A Very Worthy Cause: Support Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

Mark Potok, defendant

Glen Allen, an attorney from Baltimore, is doing what I wish I had been able to do a long time ago: sue the SPLC. His case is much stronger and much more sympathy-inducing than mine would have been. Basically, the SPLC got Allen fired from his job with the city of Baltimore where he was in charge of writing appeals in cases where Baltimore lost in the lower courts (“Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’”). All it took was a simple phone call alleging that he has ideas that are unacceptable to the powers that be. In particular, he is accused of having supported William Pierce’s National Alliance in the past. As the notorious Heidi Beirich (a defendant in the case) stated in an interview, she “watched Allen ‘like a hawk’ because he had ‘the worst ideas ever created.'”

Presumably this refers to ideas like identifying with your racial or ethnic group and doing what one can to further its interests, as well as calling attention to groups that are antithetical to ideas of White identity and White interests. It goes without saying that such ideas are perfectly acceptable for every other racial and ethnic group in the U.S except Whites.

Allen’s complaint (here) is a brilliant, exhaustive account of the facts relevant to the case. I strongly recommend delving into it — it’s user friendly, even for a non-attorney. At the outset is a ringing defense of free speech and the First Amendment:

Providence has endowed humanity with the ability to grow and change. Indeed, we have a moral obligation to grow and change as we learn new aspects of reality. At the pinnacle of the means by which we grow and change should be robust dialogue, open debate, an aversion to taboos, and genuine conversation. This is the theory of our remarkable American traditions of free expression, as embodied, among other ways, in the First Amendment. But there are also other approaches to inevitable human discord. One is to draw lines of political or cultural orthodoxy, develop massive surveillance networks and extensive dossiers, and severely punish perceived transgressors who cross those lines, seem to cross them, or even seem to think about crossing them.

Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC, defendants in this case, have chosen this latter approach. Motivated by lucrative fundraising aims and employing fundraising techniques decried across the political spectrum as deceptive, the SPLC’s avowed goal, under the leadership of Beirich, Potok, and others, is to destroy, through public shaming, loss of employment, loss of reputation, and other severe harms, groups and persons the SPLC broadly defines as its political enemies.

Glen Allen, plaintiff in this case, is one of Beirich’s, Potok’s, and the SPLC’s victims. The cause of free expression itself is another, for the SPLC has become one of the most effective forces in the country for stifling honest and robust debate on controversial issues. Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC are entitled to espouse their outlook forcefully. They are not entitled, however, to the following actions, all alleged and supported in this complaint: to receive, pay for, and use stolen documents, including confidential documents and  documents protected by attorney client privilege, to tortiously interfere with Allen’s prospective advantage in employment; to defame him by publishing false statements that he was “infiltrating” the City of Baltimore’s Law Department; or to masquerade as a 501c3 public interest law firm dedicated to a tax exempt educational mission, when in reality the SPLC fails the basic requirements for this favored status because of its illegal actions (including numerous instances of mail and wire fraud), multiple violations of canons of professional ethics (including improper disclosure of confidential and privileged documents and failure to train its nonlawyer employees), orchestration of violations of the constitutional rights of the organizations and individuals it targets, and sensationalist supermarket tabloid style one-sided depictions of its victims.

The reality is that Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC have perfected what the scholar Laird Wilcox, speaking of the SPLC, called “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated. They accuse others of this but utilize their enormous resources to practice it on a mass scale themselves.

Beirich, Potok, et al. don’t even pretend to engage in honest debate and the free flow of ideas. Atty. Allen quotes Potok: “We see this [as a] political struggle, right? … I mean, we’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head, … we are trying to destroy them.” And in this case, the attempt to destroy Allen goes far beyond ethical and legal norms — not surprising given the SPLC’a sordid history of using smear tactics and hypocrisy (Section 31) as well as their dedication to fund-raising far beyond what they actually use to further their causes (Section 27).

Of course the attempt “to destroy” people and groups with ideas they don’t like has now spread far beyond the SPLC, including financial firms refusing credit card services, de-platforming on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and banning from crowd-funding sites like Patreon. As noted here several times, TOQ and TOO have been subjected to these forms of de-platforming.

At present there is an ever-escalating war against the dissident right. This war is not based on developing clearly articulated arguments designed to persuade reasonable, intelligent people. Instead, our new elite rely on wall-to-wall propaganda spread throughout the media and educational system — propaganda designed to make the traditional White majority accept its fate as a declining, soon-to-be impotent minority. Our new elite is terrified that White people be exposed to these ideas. Terrified that they will stop being ashamed to proudly identify as White and do what they can to prevent a the impending disaster to White America. They are terrified because they realize that, beneath all the propaganda raining down from the media and the educational system, the emperor has no clothes — pseudoscience like: there is no biological basis for racial classifications, no biologically based race differences, and no intellectual basis for Whites having legitimate interests in creating a safe and prosperous future for themselves and their progeny.

Please Donate. It’s an Important Cause.

Allen’s lawsuit will be an uphill struggle against an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets ($432,000,000 as of 2017) over and above what they have spent on their nefarious activities. Media coverage can be expected to favor the SPLC: it is routinely quoted as a respectable “civil rights organization” in the mainstream media. (In reality, the SPLC can be accurately described as a secular-sounding front for Jewish anti-White activism.) And the lawsuit has the additional burden of navigating a legal system that is now dominated by people sympathetic to its causes. As Laird Wilcox noted, “Anyone attacked by the SPLC is basically up against a contest of resources, from the ability to engage legal counsel, to the access to fairness in media treatment, to the ability to survive the financial destruction of a reputation or a career” (quoted in Section 27 of Allen’s complaint, “The SPLC’s Dominant Objective Is Lucrative Fundraising.”

In Allen’s case, there is a great need for money to finance this lawsuit. Litigation is always costly — Allen estimates it will cost at least $45,000 — a large sum, especially for someone who has lost his source of income. This estimate includes fees for a (rather brave) co-counsel. He is therefore soliciting donations at Breathing Space for Dissent LLC, an organization dedicated to resisting the deplatforming campaign by so many similar sites, such as Patreon, Obviously, this is a very worthy cause. I strongly urge people to donate.

Heidi Beirich, defendant

My Experience with SPLC Harassment

I am well acquainted with SPLC tactics. Despite realizing that I was protected by tenure rules and the First Amendment (given that I was working at a public university), the SPLC engaged in a two-year campaign, from 2006–2008, overtly attempting to get me fired. Even after this campaign, I was never far from her thoughts. In 2013 she penned an outrageous article claiming that I “glorified violence.”

In reality, as Laird Wilcox described their tactics, this was nothing more than “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated.” It was quite successful in that regard.

Heidi Beirich came to campus in the Fall of 2006 and immediately set to work getting the professors riled up against me. This was quite easily accomplished given the political views of the vast majority of academics these days. I wrote about it early on, in November, 2008, in an article posted at VDARE (“Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom“). The article included an account of Beirich’s ethical lapses — which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read Allen’s complaint — including misrepresenting my academic qualifications and quoting me out of context. Given that the SPLC’s campaign against me has continued, it’s worth thinking about whether things have improved in the last 10 years. They haven’t.

The fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the job—and a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first place—is that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled ” A hot paper muzzles Harvard.”  [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:

“Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle — and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.”

It’s not that professors don’t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.

In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.

Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”

But this campaign to make me into a non-person at CSULB worked wonderfully:

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard?  At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism and to feeling guilt (as opposed to shame) for violating group norms.  But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It’s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.

Beirich’s presence on campus set off a storm of faculty emails, some of which had pretensions of academic wisdom. However, they would never respond to some simple statements of my position, namely:

I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn’t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?

All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus. 

But in the end, as the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger:

This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It’s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I’ve come to greet Heidi’s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutic—a painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West. 

I survived. But the SPLC is continuing to spread its evil. Glen Allen’s lawsuit is an important way to fight back. To start to bring down this behemoth of the left. Please donate.

21 replies
  1. Harvey Taylor
    Harvey Taylor says:

    One must begin with the fact that SPLC is a Jewish org designed to promote Jewish interests at the expense of the onetime Euro majority.Its success is the result of the falsification of the Jewish past and the “Holocaust” agitprop. Jews will ultimately pay a very steep price in the onetime west.
    Harvey Taylor

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      AGITPROP, standing for the old Bolshevik Agitation and Propaganda. Good old days, when an eight letter contraction sufficed to explain what now takes pages. An excellent replacement for the entire complexities of Antifa, in a nut shell.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Great – if we start with acknowledging that Jews run the court circus then we’ll save well-meaning White people’s money and time.

      James Edwards ran a money train thru this website when his court case was obviously bound to fail – I advised against and hopefully few wasted their hard earned money. MacDonald never apologized for soliciting for a dead at birth cause.

      We cannot win in the courts. The judges are thoroughly corrupted on issues like ours. MacDonald wrote about how this was already a fait accompli in 1965, ffs.

      We cannot and do not win there. It drains our limited resources to fund establishment lawyers and the gummint courts.

      MacDonald is THE guide on Jews, but not on strategy, there – he’s hopeless.

      • Jim Russel
        Jim Russel says:

        Yes. This cannot win in the courts because the deck is stacked. Either deal with that as a fact or fight a battle that could be won. Given a choice between contributing to pay lawyers who are either doing it for free or for peanuts, i’d rather contribute toward the upkeep of TOO.

        A $400 K legal defense fund versus an organization with $400 M in the bank that could harness top-tier pro-bono firms all run by former SCOTUS clerks with a few phone calls? Lawyers right out of school working for free are gonna beat an adversary that could make a few phone calls to make sure these cases land in the courtrooms of the absolutely most hostile federal district judges?

        The only thing people learn from history is that it’s ignored. Even back in 1979 with the Skokie march and the ACLU, it was all a fake. Frank Collin aka Frank Cohen was a fake Nazi and a legit child molestor. You can read all about it on his Wikipedia page, no link required to any “far-right extremism. ”

        When 9/11 happened and the vast majority were hypnotized, that was day that marked the end of our freedom. The takeover was complete on September 11, 2001. Anyone who challenged it was either killed or imprisoned.

        The best we can do is find a way to take advantage of the freedoms that remain to us here in the US, which are basically just the 1st and 2nd Amendments rights that vary widely depending on where in the US you happen to live. Find a place to live where you have sufficient freedom to speak out and to own firearms and then focus on finding like-minded people in your own vicinity amongst whom you can build a community. Even if there’s only one other person in real life to whom you could say anything, you’re better off than most.

        That’s what I’ve done. I moved 2000 miles to live in a part of the Western US where white people have always been a minority. I have the freedom of speech to make hand-painted signs with various messages and hang them from a tree in my front yard. A year ago a TV news crew came to interview my neighbors and after it was ascertained that nobody had a big problem with it they interviewed me and aired a story in the local feature of the 10 O’Clock News.

        Sometimes I wear a 9mm gun in a leather shoulder holster as I arrange the signs and hang ornaments from the tree, which has been my thing for four years now. My state has open carry so as long as I stay on my property and the law is 1000% on my siide as long as I don’t appear to be intoxicated, asleep, etc.

        We still have plenty of freedoms in the US that the rest of the world can only dream of. Make the best of it.

        • Jett Rucker
          Jett Rucker says:

          If “white people have always been a minority” where you live out west, is there now (or earlier) some non-white majority? If not, what ARE the (majority-less) demographics where you live?

          I have the impression that, prior to, say, 1800, most of the areas out west had Native American majorities (not that Native American is quite one single group in and of itself – just that they’re all non-White).

  2. Jim R.
    Jim R. says:

    I have sent a contribution to support this important action by Glen Allen. We must eliminate the tax-exempt status of organizations whose apparent purpose is to apply social, economic and psychological pressure on European Americans who dare to defend their heritage.

  3. Floda
    Floda says:

    All the talk and chatter isn’t working, its time the White race used other means to bring about a final solution to the Kike owned SPLC and the hideous, misbegotten poofters who have destroyed so many lives. They declared war on us a very long time ago, time has come to fight back, teach them a cruel lesson and send a loud and clear message. The time for talk is over.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      I disagree. It is known that court actions are for us almost always futile and a waste of precious resources. But speech in other forms is known to always bring supporters to our cause. Our ideas are right, after all. That’s why you posted here after all, and why MacDonald hosts this blog.

      But more effective and direct speech is needed. More directly pro-White and anti-Jew. Less right vs left and other trivial diversions.

      Tanstaafl at age-of-treason.com is a good example. 10 of him writing at TOO, now that would be a force.

  4. John Eric Smith
    John Eric Smith says:

    How can I put this succintly? Ten years ago looking for some answer to our environmental crisis I struggled to find the root cause. I stumbled on the truth of the debt based private monetary system and it stunned and shocked me. Theft on a gargantuan scale. This of course led to the Rothschilds although the Calvinists play a major role as well. I avoided going down the jewish rabbit hole at all cost. But when confronted by clear evidence of the true reasons, flagrant lies and inflated numbers of the “holocaust” I was thrown into the reality of what humanity faces. I have spent the past months researching the jewish cabal, from the time of Jesus to the present. The level of evil these people (who are neither a race or religion but a self selecting and grooming criminal cult) has been so far impossible to grasp. The quote of J. Edgar Hoover is better than anything I can compose:
    “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.”
    It is time to rise against this group of murderous bullies once and for all.

  5. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Jewry, in true Talmudic fashion, constantly uses psychological projection in their ongoing ideological race war against Whites.
    It’s essentially an anti White pogrom in reverse, writ very large.

  6. melvin polatnick
    melvin polatnick says:

    Constant Jew hating words cannot be tolerated without a defense. That is why Jews have been gifted by Evolutionary Nature with the greatest verbal talents. Even the Czars feared Jewish words. SPLC is only one among hundreds.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Melvin, if you promise to swipe that silly-ass Monarch butterfly off your forehead, the better to determine the nature of your head gear, and to get that pink heart off your left nipple, let me tell you this.

      Evolutionary Nature may possibly have showered the Jew with the gift of the gab, but with its innate balance it wisely shortchanged them with logic.

      Ca. 47,000 criminal indictments were thrown out in Canada, some years back, because the time between the charge and the trial took longer than allowed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      Justice Moldaver, of the Supreme Court of Canada, speaking on behalf of its majority in a relevant decision, correctly went so far as to chastise all prosecutors for their ” culture of complacency “, for sitting on their asses too long between charge and trial.

      So much for the gab. For the logic aspect, he then DOUBLED the ” presumptive ceiling “, i.e. the allowable time between charge and trial. A sort of cultural contribution to the DAs complacency.

      The Czars didn’t fear the gift of the gab of the Jews so much as the knives of their assassins: the Schiffs and their sort, who personally arranged the financing of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, which defeat dragged the 05 Revolution behind it, while blocking all credit for St. Petersburg, in London and New York.

      I readily admit, that the Jewish gift of the gab, has succeeded in mislabeling their subversion as the burgeoning desire of the Russian people. As elsewhere.

  7. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.”

    Perhaps the form that the pressure takes is not so much the actual social shunning and disapproval, which is actually not that hard to take (especially as you can get alternative social approval from other groups outside the place of work), rather it is more than that. It is the knowledge that you have to be extra careful in everything you do as your opponents are looking out for any slip up that they could use to trap you. And being on your guard in this way is STRESSFUL.

    Eg if you take a pencil home this is stealing, if you use the work photocopier for copying personal documents this is strictly against the rules also. Normally no-one would bother, but once you are a marked man all these things are important, and IT IS STRESSFUL to keep oneself 100% free of all faults.
    In the lecture hall one slip up as you speak will get you accused of breaking the sexual harassment codes – the slightest slip up will give them ammunition, eg saying almost anything in the field of men.women differences could be deliberately misinterpreted. IT IS STRESSFUL to have to lecture to students knowing that you have to be so guarded in every word, and end up speaking like Jordan Peterson in a very careful manner.

    So it is the stress of knowing that your enemies (1) outnumber you (2) are always looking for a slip-up (3) will be totally dishonest and without any principles if they can get away with it, therefore you could be falsely accused and found guilty at any moment and there is nothing you can do about it (4) If there is any sort of panel or meeting to discuss a false accusation against you you know that there will likely be ZERO justice and fairness in the panel (5) Although there might actually be colleagues who are sympathetic to you, you know you cannot count on their support

  8. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    Regarding de-platforming
    1) Pre-internet days 99.9% of people would never hear a word said against the Jews their whole lives either in church or school or university or on TV or in any books that they read or any newspaper. All we heard was about the H.
    2) This changed with the advent of the internet as the narrative was no longer so tightly controlled
    3) Intense money & political effort is being put into changing ‘2’ above so it can be controlled again. In fact this is a huge challenge for the left & their allies.

    4) If things stay as they are regarding censorship levels, and de-platforming levels, the number ‘woken’ will still gradually continue to increase steadily, but if they can intensify the de-platforming (Twitter closing Andrew Joyce’s account) and withdrawal of financial services (no Paypal allowed) then the rate of wakening can be reduced to zero in the end.

    5) So what happens in the future (our survival even as a race) all depends on the outcome of the current battle to de-platform and block fund raising.

    Therefore this should be a top priority for the RIGHT, and it is a subject on which ALL the right can agree, including Trump. His greatest achievement would be if he could make it illegal for a monopoly organisation like Twitter or Paypal to discriminate or inhibit in any way an account on the basis of the political opinions of the account holder. What will happen is Twitter etc will claim a ‘hate’ comment ‘advocates violence’ indirectly, and therefore they will say they are closing for this reason and not because of political views. The only way to stop this is if the judiciary in the West can be reformed to stop the left running it, so Twitter cannot make this false defence for why they close accounts. So in the end the future of the West depends on the judiciary. And the only way to reform the judiciary is if the ppl will vote for leaders who will reform the judiciary.

    • Anti-Termite
      Anti-Termite says:

      pterodactyl,

      You’ve identified an area where reform is necessary to the survival of our civilization, that being the corrupt judiciary:

      “The only way to stop this is if the judiciary in the West can be reformed to stop the left running it, so Twitter cannot make this false defence for why they close accounts. So in the end the future of the West depends on the judiciary. And the only way to reform the judiciary is if the ppl will vote for leaders who will reform the judiciary.”

      This problem of the judiciary’s denial of justice to the detriment of the white Christian family man is so severe that one not white has noticed and expounded on it.

      Utube sensation Pastor James David Manning of the Atlah Church in NYC produced a now censored video titled “A Message to the White Backbone of America”, circa 2012:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0TGhK6C4Q

      At about 14:30 of that video as he’s listing off the pattern of wrongs society is doing to white men he said “you go to the judge, (s)he rules against you”.

      That’s empathy, and indicative of a deeply grooved path of common occurrence so frequently repeated that an outsider would note.

  9. Larry Petersen
    Larry Petersen says:

    From conversations with various Attorneys over the years, I am somewhat skeptical that any of our ilk can have reasonable expectations of getting any remedy to our legitimate grievances from establishment institutions such as the courts.
    One Lawyer I know told me he once pointed out to David Irving prior to his failed attempt at Justice that a Judge is a cross between an Attorney and a politician, and to expect the obvious.
    Another one told me that the most frequent question asked was whether or not one could get justice in the courtroom.
    His answer was always “Yes ! You can get all the justice you can afford”.
    Lastly , and most hopefully , I recall a Hebrew attorney saying, “When you step in the courtroom, anything can happen.”

  10. Jim Russel
    Jim Russel says:

    Equality is a myth based on a lie. But such a simple statement is considered “hate speech”? Well, that’s the way it is. Whether you like it or not. We live in a orld where powerful Jews can have you fired in the blink of an eye. Or if they want they can install a new 29-year-old Congressperson from NY who does sexy dances for the camera in an animated GIF that is totally awesome. https://ufile.io/3rv9y

    Forget it. Move on with your life. So the city of Baltimore responded to pressure and fired someone because of some powerful Jews. That’s not the end of the world. Maybe you’re better off not working for a city government.

Comments are closed.