compete against each for world dominance. Hitler thought the Jews were getting the upper hand in the struggle, so something had to be done about that.

Taylor doesn’t believe in genocide. But the basic idea here is the same—there is a natural and a moral obligation to side with your own race and compete with other races. This is how he sees the world.

My other problem was that I came to see that most American Renaissance subscribers are Holocaust deniers. Some of them aren’t, but most of them are. It infuriated me because I think Holocaust denial is an evil conspiracy theory. I was always indignant about that and I never got any sympathy from Taylor. I always wanted American Renaissance to take a position against Holocaust denial as extreme anti-Semitism. But he always dismissed that concern in a rather smug and condescending manner.

What else did you find problematic?

One of the main arguments in The Color of Crime was that Latinos have these high crime rates. That means as Latin American immigration increases, America should grow more crime-ridden. But that isn’t happening. From 1990 to now, there’s been a reduction in crime, simultaneous with substantial [Latino] immigration. And so that link isn’t there. Taylor tended to downplay arguments like these that were inconsistent with his white nationalism.

There were other problems with The Color of Crime. If you look at crime statistics, they’ll show that blacks are 100 or 150 times more likely to commit assault against a white person than a white person is against a black person. And this is entirely true. This is what the statistics do say. And Taylor used this to try to make the argument that there’s a great hostility against whites amongst blacks.

But the argument is silly. If you’ve got a population which is 90% white and 10% black, whites are much more likely to encounter whites than blacks. And that means that any kind of crime, interracial crime, is going to be skewed by that likelihood of encounter. So what Taylor “discovered” — that blacks are supposedly more criminal than whites — didn’t have the ugly meaning that he attributed to it. Once you started adjusting for blacks as a minority, you found blacks were as likely to commit crimes against whites as they were against other blacks. No white nationalist story there. The second edition of Color of Crime, which I reworked, fixed some of these problems.

Why do you think Taylor plays ball with anti-Semites?

Taylor’s position always was we should just remain silent about Jewish issues. In an organization so rife with anti-Semites, that kind of silence is the same as complicity.

Taylor invites people who are associates of David Duke, like [Holocaust denier] Sam Dixon, to the conference. His personal associations are a problem to. He is close to Holocaust denier Mark Weber, who regularly stayed over at his house. There’s a kind of complicity there that maybe made him not see how anti-Semitism discredited us. Given Taylor’s ethnonationalist views, that people are naturally loyal to their race and naturally struggle against each other, well anti-Semitism naturally follows from that, right? But Taylor avoids the whole issue. I think Kevin MacDonald is just more intellectually honest than Taylor is.

How did your parents deal with your white nationalism?

My involvement with American Renaissance was incredibly hard on my family relationships. I still see my mother and father, but with my mother’s family, there was so much conflict there that I just stopped seeing them.

Both my parents, I think, did rather well about this. And chose to ignore it. The problem is hard — seriously disagreeing with a family member. Can they put that disagreement aside, to save the rest of the relationship? And both my mother and father managed to do that, [to] compartmentalize and segregate this whole problem. And they did manage to treat me as a son.

My mother’s family was obsessed with sorting out my life, however. They couldn’t get over it. It made for some very rough times and very snarky, hostile Thanksgivings.

What finally made you decide to move on?

After the 2006 conference, a bunch of us got together and wrote a letter to Taylor about anti-Semitism. I didn’t put my name on it. He was very upset by it and he published a snotty reaction, that he wasn’t going to be pushed around. It was over—I left.

We had other differences, too. A major source of contention between us was the Iraq War. I was a supporter, which may well have been the wrong position. I basically bought into the Bush administration’s line. I believed in the idea of trying to establish a liberal democratic nation in Iraq.

Taylor doesn’t believe in those ideals, not at all. He took this very simple-minded nationalist viewpoint, that we should allow other nations their sovereignty. I always basically agreed with liberal democratic ideals. My concerns about non-white immigration were that immigrants did not believe in those ideals, so we needed to retain a white nation so we can go on being a liberal democracy. That was very, very different from what Taylor believed.

What happened after you left American Renaissance?

I ran a website called “The Inverted World” for a while [that was against anti-Semitism but white nationalist]. I was still dedicated to the white nationalist cause. Some people accused me of being in the pay of Israel, called me a Jew-lover. It was sort of a mire and I got sick of it.

I now realize that it was really misguided. I had erected this whole theory of white superiority based on very limited evidence and believed that non-white immigration was going to cause the United States to become a Third World country. That wasn’t happening and I eventually recognized that.

I feel so much distance between me and that former self that I just wanted to put that behind me.

And what do you think about your years as a white nationalist now that you’ve left?

It may be that there are innate, biological differences among the races. There is a large body of academic research on these differences, and this research is credible, which doesn’t mean that it won’t be overturned in the future. Scholars should not be persecuted for publishing research on these matters. But this subject is so explosive that, in our daily lives, we should ignore it to the extent that this is possible. We should make an effort to treat people equally and not impose our stereotypes on them. That’s where most Americans are today, and I’ve come to accept the common wisdom.

wade_michael_page_14

Wade Michael Page Triggers an Outpouring of Anti-White Hate

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes itself as a “civil rights” organization, yet they focus almost exclusively on pathologizing and demonizing White people, especially those who identify as White and express explicitly pro-White attitudes. The SPLC does not pathologize or demonize non-Whites who express explicitly pro-non-White attitudes. The SPLC is not hostile toward all people acting or organizing according to racial identity – just Whites.

Powerful media organizations like CBS, Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post parrot the SPLC’s anti-White talking points.

These media organizations do not report or object to the SPLC’s anti-White bias. They agree with the SPLC. They aid and abet the SPLC’s anti-White mission. They portray non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes in a positive, approving light. They dedicate resources specifically to non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes, and in doing so even publish explicitly anti-White attitudes.

The US government’s Justice Department fights “racism” and defends “civil rights” in the same way the SPLC does. In practice this means pathologizing and demonizing Whites while promoting the interests of non-Whites. The US government’s State Department is committed to Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. They bring their fight to promote jewish interests to the entire world.

Would media organizations parrot the SPLC if the SPLC was collecting information and making negative statements about jewish music and jewish nationalism? Would they join in specifically pathologizing and demonizing jews who express explicitly pro-jewish attitudes? Would they do this after some jew commits some crime? What action would government organizations dedicated to combating “racism” and “anti-semitism” take against media organizations which published anti-jewish articles? Why don’t the SPLC, the media, and the government treat jews like they treat Whites? Why don’t they treat Whites like they treat jews? Aren’t jews White?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

The SPLC, the media, the government say they oppose “racism” and “hate”, but their narrative and rhetoric are dishonest. They attack Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to non-Whites. They defend non-Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to Whites. They are anti-White. What’s more, they are pro-jew. In fact, the current regime is anti-White and pro-jew because it is effectively controlled by jews – dishonest jews who hate Whites.

[The image is taken from The Sikh Temple Shooter’s Racist Tattoos, Deciphered, published by Mother Jones. The author, Adam Weinstein, cites the deceptively named Anti-Defamation League, an explicitly pro-jewish organization, describing how it hates, hates, hates David Lane’s 14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.]

white_fright_obama_target

DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites

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.

485-1

Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration

The first editorial, dated 31 Jan 2009 and titled The Nativists Are Restless, starts the witch-hunt with a bang, accusing Vdare, The American Cause, and korean-jew Marcus Epstein of the second worst crime possible in their brave new progressivist-globalist world: “white supremacism”. (The worst crime being “anti-semitism”, of course. Surely the Times will eventually get to that.)

The next editorial, dated 2 Feb 2009 is titled The Nativists Are Restless, Continued. It continues the assault under the guise of seeking debate, accusing Republicans of not doing enough for latinos while saluting the Southern Poverty Law Center for sniffing out non-latino Whites distasteful enough to fret about our interests and audacious enough to actually pursue them. For the record, the Times states, they do not support open borders, and never have. They’re only concerned that their metaphorical “Golden Door” might be closed. They don’t favor “amnesty” either. They just want a “Golden Door” big enough so “that immigrants will go through, not around”. And that those who do go around get to stay. That’s not “open borders” or “amnesty”. It’s just the common sense of anyone who wants to “destroy America’s identity as a white, European country.”

The editorial dated 4 Feb 2009 is titled ‘The Nativist Lobby’. It broadens the witch-hunt to FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, and is based entirely on the SPLC’s bolshevist smear tactics. Here the pretense at debate has been replaced with a list of people to be shunned and silenced. They conclude by saying “people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about”.

This from people who don’t like to talk about the history of immigration or their own group’s role in shaping it. People who scream ANTI-SEMITE!!! at anyone who notices their relentlessly harsh and extreme pursuit of their own racial interests. Who scream HOLOCAUST!!! at anyone who mocks their fretfulness about their own race, culture and ethnicity. Who scream RACIST!!! if anyone suggests closing the “Golden Door” they worked so long and hard to pry open in order to create the multiracial majority-minority dystopia they desire and thrive in.

The underlying assumptions made by the Times editorialists are outrageously hypocritical:

  • Whites should accept a political regime which explicitly panders to the interests of everyone other than Whites.
  • Whites should not express concern about non-White immigration despite the obvious hostility of those immigrants and their supporters toward Whites.
  • Whites should reject and distance ourselves from anyone who does not conform to these rules.

Jews seem incapable of doing so, but we Whites have no trouble substituting “jew” for “White” in the points above and recognizing the apoplectic reaction any such attack would cause in jews.

Ever since Congress and the media, including the Times, failed to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats in mid 2007 we haven’t heard much from either source about immigration. Odd isn’t it? One day the “12 million” undocumented invaders is a critical issue we just absolutely have to address, immediately and comprehensively. Then when it doesn’t go the way they want the urgency evaporates and for some 18 months there’s hardly a peep. It’s doubly odd that this happened despite an intervening nationwide election. An election which, if the Times et al. really had been so eager to debate, would have been the perfect opportunity for Americans to debate and vote on immigration. Instead the Times, like the rest of the mainstream media and both major political parties, did their best not to talk about immigration. They quickly changed the subject when it did come up. It’s been so long since they talked about it they’re still throwing around the “12 million” number as if it hasn’t changed!

Actually, none of this is odd once you understand that our country has been hijacked by greedy and dishonest people who either don’t care about Whites or actively hate us. As Peter Brimelow says in a video the Times links at their own risk:

I think the issue in the immigration debate is not racism or xenophobia, it’s treason. The people who are running current policy embarked upon a course that will destroy the United States as we know it. They have no loyalty to it, they want to transform it. So it’s treason.

Well now there’s a new president. The first sired by a resident alien. The first with illegal alien relatives. The first whose own natural born citizenship is in doubt. Oblivious to these notable and unprecedented firsts the Times focuses instead like a laser beam on race, “It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out.” Among the views they consider pathetic in the “age of Obama” is anyone daring to mock their “Magic Negro”. What else but magic could explain how so many embarassing firsts were ignored by the Times and most of the rest of the media during Obama’s campaign? It makes far more sense to attribute it to jewish media influence and their self-serving interests in destroying America’s identity as a white, European country. That seems to be what frightens the Times most about Brimelow’s view. If their treason becomes clear to enough people they know they’re going to have hell to pay. Which they see of course as just another reason to carry through the destruction of America’s identity as a white, European country. They’re committed to smothering even the most hapless, harmless Whites who fumble around trying to avoid being called “racist”.

Despite the Times’ attempt to guilt-trip us, we know that Juan “CIR co-sponsor” McCain’s best efforts to woo black, latino, asian, and jewish voters failed miserably. It failed because the non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for the non-White:

Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:
Obama McCain Other
White (75%) 43% 55% 2%
African-American (13%) 96% 4% N/A
Latino (8%) 67% 31% 2%
Asian (2%) 63% 33% 4%
Other (3%) 66% 31% 3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat’s stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain’s 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

Whites don’t deserve the blame for the lopsided non-White vote. The non-Whites do. After decades of legislated preferences for non-Whites, non-White immigration (legal and illegal), poisonous anti-White media propaganda (the NYT in the vanguard), forced integration, non-White on White violence, and piles of danegeld extorted from Whites and transferred to non-Whites by government mandate – after all this the hostility and resentment between non-Whites and Whites has only grown. The jewish-led, jewish-funded assault on Whites has only become more intense. The Times blames it all on Whites.

We have good cause to be angry. The harm done to us is by now crystal clear. Our country, as we knew it, seems doomed. What our enemies are doing now is trying to ensure that no one will be punished for the crime. The crime is genocide – a deliberately pursued policy to harm Whites. The editors of the Times and anyone who agrees with them are genocidalists. Their paranoia about what Whites might do to immigrants, or themselves, does not excuse them. Their response to White objections to the injustice inflicted upon us by immigration is not only unsympathetic, it is openly contemptuous and repressive. Their foot is on our throats. They meet our pleas to stop with derision and push harder. What they could in 1965 pretend was immigration, justified and debated on the basis of how many should be admitted in the best interests of the natives, has been revealed as a culture-killing invasion and alien colonization. Now we are told by our erstwhile dictators that it is expressly for the benefit of the immigrants, the cost to us irrelevant. It is a premeditated and coldly executed program to replace us, and the more we resist the more they pretend they are justified to dislike and fear us.

It may seem to the Times like a good time to once again discuss immigration. After the aforementioned 18 month quasi-blackout on the subject Pew recently announced that public concern for immigration is “slipping”. Never mind that every other issue people claim they are more concerned about is directly impacted by immigration. That the Times would advocate in favor of millions of alien interlopers just now, when so many natives are struggling to find jobs, confirms the malice and distain with which they regard us. I don’t believe this is a blunder. The Times considers it their duty, representing a combination of latino and jewish interests, to broach this subject now. They are preparing the ground so their Magic Negro and plutocrat-owned Congress can have another sham debate about the “12 million”, this time following the fast-track bailout bill template. In that they hope to secure the future of the non-White immigrants while definitively destroying America’s identity as a white, European country.

They hate us so much they can’t wait to forget we ever existed.

080522_Spec_liberalEX_fixed

Not the Last Brainwashing

Letter to the White Race, ostensibly written from the point of view of a non-white, provides a fair summary of how impotent and defeated Whites have been made to appear.

This is facilitated by decades of brainwashing, beginning in early school years, portraying Whites not as the builders of a great civilization, or the admirable leaders of the Free World, but in a lopsided, entirely slanted way as oppressors, enslavers, genocidal “Nazis”, southern Klansmen, imperialistic Colonials, and toothless hillbillies just itching for a chance to lynch the first colored individual that comes along. This brainwashing not only inflames the minorities in these now racially-mixed “schools”, but also inculcates a sense of “White guilt” that the Out Group finds particularly useful in maintaining control.

Tonight I watched a prime-time television documentary called The Last Lynching:

Just weeks before the history-making 2008 presidential election, the first in which any political party has nominated an African American as its candidate, Discovery Channel presents a one-hour special on race in America. Some commentators are now speaking of a “post-racial” period in American history. While the nation has come a long way on the road toward racial equality, there is still much left to accomplish.

It is a prime example of Out Group brainwashing.

The documentary focuses on a Ku Klux Klan-related murder that took place in Mobile AL in 1981. Ted Koppel, who is jewish, interviews 1960s “freedom rider” and current congressional representative from San Diego, Bob Filner, who is jewish, and the SPLC’s founding hate-crusader Morris Dees, who is jewish. The moral of the story: Whites are lynch-happy racists – but we can redeem ourselves by voting for Barack Obama.

Daniel M. Gold writes in his New York Times review: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” And concludes his critique-free review with this:

In these accounts Mr. Koppel offers inspiration and a tribute to an event — the nomination of a black presidential candidate by a major party — that many had not expected in their lifetime. Yet “The Last Lynching” also conveys how close to the surface racial resentments can lie, and how easily they can be channeled into blind rage. In the end the program is as much cautionary tale as celebration.

Racial resentments indeed. This documentary is an excellent example of anti-White resentments motivating jews to not-so-subtly nurse black victimology and channel black resentments against Whites. When their man doesn’t win in November, whose “blind rage” is more likely to spill over? The blacks polling 95-1 for Obama and threatening race riots, or the Whites polling 55-40 for McCain who dare not make a peep about jews like Harold Meyerson who openly say “whiteness is a huge problem”.

In The Last Lynching the mendacity begins at the beginning with a cliched glossing over of the history of lynching in America. Quickly flashing images and carefully selected words convey the impression that only blacks were hung, and that none of it was just or warranted. Some 5000 who were lynched between the civil war and the 1930s are described only as “victims” – as if they were all selected at random, or simply because they were black. There is scant mention of the victims whose rape or murder instigated more than a few of the lynchings.

In glossing over this past Koppel even brazenly refers to The Birth of a Nation, a 1915 film that tells a quite different story from his own. Koppel and friends used snippets of the film to flesh out their characterization of hooded Klansmen mindlessly murdering random negroes. They’re counting on modern day viewers not to know the film’s story and not to know that the Klan rose from the post-war chaos in reaction to the depravities and injustices visited upon southern Whites. As late as 1915 most Whites still knew this history and celebrated the KKK, but even by then racial resentments were brewing:

When Griffith released the film in 1915, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or NAACP) and other groups protested; the NAACP published a 47-page pamphlet titled “Fighting a Vicious Film: Protest Against The Birth of a Nation,” in which they referred to the film as “three miles of filth.” W. E. B. Du Bois published scathing reviews in The Crisis, spurring a heated debate among the National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures as to whether the film should be shown in New York. However, President and former history professor Woodrow Wilson viewed the film at the White House and proclaimed it not only historically accurate, but like “history writ with lightning.” Like Woodrow Wilson, many whites felt it a truthful and accurate portrayal of racial politics, so much so that they flocked to join the rejuvenated Ku Klux Klan. The years after Griffith released The Birth of a Nation saw massive race riots throughout the country, peaking especially in the North in 1919; many historians lay the blame for this racial conflict on Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.

What happened between then and now? Well understanding that the early NAACP was organized, funded, and led by jews helps explain. It seems WEEJs (white eastern European jews) had an axe to grind with the WASP elite. It seems these WASPs were a wee slow in handing over control of the nation their forefathers gave birth to. After almost a century of “culture war” those busy little WEEJs are still grinding away. Today “KKK” is an epithet, and jews are making documentaries to explain how the ever expanding racial conflict they’ve poured gasoline on is all for the better. The only threat to their utopia are racist Whites itching to once again start lynching at random.

If jewish influence in the media were not so strong, or if jews did not so uniformly resent Whites, then perhaps today’s mainstream journalists and pundits would not so strongly and uniformly insist on inverting reality. The reality of post-KKK, post-Jim Crow, post-White, jewish-dominated America is black on White violence:

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation, 2005

Mapping The Unmentionable: Race And Crime
February 13, 2005
By Steve Sailer

CRIME IN THE HOOD
La Griffe du Lion
November 1999

THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
Paul Sheehan
From the Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995

Guy White calls out “liberal” Tim Wise on his “lying” and “false logic” about this reality. Guy makes sense, except in failing to note that Tim Wise is a jew who makes a living channeling racial resentment towards Whites. Jewish race-based indifference, hostility, and even genocidal feelings toward Whites, no matter how hard we might wish to avert our eyes and pretend jews are “White Like Me”, is another harsh reality the media won’t discuss.

One final thought.

If an atypical murder from 1981 rates a prime-time documentary, then when might Ted Koppel make a documentary exploring the racial resentments behind the quadruple murder in Wichita, the rape/torture/murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, or the sickeningly common racial murder and rape of White women in America? When might Bob Filner spend time on a bus or in a jail cell for the benefit of White victims of racial violence? When might Morris Dees hound black rapists and murders in court?

I think they’ll get around to these things right after making a documentary guilt-tripping jews for their involvement in the biggest fraud in history.

In other words: never.

UPDATE 15 Oct 2008: The image at the top of this post is a corrected version of the reality-inverting original that was attached to a Slate essay from May titled In Praise of Liberal Guilt – It’s not wrong to favor Obama because of race. In that essay Ron Rosenbaum, who is jewish, delivers virtually the same message as Koppel/Filner/Dees: Whites should feel guilty because of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow. We should feel guilty about it forever. And because of it we should vote for Obama.

He also neglects to address the black on White violence occurring today.

What a coincidence.

We must recognize these attempts to guilt-trip us for events that occurred generations ago, to libel and damn us forever because of the race we are born into. We must recognize that these smears are not only false, they represent attacks made by people who wish us ill.

White-label-blank

White Advocate Robert Griffin

From a review at Amazon:

Robert Griffin’s Living White offers solid reportage, analysis, and counsel for racially conscious American whites interested in effective thought and action on behalf of their beleaguered kind and country. Griffin, a professor of education at the University of Vermont, is that rarity: a knowledgeable student of contemporary American white nationalism who is an emphatic and empathetic partisan of his people. He is the author of two valuable books on white America’s fledgling racial-nationalist movement, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, based on interviews with the late William Pierce and One Sheaf, One Vine, which gives voice to ordinary European-Americans who have embraced racial consciousness in ways currently acceptable for nonwhites and for Jews in this country, but long since taboo for whites.

In Living White, Griffin brings well-honed critical skills to addressing questions of individual demeanor and conduct that the committed very often neglect: the search for self-knowledge, the struggle for personal effectiveness, the resolve to act in the public arena, and the ability to communicate racial concerns to other whites. The score of essays included in Living White encompass the wide range of Griffin’s observations of the racial right, observations sharpened by his learning in the psychology of education and by his comparative detachment as a latecomer to white racial politics. The pieces collected here run the gamut from practical advice for activists to meditations on the careers of men as disparate as Stanford University president and eugenics enthusiast David Starr Jordan and American Nazi agitator George Lincoln Rockwell, demolitions of books by academic denigrators of white people, and valuable personal vignettes of his own path to self-fulfillment in service of his people.

Besides being uncommonly objective, Robert Griffin is unusually thoughtful, and much of his thought has been devoted to gaining knowledge of himself. This self-knowledge, and his observation and experience of life, make Griffin a sympathetic listener and a sound adviser on the challenges of living white in today’s America. His essay on how to educate one’s children to live honorable white lives is notable for his grasp of the essential issues: too many white parents (and not just nationalists) still believe that it suffices to remove their offspring from minority milieus, neglecting the tentacles of the education industry and the entertainment media. He is particularly good on the loss of community and on considerations of how to rebuild it, in writing free of both lamentation and cheery assurance of easy restorations.

In just a few years Robert Griffin has emerged as an author, analyst, and public spokesman for white Americans, despite his very public status in the fishbowl of campus life at a state university. The fact that he has tenure has not preserved him from wounds to the ego and the heart, wounds which he wears openly and bravely. The deafness which afflicted Griffin suddenly after he had completed his second book on white nationalism has been if anything a goad to his work and action: It lead him to write, here, “While–for me–there is still time, in my life, I want, day to day, hour to hour, in my own unique way, to live as an honorable white man,” thereby giving body and soul to Friedrich Nietzsche by now hackneyed “What does not destroy me makes me stronger,” and reminding that, as George Eliot wrote, “It’s never too late to be what you might have been.”

Perusing Griffin’s web site the synopsis for the essay On the New McCarthyism caught my attention:

The topic here is the current attacks on racially conscious and active white people by those who would marginalize, silence, and punish them for their beliefs, expressions, and actions. I use a memoir on the McCarthy era, as it was called, in the 1940s and ‘50s, written by Walter Bernstein, Inside Out: A Memoir of the Black List, and an encounter I had in late 2006 with the Southern Poverty Law Center to frame an analysis of this phenomenon, drawing parallels between what went on in the McCarthy years, and at other points in history, and what’s going on now. I offer some suggestions on how racially committed white people can deal with attacks against them.

The following exerpts really struck a chord:

Bernstein was a member of the Communist Party. He was also a morally upright person who cared deeply about the welfare of his fellow man and economic and racial justice. But all that was immaterial to his inquisitors. It didn’t matter what he was like. It didn’t matter what his commitments were. And it wasn’t a personal assault on Bernstein, because he was no longer a person: he was type, a concept, he’d been objectified, de-humanized. Bernstein could be fit into a category that had been set up as evil and threatening, Communist, and that made him the enemy and fair game.

Bernstein was like the Jap in World War II. You don’t acknowledge a Jap’s humanity. You don’t bother distinguishing one Jap from another. You don’t try to figure out what a Jap is thinking, or hear him out, or dialogue with him. You certainly don’t care a whit about what happens to a Jap. You kill a Jap, period. You drop firebombs on Jap women and children in Tokyo—after all, they are all Japs, the same ones that attacked our ships in Pearl Harbor, no difference. You drop atomic bombs on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—why not, they are Japs, they deserve to die. Bernstein was a Jap.

I’ll offer some thoughts on how you can get good people to commit or go along with a bad thing and feel good about it: up to persecuting, and even slaughtering, other people they don’t even know. Here’s how you do it:

Control their information, images, and ideas. Make sure they only hear your side of the story.

Couch what you want in the highest sounding language. Tell them its defending freedom, on the side of justice, combating hate, something like that.

Give people language they can use to tell themselves how virtuous they are when they destroy the people you want destroyed or go along with it. People like to think of themselves as a being good, morally upright, having good character, and so on.

De-humanize and objectify the other side. In Germany, Jews were depicted as vermin and as being all alike. Racially conscious whites are all KKK members. Nazis are evil and all the same. “White males” are all privileged, boorish, and oppressive. Keep people from looking at the particulars about individuals and just focusing on the pejorative category you’ve set up. Categories are easier to attack and kill than individual human beings.

Let people know that if they go along with you they will be acknowledged and approved and respected by others and included in the group. And the stick to complement the carrot, point out examples of people who didn’t go along with you—how they were condemned, ignored, disrespected, marginalized, or shunned.

Distribute some tangible perks to people who play ball with you. Thinking your way and doing your bidding is a way to get and keep a job, get a promotion and a raise, get praise and an award, get an article or a book published, a project funded, etc. And alternatively, get across that crossing you is the way to get negated, fired, and your house on the auction block.

And then turn the dogs loose. Even the sweetest of dogs, to continue that metaphor, will go for the throat, and more, they’ll honestly believe in what they are doing. Depending on whether they live in Germany or England, they’ll put Jews on freight trains or incinerate 130,000 civilians in Dresden in a bombing raid.

And notice where it starts: Making sure that only the information, images, and ideas favorable to your side gets to the masses. Controlling what gets published, what films get made and what gets on television, what is lectured and read and said in the classroom, who gets to participate in the public discourse and who gets silenced. Clamping down hard on anybody who doesn’t mirror the current orthodoxy, the current creed. Joseph Goebbels knew all about this, and so do modern thought managers.

Reading Bernstein’s account, I was struck by parallels between what was going on in the 1940s and ‘50s and what’s happening in our time now with the attacks against “hate.” My research and writing on race has brought me into personal contact with this contemporary inquisition. I’ve seen what has happened to people I’ve encountered, and I’ve tasted a bit of it myself. My transgression is that I wrote about white separatists, white advocates, white activists, and yes, white supremacists, without condescendingly smearing them as ignorant, anachronistic, and malevolent racists and bigots. I didn’t do that because it wouldn’t have been truthful to do that.

I care about the wellbeing of all people on this planet, and that includes European heritage people, white people. Most of my writing on race has been reportage and analysis, but increasingly as time has gone on, I have written from a position of white advocacy. I’m an advocate for whites for the same reasons that others support blacks and Hispanics and other groups. I’ve spent my adult life around secondary schools and universities and I’ve seen first hand how young whites are put down in schools. Their ancestors are trashed as oppressors, they are conditioned to feel guilty about their heritage and race, and they are taught to defer to and serve the interests of other races and pay no attention to the welfare of their own people. They are shut up if they express racial pride and commitment, they are beaten back if they even think about forming organizations or engaging in collective action, and they are the victims of racial discrimination in school admittance. If the children of any other racial or ethnic group were treated this way in schools there would be hell to pay.

If I advocated for any other group but whites, using the exact same language and rationale, I’d be applauded and rewarded. I find it fascinating that nobody seems to notice this contradiction. Say you care about white people these days and it’s called hate, and people buy into that.

Here’s an unvarnished truth the anti-White “hate speech” goons don’t want deracinated Whites to hear:

It is more accurate to call the people and organizations I have studied and written about this past decade as white advocates or white separatists rather than white supremacists. They are concerned about the status and future of white people and their heritage and, many of them, want whites to be able, if they choose, to live among their own and to determine their own destiny. That said, some racially conscious whites do believe that, given their values, the white race has been, and continues to be, more accomplished; superior, if you will. They hold that if you objectively assess the races on the bases of their achievements in philosophy, ethics, the arts, architecture, civilization building, mathematics, science and technology, and business acumen, whites are at the top of the list, or at least compared to blacks and Hispanics. They contend that knowing a community is white allows you to predict that with great deal of certainty that it is clean and orderly and safe, and that its children are cared for and educated well, and that life is liveable there; and that the same cannot be said for a black or Hispanic community. They claim that when there is an infusion of blacks and Hispanics into a white area to the level of a critical mass—say, 30%–you can predict that the area will deteriorate physically, become politically corrupt and more dangerous, that educational standards will become lower, and that it will be an area that decent people will want leave, not enter.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It a free society it should not be a crime or punishable to believe one’s race or religion is superior. Rather than forbid assertions of white superiority, we should allow it to be part of the public discourse. If it is empirically false, that will be demonstrated by counterargument. The truth will set us free, or at least it will set us on the right direction. We need to ground ourselves in reality, whatever that reality is, and even if that reality is unpalatable. To operate on high-sounding but false premises is a ticket to distress and failure.

You might think a diverse, multiracial, multicultural society is demonstrably best, and preferable as a setting in which to live. Others, however, have the right to ask you to provide concrete examples to support your perspective and preference rather than just rhetoric. Other than the fictions on television and in the movies where are these multi-racial, multi-ethnic paradises? In Lebanon? In the old Yugoslavia? In Rwanda and the Sudan? In Chicago and Detroit and Cincinnati and Los Angeles? In London? Paris? Where exactly? And what gives you the right to tell white people who want to live peacefully among their racial kinsman that they can’t do that and they must live your way? Back to human nature, there is a tendency for people to think their way is the best way and the only way, and to force that on other people. I think that is a predilection we all need to overcome in ourselves.

Contrary to the image that has been painted of them, the vast majority of the racially conscious whites do not want to harm blacks and Hispanics or rule them. Rather, they simply want to get away from them. And they are not racists as we usually define that term: they don’t harbor a deep-seated, irrational animosity toward minorities. What is called racism and hate is actually disapproval and disdain. With blacks, white racialists disapprove of, and have contempt for, their illegitimacy rate, their violent crime rate, the way they fail to keep up the areas in which they live, their educational and work performance, their welfare dependency, and their tendency to hold others responsible for their negative conduct and demand double standards and racial preferences. These whites point out that that 90% of interracial crime is black on white, and are enraged that blacks rape 20,000 white women a year (versus a couple hundred the other way around), and are convinced that these realities are suppressed by those who control the information flow in America.

His advice for fellow White advocates:

I’ll end with some suggestions to people who may find themselves a target of the today’s McCarthyites. In particular, I’m speaking to white racially conscious people of whatever stripe: white analyst, white advocate, white activist, white separatist, or white supremacist. I want to underscore that what I offer here is my best thinking, but it could be off the mark. Take it as simply my side of a conversation. With that disclaimer on the record, here’s my advice to those who care about white people and their future in a culture that is committed to shutting you down hard and making you pay.

First of all, cover your ass. They’ll do anything to you they can get away with, and it makes no difference whether you have done anything wrong or not. And you have to assume that you are all alone, that there is nobody covering your back. Somebody might bleat on an Internet discussion list that you got screwed, but that’s about as far as it will go, or at least you better not count on any more support than that. You have a career going and bills to pay and perhaps a wife or husband and children to guide and support and parents to care for, and as far as I’m concerned, those are your first obligations. Until you are sure about what you are going to do and its consequences, don’t create a paper trail that can be used to get you. If you write, use a pseudonym. Keep your name off membership lists. Don’t write anything in an e-mail you wouldn’t mind being a front page story in the newspaper. If you are going for a job or a promotion, tell them what they want to hear. If you are up for tenure as an academic, lay low until that comes through. Stay underground until you are clear you want to go above ground.

Get in the best shape you can. Figure you are in a war. Get battle-ready. Put your mind and body in the best condition possible. If you have some physical or mental issue, habit, addiction, whatever it is, that is getting in your way, get it out of your way, starting now.

Don’t buy what the crap they tell you about yourself. The people doing the talking in this country tell you that being for minorities is good but being for whites is bad, that you are bad, that they are the action and you keep your mouth shut over in the corner, and so on. Constantly tell yourself another, more positive, story.

Find some likeminded people. You aren’t alone. There are people that think as you do, and who will like and encourage you. They may be right around you or they might be on the Internet. You might have to contact them on the sly. Bernstein in his memoir wrote: “When I was with other blacklisted people, I felt what I had felt in the war [WWII], a comradeship based on common purpose. . . . What I felt was unjustified by my social condition. Bitterness and despair were more appropriate. But with these people the scream stayed dormant in my throat. What I felt was a kind of happiness.”

Don’t assume that explaining and placating will do you any good. When they come after you, there is always the tendency to try to talk your way out of it. “See, I’m not really a racist, and actually, some of my best friends . . .” It is temping when they get on your case, or to prevent them from doing it, to suck up to them, come off as a nice guy, a benign guy, a no-threat-to-anybody guy, an I’m-really-on-your-side guy, etc. I suppose those kinds of things can work, but you have to assume that reason and logic and whether you are a good guy doesn’t cut it for anything; no matter what you say, no matter how much tail you kiss, as soon as they can, they’ll slit your throat.

Play to your strengths. And what might they be?

  • Legal recourse. People don’t like to get sued. The first person to contact if someone dumps on you for your racial beliefs or actions is an attorney. Don’t say or do anything until you do.
  • Use the system. What they want to do is keep it just you and them. They call you into a room, hit you with the charge. You reason and beg (it feels really good to them to have somebody prostrate themselves like you are doing). Then, after waiting you out with a patronizing slight smile on their face, they fire you or whatever it was they had in mind when they called you into the room. Make it about more than you and your oppressor; get it out of that room. Kick it upstairs. Take it to his boss. Invoke the grievance or review system. If you have a union, get it involved. Knowledge is power: know the system, the organizational chart, everything that is written down. Nobody should know more about how the system works than you do.
  • Go public. Most often, they want to mess you over without anybody finding out. And most often, you go along with that because you are embarrassed, or you feel helpless, or deep down you think you are as bad as they say you are, or you’re scared, or they’ve promised you a positive recommendation or some extended insurance coverage if you keep things inside. And perhaps it is your interest to go along with playing it that way. All I can offer is my sense that the ones coming at you usually don’t like it when outside people know what they are doing. The thought of what’s happening to you getting on TV and in the newspapers, you trashing them publicly, or it actually happening, is most often a very aversive experience to the ones trying to do you in; and the threat to do that, or the impression that you will do that if they attack you, could get them to back off or cut a favorable deal.
  • Counterattack. It’s makes sense when people hit you to defend yourself, but while you are doing that be thinking about how you can attack them and put them on the defensive. Just as it was on the playground when you were a kid, letting the bully know that you aren’t just going to roll up in a ball and take his abuse, and that you are going to do your best to break his nose if he touches you, is a good way to present yourself. And the key is, don’t be kidding; if you can, break his nose. Bernstein, bless him, just took it. At least we can go down swinging.
  • Keep in mind where this ends up. At the end of our lives we make a fundamental judgment about ourselves: that we lived an honorable life or we didn’t. An honorable life doesn’t mean we did the right thing every time, but basically we did. Basically we didn’t sell out. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we were never lived irresponsibly, but basically we lived responsibly. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we never shortchanged ourselves and other people, but basically we did our best. I think we always have to keep in the back of our minds that there will be a time when there is only the past and what we have done with it; and that what will someday be the past is now and tomorrow and the next day and the next month and the next year. The question today and tomorrow and next month and next year is what is the honorable thing to do? It may take a while to get ourselves to the place where we are doing the honorable thing, but I think if we keep plugging the best we can we have a good shot of someday, down the road, smiling peacefully and saying “Yes.”

I would prefer he write White instead of white, but I’m happy to have found another likeminded person.