From the Too-Good-Not-To-Splash-Across-the-Web Dept. comes Steve Sailer’s take on Morris Dees’ extravagant digs. Here is the entire 60-item photo shoot, including the following:
Hypocrisy. Absurdity. Mockery. Words fail. How about a deliciously funny screenplay lampooning a Dees-like character? It’s got gargantuan comedic potential. Tom Wolfe, are you paying attention?
Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream. First, for the absurdity itself. And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.
The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation. The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries. Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.
The story itself is a farce. Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.” Really? A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication? It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.
On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.” Were they, really? This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical. But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.
Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk. I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”
Sigh. Allow me to reiterate my point. It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors. They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks. Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t. It’s that simple. Same analysis, different conclusion. Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?
Why won’t the press ever look into THAT? If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?
And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?
And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?
And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?
I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Kevin MacDonald:It’s great to be Jewish in the year 2010. The latest evidence is the appointment of Elena Kagan as the third Jew on the Supreme Court. Philip Weiss puts it this way:
The Kagan appointment means that we have entered a period in which Jews are equal members, if not actually predominant members, of the American Establishment. Obama’s two closest political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, and are said to be his foreign-policy braintrust. The economy is supervised to a large degree by Jewish appointees, Larry Summers and Fed Reserve Board chair Paul Bernanke (Time’s man of the year last year, a selection overseen by Rick Stengel, the Time magazine editor, who is also Jewish).
Of course, that’s just scratching the surface on Jewish representation among the elites in politics, law, the financial world, the media, and personal wealth. Weiss goes on to take the standard line that Jews have achieved so much because of their bookish culture. But if there’s anything that stands out about Kagan, it’s how utterly ordinary she is in terms of scholarly accomplishment or anything else that would qualify her for the court–very few publications, no experience as a judge, little courtroom experience – the Harriet Miers of the Obama administration. (I stole that one from someone on the Rachel Maddow show, maybe Maddow herself. But it shows the depth of her inaptitude that even liberals are sensitive to it. For example, Paul Campos writes on the Daily Beast, “if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.” Here’s my version: “When she received tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, she had exactly two scholarly articles published in law journals — a record that would ordinarily not get her tenure even at quite a few third tier universities much less an elite institution like the University of Chicago.”)
Her only talent seems to be getting really prestigious jobs without any obvious qualifications apart from her ethnic background. And her appointment is a sure thing for the left: Whereas Republicans have been disappointed several times by nominees who converted into liberals (like John Paul Stevens), Kagan’s ethnic identity ensures that she is on the side of all things multicultural.
My take (see also here) is that this is an affirmative action appointment of someone who has benefited greatly from Jewish ethnic networking and has dangerous views on the First Amendment that are in line with the views of the ADL, the SPLC, and the rest of the organized Jewish community. (See also Patrick Cleburne’s post at VDARE.com.)
It’s amazing to see liberals expressing doubts about Kagan. (In fact, one wonders where these people were before her nomination was a done deal. Kagan’s name has been floated since the Sotomayor nomination, but suddenly we see all these doubts about her – mainly from liberals feigning concern.) She is clearly on the left, perhaps with some neocon tendencies regarding executive power. But that is hardly reassuring. Put these tendencies together and you have someone who could be very dangerous to an incipient racialist movement: Anti-”hate speech” and comfortable with using government power to suppress political action that conflicts with the aims of the regime.
Another thought that crossed my mind was that Obama and his advisers may have wanted to court Jews [bad pun] because of the fallout from the tensions with Israel. Despite the fact that, as John Mearsheimer recently noted, the confrontation with Israel was won hands down by Israel, a recent poll shows that American Jews are defecting from Obama in droves, with only 42% saying they would now vote for Obama (down from 83% who voted for him in 2008). A recent visit to the White House (”Obama Tries to Mend Fences with Jews“, NYTimes, May 4, 2010) by Elie Wiesel indicated shows that Obama sees a need to placate the Jewish community:
The lunch meeting between Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Obama came three weeks after Mr. Wiesel took out a full-page advertisement in a number of United States newspapers criticizing the Obama administration for pressuring Mr. Netanyahu to stop Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians would like to put the capital of an eventual Palestinian state.
The advertisement, in which Mr. Wiesel wrote that “Jerusalem is the heart of our heart, the soul of our soul,” alarmed White House officials, in part because it came on the heels of similar advertisements from the World Jewish Congress and grumbling from members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, that Mr. Obama was pushing Mr. Netanyahu too hard.
Giving them yet another appointment to the Supreme Court certainly can’t hurt.
Kevin MacDonald: If there’s one central truth about Jewish activism, it’s that no stone is left unturned. Since Jews are a small minority, they must make alliances with sympathetic non-Jews. For example, quite a bit of their money is spent convincing non-Jews of the nobility of the Israeli cause. This video of the recent AIPAC conference focuses on the 1321 student political leaders from 370 colleges in all 50 states who were given all-expenses-paid trips to attend the conference. The vast majority of these students are non-Jews, picked because some among them may well end up having political power and influence in the future. It’s their first lesson in where the money is, and it’s doubtless money well spent.
AIPAC also pays for week-long trips to Israel for Congressmen and journalists at around $5000 per.
JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) has similar programs for politicians who are more advanced in their careers than the students feted by AIPAC. However, the bulk of JINSA’s budget is spent on taking a host of retired U.S. generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and retired but still-influential U.S. flag officers.
All of this largess has predictable psychological effects. Particularly striking in the AIPAC video is the rock star greeting that the students gave to pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz, shown passionately asking for any evidence that America’s tilt toward Israel endangers American lives. I guess the Iraq war doesn’t count. I am sure he won’t count the looming war with Iran that is so ardently championed by the Israel Lobby.
But the point here is that all this costs money, and Jewish organizations are lavishly funded. Here are some numbers for public donations to Jewish and de facto Jewish organizations gleaned from Guidestar.org for 2008:
AIPAC: $52 million; much of AIPAC’s impact is from money that is directly contributed to political candidates by Jews associated with AIPAC rather than from AIPAC’s budget, so the actual amount of money controlled by AIPAC is much larger.
JINSA: $3.5 million. Much of JINSA’s money comes from defense contractors wanting to suck up to the Israel Lobby.
ADL: $59 million in 2008 ($68 million in 2007).
ACLU: $76 million (each state also has a branch; for example the Southern California branch reported $3.5 million in donations).
$PLC: $32 million.
That’s a brief and very incomplete glimpse into the world of (mainly Jewish) philanthropy directed at supporting causes that fit with Jewish political interests — Israel and the anti-White left in America. These organizations get this kind of money every year — at a time when the left is so powerful as to be virtually on auto-pilot. Imagine if there was a real threat from a pro-White movement or if Israel was in danger of losing its iron grip on the US political system. The amounts given to these organizations would skyrocket.
Now let’s look at pro-White advocacy, keeping in mind that we are in far more dire straits in terms of what we can reasonably expect the future to hold than the groups contributing to the organizations listed above.
Right now VDARE.COM is in a financial crisis, and after several weeks is still well short of getting $50,000 in contributions to bridge around half of the gap created when a major foundation donor stopped its funding.
AlternativeRight, a project of the VDARE Foundation, is also doing a fundraiser with a goal of $50,000, of which they have gotten around $33,000 as of this writing.
The goal for both these sites is $50 thousand, not the well over $50 million that the ADL rakes in every year. I won’t even mention the contributions to this website — small in comparison even to these pro-White sites.
The point is that the funding picture for race realist, immigration patriot, pro-White organizations is ridiculously minuscule compared to the funding of our adversaries.
There are very real consequences to this. The one I want to emphasize here is that vanishingly few people are able to actually make a living by writing for these sites or by being an on-the-ground activist promoting our ideas on college campuses and elsewhere. I recently had a phone conversation with a young 20-something writer and activist on college campuses who told me about his $5000 credit card debt and living in a large house with like-minded others to save money on rent. Most importantly, he said he was anticipating giving up his position in order to get a real job, get married and have a family — none of which are remotely possible in his current situation. The guys he is living with are doubtless in a similar situation. Pro-White activism is something you can do when you are young and want to live like a college student. But it’s not a viable career option.
And there is the writer of the current TOO article, who goes by the pen name of Simon Krejsa. (He has also written for VDARE). He just emailed me saying that he has entered a homeless shelter in Oshkosh.
And there are the young men associated with A3P, none of whom is receiving a dime for his work despite all the time and energy they are putting into it. Perhaps they too will come to think that their activism will have to take second place to a job that can pay a mortgage and support a family.
There are also quite a few people with advanced degrees who are good writers and on-page intellectually, but who are forced to work in other jobs, typically low paying, just to get by.
It’s pretty pathetic when one contrasts that with the vast resources of the organizations arrayed against us. (One of the things that angers me most is what rich White people do with their money. See “A Tale of Two Rich Guys, Haim Saban and Charles T. Munger.”)Young people who support these anti-White organizations can rest assured that they can have a good middle-class or even upper-middle class income by working for them — and quite a few do. Politicians see nothing but financial and political upside by taking their points of view.
On our side, it’s all self-sacrifice and altruism, especially for the young people who are so essential to any really effective movement. But we will never be effective if that’s the way it’s going to be. A young person active in pro-White advocacy must think not only that there is no future in it, but that pro-White activism when they are young is likely to be a major problem when they apply for a job in the mainstream economy. So they will have to use pen names and hope for the best.
We have to do all we can to make pro-White advocacy a viable career. And that most likely means that we have to find some really big sources of money able to make a credible showing against the seemingly inexhaustible fount of money that can be harnessed by anti-White activists.
Christopher Donovan: It’s one thing to realize that universities, the media and the government are largely controlled by those hostile to Whites. But it’s quite another to realize that even whites’ traditionally core institutions — like the military — have been infiltrated by the same people. Now comes word that the military is ready to sniff out “white supremacists” — not by tattoo, group affiliation or vocal pronunciations around the barracks, but by nothing more than Internet advocacy.
As the angry comments note, it’s pretty obvious that the military isn’t interested in non-White “supremacist” activity, like the Five Percenters, Black gang members who put up their graffiti in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Islamic radicals who actually do cause big problems within the military. “Supremacist”, you see, is a nasty-sounding word that only applies to Whites.
(What’s funny to me, as a side note, is how unavoidably “Aryan” the business of being a soldier is to begin with: young, mostly White men standing ramrod straight, saluting, obeying authority and trained to kill brown people. Right there, of course, you’ve got a big problem, and if these men weren’t advancing Israel’s cause, they’d be held in far lower esteem by the Jewish power structure — and during the Vietnam war, they were. You’d think that if there were a clean-cut, hate-filled White man looking to kill non-Whites, the military would be the perfect place for him. Seems a military made up of wishy-washy liberals wouldn’t be very effective — they’d throw down their weapons and surrender.)
What’s scary about this effort by the military is to read the comment of Mark Potok, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s white-hater in chief, who seems to take credit for the new policy.
He’s quoted: “The hope is that this clarifies that even advocacy of these kinds of ideas is not consistent with being in the military.”
Wow. Full-fledged thought control, right in front of us. Who is this man, who exercises such incredible power — over the entire armed forces, no less? What, exactly, qualifies him to police the thoughts of White servicemen and women? He wasn’t elected. He wasn’t appointed. He didn’t even enlist. And yet there he is.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him
Kevin MacDonald: Stephen Walt had the audacity to suggest, given Dennis Ross’s close ties to WINEP, that Ross should not have a policy-making position on Middle East issues in the Obama Administration. Neocon Robert Satloff responded with outrage, claiming that Ross has been doing nothing but promoting “U.S. interests in peace and security for the past quarter-century.” And he disingenuously asks, “To which country do we allegedly have a ’strong attachment’? Our foreign-born scholars hail from virtually every country in the Middle East — Turkey, Iran, Israel, and at least a dozen different Arab countries.”
The best response is by M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization that advocates a two-state solution to the conflict:
Steve Rosen [who was acquited on charges of spying for Israel in 2009] … cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.
There was no question that WINEP was to be AIPAC’s cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover and would encourage them to write whatever they liked on matters not related to Israel. “Say what you want on Morocco, kid.” But on Israel, never deviate more than a degree or two.
In other words, Satloff’s claims that WINEP is not tied to any particular lobby or country are part of an ongoing subterfuge that fools no one except the mainstream media: “It matters because the media has totally fallen for this sleight of hand and WINEP spokespersons appear (especially on PBS) as if WINEP was not part of the Israel lobby. Some truth-in-labeling is warranted.”
This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas. Because they are a small minority in the US and other Western societies, Jews must recruit support from the wider community. Their positions cannot be phrased as benefiting Jews, but as benefiting the interests of the society as a whole. As a result, these movements cannot tell their name.
A great example is the $PLC, an organization that we now know is funded by Jews and, apart from the sociopathic Morris Dees, is also largely staffed by Jews. Yet whenever there is a story about “immigrant rights” or angry White people, the SPLC is called on by the mainstream media as a “respected civil rights organization” rather than for what it is: A Jewish activist organization actively attempting to further the ethnic interests of Jews, typically at the expense of White Americans.
This sort of subterfuge was true of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. As I noted in Ch. 6:
It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they “could not tell their name”; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or that Jewish group interests were involved …. Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, “What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute’s members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities” (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that [non-Jews] would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91–93). The technique of having non-Jews] as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy. … [Chap. 7]: Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments [on immigration] developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, [non-Jews] from old-line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts, and Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, 92).
It’s an old technique, arguably present (see also here) from the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The sad thing is that people who should know better continue to be deceived.
Christopher Donovan: “Fresh Air”, the NPR program hosted by Terry Gross (see past criticism here), last week gave its platform to one of America’s foremost haters of whites, the SPLC’s Mark Potok. (Listen to the show here. Note that in the copious comments, not everyone’s a blind worshipper of the SPLC.) Needless to say, Gross, a liberal Jewish woman, never once disagreed with Potok, or even asked a semi-skeptical question (Potok apparently had a Jewish father and leads a life perfectly consistent with Jewish aims). The entire program was a love-fest between two powerful figures who act in mutually reinforcing ways: The SPLC provides “news” for NPR to report, and NPR, by quoting the SPLC, confers upon it the status of “respected civil rights group.”
A hundred points could be made: Gross and Potok ignore the evidence of violence and threats of violence from the left (including the cancellation of American Renaissance), they paint with a broad brush everything to the right of Mao as “extremism”, and of course never delve into whether any particular frustrations are justified. Toweringly, the same reduction of a movement or people to nasty names is exactly what the SPLC is practicing itself. If it’s “extreme” to say Obama is a “socialist”, isn’t it just as “extreme” to say that tea partiers are “racist”? But any conservative might make such observations.
An equally important point is that Gross and Potok are strongly identified with secular Jewish lifestyles and political aims. Both NPR and the SPLC are as important to Jews as the Temple Mount. When they both report for work in the morning, their desks are essentially cockpits of jet fighters that rain down hostile fire on Whites, and Jews are as happy to fund NPR and the SPLC as they are Birthright Israel.
Potok is right on one point: the “rage on the right” is indeed largely driven by White frustration, something the “tea party” set won’t admit. But here’s a suggestion for the tea partiers: Frustration is in fact the source of your anger, and there’s nothing wrong with that anger. You, as a White person, have every right to be angry about a Black president who wants a health care program that forces you to subsidize non-whites. They’re going to call you a racist anyway — so you might as well be honest, right?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Kevin MacDonald: Having written an informative article on the SPLC, Jerry Kammer is now emphasizing that he is a liberal. I suppose that’s a good way to dodge criticism when one is going after a pillar of the left. A video clip on Kammer by Media Matters emphasizes his charge that the SPLC is mainly about raking in the money: Morris Dees “learned that he can take in more money by exaggerating the size and menace of the Klan” — “Jihad for dollars.”
As Kammer points out, many of the most trenchant critics of the SPLC have been on the left. But the interesting thing is not that the $PLC has gotten rich off the Klan. The interesting thing is why going after the Klan has such a strong appeal to its Jewish donor base. The menace of racially conscious White people is what motivates Jewish donors, not poor people. And that’s why the SPLC will lead the looming battle on immigration. The fact that there are millions of unemployed American citizens is completely irrelevant, as are the effects 0f immigration on destroying the labor market for American citizens — especially the among less educated. The massive public costs of immigrant health care and education are overlooked, as are the effects of overpopulation on the environment as amnestied immigrants import their relatives and swell the population to over 500 million by mid-century. This is because, despite all the lofty rhetoric, it’s really all about ethnic conflict in which White people, and especially working class White people, are the big losers and non-Whites are the big winners.
Forget about the Jewish donors to the SPLC. Surely no one would doubt that La Raza’s motivation is ethnic and that it has no concern at all if there are economic and political costs to the rest of America. For them, after all, it’s all about advancing the power and influence of la raza — just as for the SPLC donors, it’s all about Jewish fear and loathing of a White, Christian America. It’s an ethnic war that White people are supposed to graciously lose in the name of abstract virtues without calling it for what it is — racial dispossession.
Kevin MacDonald: The Center for Immigration Studies has released a report by Jerry Kammer on the $PLC’s involvement in pro-immigration activism, its ties to La Raza, and its financial dependence on Jewish donors. Because the SPLC is able to get it’s messages into the media, its claim that FAIR is a “hate group” has been endlessly repeated in the media and touted by pro-immigration activists. Advocates then note that other groups on the SPLC hate list include the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Aryan Nations.
The point, of course, is to remove all restrictionist arguments from having any public credibility — whatever their factual basis. Journalist Laird Wilcox is quoted “The SPLC has exploited the patina of the old civil rights movement. And this has a mesmerizing effect on people, especially reporters who are naturally attracted to heroic images of racial struggles and stark contrasts of good vs. evil. I’ve been astounded at how many of the SPLC’s claims have gone unchallenged.”
Kammer is careful to oppose any hint that ethnically based arguments have any validity. He notes that the pro-immigration group America’s Voice features a quote from FAIR founder John Tanton in its ads: “As WHITES see their POWER and CONTROL over their lives DECLINING, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an EXPLOSION” (emphasis from America’s Voice). Such a statement does appear on the face of it to be a claim that there is a huge ethnic angle to the immigration debate — not that there is anything wrong with that. This indeed is the big issue. Pro-immigration forces have been running roughshod over the interests and feelings of the White majority for decades, and I do believe that eventually there will be an explosion if the legitimate interests of Whites continue to be trampled on.
Kammer contextualizes Tanton’s statement as questioning the ability of non-Whites to assimilate into America and therefore absolves him of “racism.” And he notes that FAIR has tended to frame its arguments in economic terms — that immigration hurts American workers, while the SPLC, despite its supposed championing of Black causes, is remarkably unconcerned about the effects of immigration on American Blacks. In my view, that’s because the SPLC is heavily allied with and funded by Jewish ethnic interests in maximizing non-White immigration from all non-White groups. Indeed, Kammer notes that “A former SPLC employee told the Montgomery Advertiser that the donor base was ‘anchored by wealthy Jewish contributors on the East and West coasts’ ”
As I have said before, until White ethnic interests are legitimized, we are fighting this race war against Whites without our most potent weapon. As Kammer shows, activists like Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok have no trouble at all denying fact-based arguments on the economic effects of immigration. It’s just like the IQ debate in the media. Facts are always trumped by politics, non-White ethnic interests, and propaganda.
Until people can openly talk about the fact that the SPLC is a de facto Jewish activist organization promoting Jewish ethnic interests and that individual SPLC activists like Beirich and Potok have an ethnic interest in non-White immigration and work overtime to demonize White expressions of their ethnic interest, we can’t win the fight on immigration.
Kammer also does a great job on the slimy, sociopathic Morris Dees. Dees is not Jewish, but he has often acted as if he is Jewish — what one might term a “crypto-gentile”:
While Dees was raised a Southern Baptist, he suggested to some donors that he had a more diverse background. For example, in a 1985 fundraising pitch for funds to protect SPLC staff from threats of Klan violence, Dees made conspicuous use of his middle name — Seligman, which he received in honor of a family friend. A former SPLC attorney told The Progressive magazine that Dees signed letters with his middle name in mailings to zip codes that had many Jewish residents.
For Dees, it’s all about the money, and when it comes to donations to the SPLC, Dees is quite obviously aware that (falsely) advertizing his Jewish connections and hiring highly visible Jews like Beirich and Potok are excellent strategies.
Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:
Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”
Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.
Kammer does a great job showing the ethnic commitments of La Raza — its rhetoric of anti-White hatred, quoting a La Raza honoree as having said “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” Kammer notes, “If FAIR adopted the SPLC’s diversionary tactics — probing for sinister motives rather than debating policy concerns — it would steer every conversation and refer every reporter to such statements, and it would demand to know why La Raza continues to cling to a name that derives from the ‘raza cosmica’ concept, which is explicitly based in the racist and eugenicist theories of its author.”
Of course, La Raza’s motives are not really sinister, but plain old ethnic competition suffused with hatred over historical grievances. The problem is that White people have not yet awakened to the reality that this is a race war.
Finally, Kammer does seem to acknowledge that it is legitimate for Whites to ponder the effects of immigration on them as Whites:
In her accusatory video for the “Stop the Hate” campaign, Beirich explains that the SPLC has also branded [FAIR’s magazine The Social Contract] as a hate group “because it puts out things like an issue on Europhobia and how white people are being destroyed by immigrants coming here.”142
This is another example of the SPLC’s habitual descent into hysteria and distortion. The allegedly hateful issue is actually a complaint against the hostility that multiculturalism is alleged to be fomenting against Americans of European descent. The offending essay expressed the fear that as the hostility spreads, “European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger.”143
This fear may be unreasonable, but it should certainly be open to consideration and discussion. It is precisely the sort of fear that — when expressed by minority groups who relate their own experiences with bigotry — occupies much of the attention of the SPLC’s “Teaching Tolerance” project. To put it kindly, it seems strange for Beirich to put the “hate group” tag on a publication that provides a forum for people to express their fear of being hated as they ponder demographic trends that are moving them toward minority status by mid-century.
Of course, the fear is not at all unreasonable, especially when so many non-White ethnic activists — Jews, Latinos, and Blacks — have not been at all shy about their hatred. Any ethnic group that voluntarily agrees to its own demise is foolish, but hugely more so when the people that are displacing them harbor such hatreds.
Christopher Donovan: I try to ignore the Southern Poverty Law Center and its pathetic flailing, but this blog item was irresistable in its stupidity.
I had been searching for stories on the Fort Hood killings, scrounging up evidence for my theory that the media has buried this story because of the heavily negative implications for multiracialism. More on that in a second, but here’s the Google news search result for Fort Hood.
Note that by the fourth story down, the talk is of grand marshals for parades. I may be on to something.
Back to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Incredibly, they manage to flip this story into something about “white supremacists” — never minding that “white supremacists” were about as far removed from the Fort Hood killings as possible.
In fact, pro-whites are vindicated by the story, because it shows the internally destructive nature of mixing all manner of racial, ethnic and religious groups into a fighting force.
But to the SPLC, it’s an example of how we need to be on the lookout for “hate” — “hate” being something only whites are capable of, naturally.
And the SPLC has great official backing — an author of the Pentagon report they cite is Togo West, a black former Army secretary.
What a shocker that he’d come to conclusions approved by the SPLC. Where does this absurdity end?
To put the attention back where it belongs, let me state the following. The killings at Fort Hood by a Muslim extremist who somehow managed to become an officer in the U.S. Army is direct proof of:
* the failure of multiracialism generally
* that the military is infected with political correctness to the point of (literal) self-destruction
* the loss of security created by the destruction of white hegemony
* the failure of nerve on the part of whites who know better but fear being called a “racist” for calling attention to an obvious problem
* the ridiculous nature of the American justice system, which extends to a thoroughgoing enemy all the rights and privileges of a Revolutionary-era tavern owner
* the creeping prevalence of the “not guilty” psycho-babble culture, which had commentators wondering if the “stress of war” caused the shooter’s actions (never mind that he never saw combat).
Nidal Hassan, by his actions, repudiated everything the multiracial global elite teaches us: that all religions and cultures can blend into an American ideal, that culture and background don’t matter, that only native or poor persons are sucked into anti-Americanism, that the military is a uniquely cohesive organization made up of all colors and creeds focused on a single goal (and is capable of overcoming differences that the rest of society can’t).
So it’s not surprising that there’s radio silence on his story.
Up next for consideration: when and how did the U.S. military become the last pillar of traditionalism to succumb to anti-white political correctness?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Kevin MacDonald: I hope people get a chance to read Charles Dodgson’s latest TOO article. The critical take-home point is the power of the media in shaping attitudes. The Birth of a Nation of 1915 was a powerful call to White racial awareness and defense. Right now, there is a huge amount of anger among Whites in America, but it will probably be channeled within politically acceptable boundaries —boundaries in which White racial consciousness and the need for racial defense will remain beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. Hence the energetic attempts at containment by organizations like the ADL and the $PLC aimed at completely cleansing the mainstream media of anything remotely likely to legitimize White racial consciousness and defense (even Glenn Beck). As Dodgson notes, “White Americans will continue to lose the culture war — and their freedom and identity — until they retake the commanding heights of mass entertainment and guard that position with the same determination with which their forebears defended the nation’s physical borders.”
Kevin MacDonald: Arthur Kemp has posted excerpts from the divorce papers of Morris Dees. It portrays someone eager to have sex with pretty much anything that moves — perhaps not that uncommon in 1970s America. But the excerpts also portray him as a sociopath — someone with no sympathy or empathy and inclined to use people to attain selfish goals — in Dees’ case, sexual gratification. Sociopaths feel no remorse for committing crimes against others. The prisons are full of them.
In particular, Dees is alleged to have entrapped his wife in order to get favorable terms in the divorce, and then “He hit her and gave her a busted jaw.” The allegations of sexually molesting his 16-year-old stepchild also indicate sociopathy — an attempt to take advantage of a minor in a way that would likely lead to psychological distress and perhaps dysfunction later. Another indication is that his mistress “had become pregnant by him and had received an abortion which he had paid for.” In other words, even though the relationship with the mistress is described as “permanent,” it was about self-gratification rather than family creation.
It’s not surprising that someone like Dees has no feelings for his people. Sociopaths never do. Such sociopathy is rampant among White people in our political and media elite. Bill Clinton comes to mind.
One of the things that struck me in reading the academic literature on the Bolshevik horror in the USSR was that the ethnic Russians who were involved in mass murder and torture were “psychopaths [another word for sociopaths] and criminals.” (See the Preface to the paperback edition of CofC.) Most of the damage was done by ethnic outsiders, predominantly Jews. These people quite often had strong feelings for their families and their own people — their cruelty directed at ethnic outsiders. But there was no lack of sociopathic Russians to aid in dispossessing their own people.
We are seeing the same thing now.
Cooper Sterling: In her book Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, Ellen Schrecker describes the intellectual climate that prevailed in the 1950s as a result of the anticommunist surge led by Joseph McCarthy. The communist, racial egalitarian, laborite far-left had collapsed from intense scrutiny. So-called “activists” (academics, writers, government employees, lawyers, union organizers, directors, screen writers) lost jobs, blacklisting prevailed, and a generation of hardcore Marxists scurried like cockroaches from this intense exposure. Schrecker admits that the anticommunist claims were fundamentally accurate. What she objects to is the repression that occurred as a result of the tactics used to clamp down on communist subversion.
Schrecker writes,
If nothing else, McCarthyism destroyed the left. … It wiped out the communist movement — the heart of the vibrant left-labor Popular Front that had stimulated so much social and political change in the 1930s and 1940s. Though the party itself survived, all the political organizations, labor unions, cultural groups that constituted the main institutional and ideological infrastructure of the American left simply disappeared. An entire generation of political activists had been jerked off the stage of history.
The role reversal could not be more blatantly transparent in today’s political climate.
The $PLC’s Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok are busy applying this history lesson to the political right. This YouTube footage shows Beirich agonizing about the threat of far-right “domestic terrorism” in a MediaMatters.org-sponsored forum on “Mainstreaming Extremism.” It could just as easily have been a symposium titled: “Marginalizing the Right: From Extremists to Domestic Terrorists.”
In essence she links public opposition to the Obama administration (Glenn Beck’s rhetoric, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and others) as fostering a “rise” in violent acts even though only a handful of violent incidents were actually mentioned (the forum occurred before Major Hasan took the lives of 13 and injured 30 at Fort Hood although Beirich has said little to nothing about the ideological or political motives of the alleged military psychiatrist-turned mass murderer). If you dissect her message, it is clear she wants to shut down speech that she and her employer disapprove of and label as a “toxic environment” any effective opposition to the egalitarian-activist left.
It’s not a surprise that the ADL is also a major player in this drive to cleanse the mainstream media of “extremism” with the same list of enemies (Beck, Dobbs, Limbaugh, Buchanan) and the same tactics as the $PLC. As Kevin MacDonald noted in “The ADL: Managing White Rage,” “Particularly important is to keep any vestige of “extremism” out of the mainstream media, particularly anything that would legitimate White anger and concerns about the future.”
The real “toxic environment” is the political climate that Beirich, Potok and explicitly Jewish activist organizations like the ADL have cultivated in formulating, among other things, a contemporary “blacklist” of individuals (academics, writers, editors, and commentators) and aggressively marginalizing their adversaries to the realm of the repressed; not to mention pressuring university administrators to punish scholars for their work in a collegiate environment that has been traditionally insulated from political pressures that stifle scholarship and free expression.
The ultimate goal of Beirich and other diehard leftists is to suppress the political right; strengthening political correctness into a force of political repression interchangeable with the anticommunist tactics of the 1950s. The real targets of Beirich’s wrath are not lone gunmen such as James von Brunn, but popular conservative commentators (Buchanan, Beck, Dobbs, and Limbaugh), which she blames for producing a “toxic environment” and greasing the skids for another Tim McVeigh-Oklahoma City bombing.
Schrecker makes an important admission in her book that activists on the right should realize:
The overall legacy of the liberals’ failure to stand up against the anticommunist crusade was to let the nation’s political culture veer to the right. Movements and ideas that had once been acceptable were now beyond the pale. Though Communists and their allies were the direct victims, the mainstream liberals and former New Dealers within the Democratic Party were the indirect ones.
Beirich and other far-left activists understand this lesson (which all-too-often seems lost on right-wing activists): A marginalized, politically ineffective right will steer the nation’s political culture further leftward.
Kevin MacDonald: In his book Why Are Jews Liberals?, Norman Podhoretz states that Jews fund the left in America. He states it as a rather obvious truth — so obvious that it doesn’t really require a great deal of research.
And he is not writing simply about explicitly Jewish activist organizations like the ADL, but also to organizations like the ACLU and the $PLC. In fact, in his 1996 book Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, J. J. Goldberg pointed out that “within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.”
For example, SUSPS, an environmentalist activist group attempting to influence the Sierra Club to oppose immigration, recounts the notorious donations north of $100 million by David Gelbaum to the Sierra Club on condition that they not oppose immigration. As Gelbaum famously said to the president of the Sierra Club, “”I did tell [Sierra Club President] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”
It turns out that Gelbaum is also a major donor to the ACLU — more than $20 million annually. The New York Times reports that Gelbaum will not be making his donation this year. But the gap will be at least partially filled: “Donors like the Leon Levy Foundation, the Open Society Institute [funded by George Soros], Peter B. Lewis and John Sperling had stepped up with pledges totaling $23 million spread over the next three years.”
The only thing these sources have in common is Jewishness. Sperling, Soros, and Lewis are on an authoritative list of the 139 Jews on the 2009 Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans; Leon Levy was also Jewish, not making the list only because he died in his 70s with a net worth of around a billion dollars (which would qualify him for the list today). The Times report also notes that donations had been hurt because some foundations had been harmed by the Bernie Madoff fiasco — also presumably Jewish money.
Several implications:
Lists of wealthiest Americans underestimate Jewish wealth because people like Levy don’t appear on lists of wealthy people even though their money is still being used to advance Jewish causes.
Secondly, Jews are very good at using their financial power to advance their ethnic interests. One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the L. A. Times. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems to be involved in finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.
Finally, in researching this, I couldn’t help but notice that Lewis, Soros, and Sperling have gotten together previously. The Wikipedia entry for Sperling notes, “Together with George Soros, and Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Sperling raised considerable amounts of money for drug [legalization] and other related causes, especially during the 2004 presidential campaign.” Sperling also exhibits the Jewish tendency for disdain of the traditional culture of America. The Wikipedia entry includes a comment on his book The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America: “One America, to judge from the book’s illustrations, … lives in ‘vibrant’ cities with ballet troupes, super-creative Frank Gehry buildings and quiet, tasteful religious ritual; the other relies on contemptible extraction industries (oil, gas and coal) and inhabits a world of white supremacy and monster truck shows and religious ceremonies in which beefy men in cheap clothes scream incomprehensibly at one another.”
Not much doubt what side of the culture wars Sperling (and Lewis and Soros) are on.
Feedburner Link