Mark Potok of the SPLC apparently thinks that my comments on the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman affair present an opportunity to at last get me fired from my position at CSULB (“Anti-Semitic California Prof Now Attacking Black People with Lies“). (Good grief! What a title! Potok could have written headlines for The Daily Worker.) This latest effort is part of a long campaign against me, dating back to 2006; and yes, Virginia, the $PLC should be seen as a Jewish activist organization.
I have indeed appeared on the David Duke radio show in recent weeks and intend to do so in the future. The SPLC continues the tired practice of labeling Duke “the ex-Klansman”—the usual guilt by association argument. After watching David Duke’s videos and reading his writings, I decided that I agree with the vast majority of what he is saying. His main mantra that he repeats at the beginning of every radio show is that all peoples have a right to a homeland and to have sense of peoplehood—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” The problem, of course, is that only White people of European descent are enduring a suicidal wave of non-White immigration that will make them relatively powerless minorities in areas they have controlled for hundreds, and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.
As do I, Duke repeatedly calls attention to the hypocrisy involved in the mainstream Jewish community and activist organizations. In the Diaspora in the West they advocate multiculturalism and massive non-White immigration, while steadfastly promoting Israel as a Jewish ethnostate where Jewish racialism is alive and well.
While people like Duke must live with the label of “ex-Klansman” in the mainstream media, supposedly reformed far left radicals and even terrorists like Bill Ayers are welcomed into polite society and have positions at prestigious universities.
In their attack on me, the SPLC exonerates Martin by noting that he had no juvenile criminal record. But let’s have a little common sense here. The Miami Herald (but not the New York Times or any other elite media) (see “Multiple Suspensions Paint Complicated Portrait of Travvon Martin“) reported that
the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim. Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds. Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend. “Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend. Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery …
Again, the whole point is that the angelic image of Martin simply doesn’t hold up. Nor does the angelic image square with the finding that he was caught with a baggie with marijuana residue.
And the whole point of my blog post and my discussion on radio shows (there have been several in addition to David Duke’s show) is that the media coverage has been biased. As I noted in the blog, “The main take-home message thus far … is the massive media overkill designed to reinforce the fundamental premise of the new dispensation: Non-Whites as victims of evil Whites—perhaps the most pervasive mantra … promoted by the mass media.”
It’s the same for the photos. The image of Martin flashing gang signs may not be of him (at the time I mentioned it, I understood it to be accurate), but the one providing the same basic message and showing a young adult with gold-plated teeth (an aspect of the gangsta rap sub-culture [check out the selection at Thugfashion.com]) is definitely authentic (from his No_Limit_Nigga Twitter page). This is the image that accompanies my blog. (Potok does not dispute that this photo is of Martin, hoping that the reader will concentrate only the other photo.) But we still see photos of Martin as a smiling 14-year old in media accounts.
The use of the photo of Martin as an angelic early adolescent reflects a huge bias by very large swaths of the mainstream media and suffices to make my point. In any case, I stand by the statement in my blog: “The message of the poor, defenseless Black kid buying Skittles is turning into the thug who was suspended because of drug use at his school and who went out of his way to attack Zimmerman and was pounding his head into the concrete.”
Actually, in some of my recent comments on Duke’s program and elsewhere, I have noted that media coverage has changed quite a bit from when I first wrote my blog, to the point that it has become a debate between liberals and mainstream conservatives. I noted, for example, that Sean Hannity has been very critical of coverage by the “liberal media”; I recall Hannity saying that if indeed the findings show that Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground (as noted by at least one eye witness [as also noted in my blog] and as supported by a police video [and likely by medical reports when they come out]), a verdict of self-defense may be entirely warranted.
I agree. I suspect that people like Hannity realize that their overwhelmingly White audience is fed up with the “Whites victimizing Blacks” mantra—a good example of appealing to implicit Whiteness. (Hannity also showed a video of Florida Black teenagers who left school to protest the Martin shooting by rampaging through a local drugstore—and plugging into all the stereotypes.) This is especially the case when it is well-known that Blacks are far more likely to victimize Whites than the reverse. (Blacks are the perpetrators in 85 percent of Black-White interracial violent crime.) Potok studiously avoids linking to my blog, perhaps partly because my blog includes a recent egregious example of Blacks victimizing a White teenager explicitly because he is White. But this incident was virtually unmentioned in the same media that has provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting. The media blitz happened
- even though Zimmerman is not White (a Washington Post blogger questioned the NYTimes use of the phrase “White-Hispanic” to describe Zimmerman in the service of making it a Black-White issue);
- even though there is no evidence of a racial motivation (a recent NYTimes article is apparently trying to make up for its past journalistic sins by depicting Zimmerman as having racial attitudes that The Times would approve; it turns out Zimmerman votes Democrat and mentors Black youth in his spare time);
- and even though it may well have been justified self-defense.
Another example: NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it sound like Zimmerman was focusing on Martin’s race. Yet another example: Bill O’Reilly takes a New York Times writer to task for claiming that Zimmerman killed Martin “in cold blood.” Obviously, we don’t know that, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it was not in cold blood at all.
Media bias indeed!
Incidentally, in my blog, I mentioned “the mass media which is controlled by “an elite that is hostile to the traditional people and culture of America.” Although I never mentioned Jews in the blog, this elite certainly includes many Jews; but it is certainly not exclusively Jewish. In my writing I tend to avoid phrases like “Jewish-controlled media” attributed to me by Potok, although I often write about Jewish media ownership and influence—an entirely appropriate topic.
The $PLC also complains about my article “The Racialization of American Politics Continues,” again studiously refraining from linking to it. Potok claims that I wrote that “Jews are secretly making alliances with blacks, Hispanics and Asians.” On the contrary, it’s not at all secret and I never claim that it is (see, e.g., here and links therein). But again, readers would have to search for the actual blog, which is a commentary on a column by Ron Brownstein.
The point of my article on Brownstein’s column is that American politics is becoming far more based on race than on social class, as White working class people increasingly vote Republican and 80% of non-Whites (including George Zimmerman) vote Democrat. (When I was a kid, the Republicans were people you could find at country clubs playing golf on the weekends.) Potok, as a typical leftist, never bothers to say exactly why I should look forward to Whites being a political minority, but he should certainly be concerned, as Brownstein is, about the ever-widening racial chasm in voting behavior. However, Whites who openly express concern about their future minority status are drummed out of the media and any other high ground in American culture, as Pat Buchanan recently found out.
Of course, the professorial thought police at CSULB chimed in on campus email lists with their usual thoughtful comments, such as “So Trayvon Martin basically deserved to die because he had his teeth gold plated?” CSULB professors are nothing if not astute scholars who actually read what they comment on; but they certainly know how to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be at the university. Of course, Potok makes it difficult for potential commentators because he doesn’t link to the actual blog, which, as noted, was about media bias and certainly never said that Martin deserved to die. But I suppose it’s not surprising that a faculty member reading Potok’s article would come away with that impression.
So, despite Potok’s rant, I plead not guilty to charges of “engaging in ‘opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory’ speech.” Not that that will stop him and his many allies. If anyone should sue for defamation, it’s me.